A perfect example of a bad example

[Willy2]

It took me awhile to finally post this because I was trying to find more information. Unfortunately, I could find nothing more than what I heard on the news.

About a week ago in Grand Island a lady was waiting at a crossing for a train to pass. Just as the last car of the first train cleared the crossing, another train on the other track going the same way entered the crossing. The lady was still watching the retreating train and pulled onto the crossing in front of the other train. She was killed and I offer my prayers to the crew of the train and to her family. The crossing had only crossbucks, no lights or gates.

My point is that this lady did not follow the phrase: Expect a train on any track, at any time, going any direction. I don't know if I got the three parts to that in order, but it still means the same thing. I think that everyone needs to follow that phrase very carefully. If you agree say yes and if you have any similar stories please post them.

Willy

[Anonymous]

As I've said ALL crossing don't care if they have one train a day THEY ALL NEED GATES WITH LIGHTS so beancounter excutives SPEND YOUR LOOT

[Anonymous]

Chances are the RR crossing sign had a "2 Tracks" sign below the crosses.

I know this is always something like I look out for, and then pay particular attention both ways when at the crossing.

The driver was clearly at fault, and though it's too bad she died it's still her fault for not paying proper attention.

Driving is a Privilege, not a right, and when you take to the road you have to respect the chances that something may go wrong, be it your fault or someone else's.

Some people just have to learn the hard way.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

As I've said ALL crossing don't care if they have one train a day THEY ALL NEED GATES WITH LIGHTS so beancounter excutives SPEND YOUR LOOT

I disagree - a little more responsibility on the part of the drivers is needed. You can put up anything you want - it won't stop a good share of them. They have to be taught from infancy to be more responsible. We have gates and lights here and they go around them as if they are a nuisence and non-existant! So don't put the blame on the railroads - put it right where it belongs - right square on the nut behind the wheel!

[edblysard]

Funny,
My parents taught me not to run out into the street, and to look both ways before crossing.
They taught me to stop, and look both ways at railroad crossings.
They even managed to teach me that if I screw up, to take responsibility for my mistake, and to stick around, and try to correct it.

I was supposed to open doors for ladys, and ladys went first.
You stood up whan a woman entered the room, and you didnt use curse words in front of ladys.

You didnt hit girls, and you stood up for those who couldnt stand up for themselves.
You didnt pick on the handicapped, and telling a lie was a major sin.
Stealing anything, no matter how small or inexpensive, wasnt tolerated.

Any adult could chastise a kid, you didnt talk tra***o grown ups.
You carried the groceries in for the lady next door, because she told you too, and your parents expected you to help her.
Teachers were the most respected people around, and most of them had paddels, and knew how to use them.
Getting a swat on your backside for being late to class was normal, and it meant you also got a whipping when you got home, for being late to class, and for getting swats.

My parents lets us grow our hair long, (but it had to be clean) we wore big bell jeans, and really wild shirts, listened to "our" music, and grooved on John and Pauls reveloution, Alice Cooper told us about school being out, and Grand Funk made "Smokin' in the Boys Room" seem almost funny.

And we still, for the most part, managed to grow up with out going to jail, or killing someone.

So, exactlly where did my parents go wrong?
Was teaching by example so wrong?
Was it so odd that a certain level of behaviour was expected from us?
And when we didnt live up to that, we were punished?
We knew all about guns, but we didnt take them to school with us.

Is it really that hard to teach children to be somewhat self reliant, and to be responsible for their actions?

Where did the "all for me" attitude come from, the concept that everyone else but you are responsible for your actions, and why have we, as this generations parents, allowed it to grow to this size?

Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, I kind of learned the smae things as Ed

But when i was two or three or four My parents always took me to the CP and CN displays about Crushed Cars, and all about the Railroads, gruesome Videos

If you didn't learn that way, you would enevr learn what you needed to know.

I can rememebr when i was as young as three, hearing: Don't cross the tracks unless you can fully Cross.
Always look both ways on the Tracks..
Just because there are two tracks, does not mean the two trains are going in opposite directions.

I learnt all this when I was 3 or 4 or 5

No one expects you to run into the Road without looking both ways, But Wouldn't any of you rather be hit by a car then a Train?

I figure it's better to trun into the middle of the road without looking, then it is to corss the tracks without looking.

[Willy2]

I agree with Ed and Mookie and Kevin. The driver was responsible for her