Renamed: Sigh! Moron hits train

[spokyone]

 Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction.

It is true that the crossbucks and signage at a grade crossing is reflectorized, but the visibility of these items only tells a driver that a grade crossing is there.  So the reflectorized warning of the signage is irrelevant if a driver does not see a train and therefore perceives the crossing to be clear.

I disagree with your conclusion. The perception of a clear crossing does not alter the fact that is was not clear.  In a court of law the attorney for the railroad will state that  federal regulations have followed. A jury may side with the motorist, but on appeal, the RR will win.

[Anonymous]

Actually, if I split a few hairs, I can see the point made by the FRA that because they are hard to see at night, freight trains could be a hazard to motorists at grade crossings.

When it comes to a driver being able to see a train blocking the crossing, a moving train is far easier to spot than a stopped train.  The cars in a train are huge, and they create a huge, moving display as they pass in a vehicle's headlights.  The cars may be visually drab colored, but the motion attracts a driver's attention.  However, a stopped train sneaks up on you like a bunch of sheds in the fog.  If it is parked across a crossing at night, with no flashers, and no stop sign, all there is to protect the crossing is a crossbuck, which means that a motorist must yield to trains.  But drivers cannot yield to something they cannot see. 

Perhaps the public needs to be informed to be on the lookout for a stopped train having the right of way at a crossing, in addition to the admonition to look for approaching trains.  When they approach this type of crossing, motorists are supposed to make an effort to look both ways.  They are taught to expect trouble from each direction.  But the more they look both ways, the less they look straight ahead.

If a driver looks for the big hazard of a collision course with an approaching train, he or she might somewhat overlook the possibility of the second hazard, i.e.: that a train is silently parked like an iron fence across the road.

So I agree with the FRA warning and its implication that railroads are at least partly at fault when a driver runs into a parked train at night at a crossing marked only with crossbucks or a crossbucks plus yield signs, if that crossing is also un-illuminated by roadside lighting.  Under these circumstances, all a driver has to protect him or her is their own wariness to be on the lookout for road hazards.  Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction.

It is true that the crossbucks and signage at a grade crossing is reflectorized, but the visibility of these items only tells a driver that a grade crossing is there.  So the reflectorized warning of the signage is irrelevant if a driver does not see a train and therefore perceives the crossing to be clear.

[grampaw pettibone]

I agree. People don't look. I am retired now on disability because four years ago, a woman didn't look. She blew a double 6' stopsign with flags atop them and broadsided the county car I was driving at 55 MPH. It nearly killed me and did kill her. If she had only paid attention, I would still be working, the wife wouldn't be a stressed out wreck, and that woman would still be breathing.

[JulesB]

Railroads have a "Right of Way", interstate piplines have "Right of Way". Community's build roads etc.,over, under and across the railrods "Right of Way". I'v owned property's that contained a Right of Way, yes, right thru the adjoining property and the other owner)s could not stop me from using it!

I remember well running an excavator for Sheehan Pipeline Co on a job in MA. The guy built his house so close to the "Right Of Way" that I had to rip out his front steps or one of my tracks would have run over it. The guy went balistic. I told him to simmer down, he was in the wrong. I told him a lawer will not help. A "Wright of Way is inviolate. I told him DON't argue with Tennesee Gas, you cannot win. Instead ask for a nice set of brick steps 8' wide to replace the 3' wide precast piece of crap that was in place. He listened. I told the forman, big deal he did build a little to close, had to take the steps out.

They built him a beutifull set of brick stairs with flower pots on each side, actully made the house.

When some one has a Right of Way you cannot reverse it!

Why do people build direcly under runway approaches then bit*h about the planes.

In many instances the railroad was in place Looooong before the town was even there.

JulesB 

[TimChgo9]

Zardoz, you are right.

In my life experience, I have noted that regardless of the size of the warning, some people neve see it.  I have seen this in situations that have been tragic as well as comical, but, I honestly believe that some people just don't get it.  They are either to preoccupied, distracted, impaired, or self important to heed a warning. 

My favorite story about this kind of thing is non-tragic, and actually kind of funny.... I think I may have even related it before, not sure, but the long and short of it is, is this:  A bunch of years ago, there was this shopping mall, with a free standing electronics store that belonged to a national chain (I don't remember if it was a Highland Superstore, Fretter's, or Silo)  Anyway, it's a weekend morning, and the lot around this store is empty.... A lone car drives in, and parks in the store's lot and a man gets out, carrying what appears to be a sales ad.  He walks up to the door, pulls on it and discovers it's locked.  So, he looks at the store, at his ad, and pulls the door again.  He then tries to peer in the window...and I must mention he can't do that, because the windows are covered with huge "STORE CLOSED" signs in BIG red letters, in addition to "OUT OF BUSINESS" signs as well. Since he can't see inside, he knocks on the door, then on the window, and then on the door again..... This went on for several minutes before the guy left, and judging by his body language, he wasn't happy..... 

The fact that the store was closed and out of business was evident from across the parking lot and from the street.  It is proof to me that, no matter how much of a warning you put on something, some people just will not see it.  Granted, it's not the same as a railroad crossing but the point is the same. 

Now, I believe railroads need to be a good corporate citizen, and I saw evidence of this here where I live, because just recently, the BNSF, in cooperation with the town I live, built a pedestrian underpass so kids going to the school on the north side of the tracks could get there and not be tempted to cross the tracks.

The government cannot legislate common sense, and nor can they protect everyone from themselves.  People need to, and have to take responsibility for their actions, there is no other way.

The man who died in Wisconsin is a tragedy, a tragedy for his friends, and family, and this man could have avoided it...  

 

[zardoz]

IMNSHO the whole thing could have been avoided if the driver of the vehicle had followed the laws applicable to driving.  Sober, following the speed limit, obeying/reacting properly to signage on the shoulder of the road.

Exactly!

All this talk about reflectors on train cars is all well and good, but let us not forget that this road had a REFLECTORIZED railroad crossing advance warning sign (big, yellow), a REFLECTORIZED stop sign (big, red), as well as REFLECTORIZED crossbucks and vertical stripe on the crossbuck post.

In addition, the ex-person was going so fast (at night, on a dark road) that when he hit the train, his vehicle went all the way under the train car he hit.

I'm inclined to believe that even if the entire train had been made of reflectorized material, with neon outlines, lit from above by the searchlight from a UFO, and strobe lights every 5', this guy would have still hit it.

[Anonymous]

However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad.  .   

 

You really think so? I see it as more of an indication that the RR understands how careless many drivers are, and need all the supplementary warning that is possible.

Sort of like when you put crash curbs on either side of drive-in doors on buildings. Not that the building is going to jump out in front of cars trying to enter, but just that some fools are not going to display due caution, so you try to protect your own interest as best you can

I agree that reflectors will do as you say, and that they make sense as self-protection to the railroads (at one level).  But I believe the federally mandated reflectors are a double-edge sword, and I want to point out the other edge.

The broad effect of the Federal edict requires a sweeping justification to convince the entire industry that the cost of a universal adoption of reflectors is worth it.  That sweeping justification has been a declaration by the FRA that freight trains are hard to see at night.  This powerful statement issued from a high Federal office introduces a sea change in the normal interpretation of the laws that apply to grade crossings. 

Previously all the traffic laws held that trains had the undisputed right of way. But the rationale for reflectors raises a conflict with that undisputed right of way that trains were once thought to have had.  It shifts liability for collisions in favor of the highway users and against the railroads.  The right of way of trains is no longer undisputed if one can argue that they ran into a train because they could not see it.  A driver cannot yield to something they cannot see.

So every single railroad grade crossing in the country incurs added liability for the owner railroad with the FRA declaration that trains can be hard to see at night, no matter whether the crossing is signalized or not, or illuminated by roadside lighting or not. 

[selector]

I think that in the interests of corporate and civic citizenship, and as stewards of their own image in communities, it behooves the railroads to do "something" logical and remedial when an incident like this happens, not so much to admit culpability, but to acknowledge that there is a cost to its business and use of shared crossings over and above merely the maintenance.  Regardless of all that the companies have done with regard to improving safety, as long as it convinces the public that it is taking remedial action voluntarily, and not with reluctance or out of mere duty, that should suffice for most folks' purposes.

Furthermore, indifference is callous and will be sure to incite anger and retributive justice in the long term.  Win or lose, it costs.  So whatever the railroads offer to do that may actually improve safety, they should do what really works.  Anything more is wasteful, and anything less is unethical.  If the reflectors will actually measurably improve public safety at crossings, then they should be added.  If they don't, then why adopt the practice and lead the public to conclude that the measure is effective?

[n012944]

However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad.  .   

 

You really think so? I see it as more of an indication that the RR understands how careless many drivers are, and need all the supplementary warning that is possible.

Sort of like when you put crash curbs on either side of drive-in doors on buildings. Not that the building is going to jump out in front of cars trying to enter, but just that some fools are not going to display due caution, so you try to protect your own interest as best you can

I agree with Convicted on this one.  It is more of a way to protect people from their own stupidity than an admission of fault from the railroad.

[Convicted One]

However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad.  .   

 

You really think so? I see it as more of an indication that the RR understands how careless many drivers are, and need all the supplementary warning that is possible.

Sort of like when you put crash curbs on either side of drive-in doors on buildings. Not that the building is going to jump out in front of cars trying to enter, but just that some fools are not going to display due caution, so you try to protect your own interest as best you can

[Foreverironhorse]

A stop sign means STOP, the same as at intersections. I suspect a million cars have blown right through this stop sign over the years. I don't suppose the sherriff's department has ever issued any citations to anyone for not stopping. It is still ashame to see this happen!

[CNW 6000]

IMNSHO the whole thing could have been avoided if the driver of the vehicle had followed the laws applicable to driving.  Sober, following the speed limit, obeying/reacting properly to signage on the shoulder of the road.

[edbenton]

From reading his rants on that paper he goes off worse than Futrumodal does when you prove to him that Open Access will not work. 

[Anonymous]

There certainly was commentary on this letter.  If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see.  So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity.  But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had.  Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop.  You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not.  Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.

The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture.

Geez, wont do any good, you could cover the entire sides of every freight car in reflective tape and some idiot will still hit it and claim they never saw it....

This character "Investigator" sure as hell sounds like the guy who used to infect this forum like a fungus named Misery, oh wait thats "Missouri", who used to rail that every crossing point in the country was a murder site and that all railroad employees were akin to serial killers and was so viceral in his venomous bile that he got bounced off the site completely. The guy was really off the rails. I think he was the first guy we actually begged Bergie to bounce, quite an honor.

I agree that reflectors are largely the wrong cure to the problem, although it is true that they might be the saving grace in some unfolding catastrophies.  However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad.  Whereas, according to traffic law, running into a train is never the fault of the railroad.  

When you read the above-linked discussion, you can see that the ones who believe the Friendship, Wisconsin fatal crash was that railroad's fault for blocking the crossing are the same ones who are demanding reflectors.   

[Steam Is King]

The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

this partt of her letter is most telling .Maybe we should reconstruct all roads to enable drunk driveres.Then instead of hitting a ditch they can hit a van occupiedby a family coming toward them.If the drunk is still conscious,sitting upright behind the wheel instaed of laying aross the front seat.

Chico   

[vsmith]

There certainly was commentary on this letter.  If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see.  So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity.  But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had.  Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop.  You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not.  Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.

The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture.

Geez, wont do any good, you could cover the entire sides of every freight car in reflective tape and some idiot will still hit it and claim they never saw it....

This character "Investigator" sure as hell sounds like the guy who used to infect this forum like a fungus named Misery, oh wait thats "Missouri", who used to rail that every crossing point in the country was a murder site and that all railroad employees were akin to serial killers and was so viceral in his venomous bile that he got bounced off the site completely. The guy was really off the rails. I think he was the first guy we actually begged Bergie to bounce, quite an honor.

[Anonymous]

There certainly was commentary on this letter.  If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see.  So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity.  But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had.  Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop.  You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not.  Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.

The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture.

[upchuck]

Why can't there be peace in the valley.....

[CNW 6000]

Thanks to whomever (from here I'm guessing) joined the discussion about the collision.  You know more than I (that's not hard tho! LOL).

[TimChgo9]

To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:..........................

PZ, we have legal lightweights around here??? I had no idea.

[vsmith]

what i get at school: ahh he "plays" with trains, he is stuped!

amazing how that stays with people.

Trains? trains? Yes you ARE stupid, BUCK UP youngster!

TIME TO BE A MAN! Go out and get yerself a bottle!

Show the World your a real mans man!!!!!!

Get drunk! DRIVE CAR! HIT SOMETHING!!!

We'll show them who's really stupid!!!

(note: sarcastic ironic humor intended, I'm on your side oscaletrains)

 

[vsmith]

To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:

The woman wrote a letter and sent it to a newspaper for publication. She signed her name, which is probably one of the newspaper's conditions for acceptance. Her act of submitting this signed letter for public publication vacates any claim to a right to privacy regarding the letter.

I agree,  (aint that sumthun') What about all the people that replied to the letter on the newspaper website? Are they all guilty of voilating this person privacy as P-Zit? Its on a public forum, there is a link to the original source and it is directly related to the topic on this forum. So fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[oscaletrains]

what i get at school: ahh he "plays" with trains, he is stuped!

amazing how that stays with people.

[Poppa_Zit]

To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:

The woman wrote a letter and sent it to a newspaper for publication. She signed her name, which is probably one of the newspaper's conditions for acceptance. Her act of submitting this signed letter for public publication vacates any claim to a right to privacy regarding the letter.

[zardoz]

If you read the link that I posted...I was saying just that!  It's funny how some folks felt that I was an idiot immediately once they found out I was a railfan. 

It would seem by the comments you linked to above that there is a severe shortage of "common" sense in that part of Cheeseland.  That person that calls himself "investigator" sure seems to like to hear himself speak (even if it's in written form).  I can scarcely believe that a person with his alleged credentials could be so UNBELIEVABLY STUPID!  Perhaps he should get out of the office and away from dictating letters and see the real world, a world where no one is holding your hand as you cross the street (or tracks), and each person absolutely MUST take responsibility for their actions (I'd be willing to bet that "investigator" finds someone to blame for every screw-up he does).

[CNW 6000]

If you read the link that I posted...I was saying just that!  It's funny how some folks felt that I was an idiot immediately once they found out I was a railfan. 

[vsmith]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

I don't know what to say.....WOW....

That's pretty sad......

An open responce to the writer of above letter...

Sheila Miller, your a retard!

"...The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. ..."

That is the STUPIDEST thing I've read in one hellova long time, yeah, its the RAILROADS fault this idiot blew a stop sign and killed himself. OK let say your right? if the train wasnt their he would have sailed thru the crossing at a high rate of speed, now given some past cases of stupid driving...would it be the churches fault if he slammed into a busload of Nuns? or Farmer Johns fault if he hit a cattle truck? or McDonalds fault becuase he drove thru the wall of the restaraunt making his own personal drive thru window? Would it be the States fault when he drove off the first curve and into a tree killing himself ?????

"...This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad..."

Jezzuzz Christmascookies!

THE ONLY PERSON WHO KILLED THIS GUY WAS HIMSELF! HE WAS SPEEDING AND BLEW  A STOP SIGN!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO POINT THAT OUT!

IF HE HAD ENOUGH CAPACITY TO CONTROL HIS ACTIONS HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRAVELING AT A SAFER RATE OF SPEED, SEEN THE STOP, SLOWED DOWN AND STOPPED AT THAT STOP SIGN, AVOIDING THE TRAIN ENTIRELY...HE DIDNT, HE BLEW THRU IT AND HE DEAD!

GET IT?

This is simply another sad case of someone doing something stupid and getting themselves killed. Its not the railroads fault, their was no fog bank hiding the train, the train didnt leap out from behind a tree and ambush the driver. The driver, who was a local and in all likelyhood knew dam well there was a stop sign at that crossing, knowingly disregarded the stop sign, and went to his maker with a little explaining to do.

GET IT?

Denial, its not just a river in Egypt!

To the rest here, Sorry for the rant but I'm getting a little  sick and tired of the inability of people to accept any personal responsibility for thier own or other people actions. If Ms Miller is a relative then she HAS to accept that simple fact, and stop denying the fact that the only entity that placed the driver 6 feet under were the decisions of the driver himself! If he was drinking, he chose to drink, and he chose to drive, he could have called a cab, or had a friend drive him home, called to have someone pick  him up or even slept it off in the parking lot. If he hadnt been drinking, he chose to drive at high rate of speed, he chose to drive thru a crossing at a hign rate of speed, he chose to drive thru a clearly placed stop sign, and how he missed seeing something in his headlights as big as a freight car directly in front of him, which is like failing to see something the size of a house in front of you, is beyond me!

[oscaletrains]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

^BULL **** ^

she got an e-mail i belive we should all tell her how ignorant she realy is, she is basicly saying that becuse dude was so dumb that he does not know how to stop that its the railroad's fault!

people are so stuped around trains. my uncle wached a kid on a bike, who was so stuped that he picked up his bike, while the train was moveing, and walked over a flat car becuse he dident want to wait! WTF!?!?!?!?!

i wish all thoes people who feel the need to race the train, jump the train and other stuff, should get a heavy fine and jail time. then people might stop.

i have said this once and i will say again:

im so tired of hearing all this BULL about pepole just being stuped around trains and paying the consequences. THEY DID SOME THING DUMB, THEY DIED, ARE WE TO FEEL PITY?!?!?! NO, WERE NOT! we would not do this if someone was walking the edge of a skyscraper and triped. (splat) as far as im conserened if people continue to do this, let them more stupid people rid from the world!!

 

 

[Anonymous]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

I don't know what to say.....WOW....

That's pretty sad......

[CNW 6000]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

I don't know what to say.....WOW....

There certainly was commentary on this letter.  If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234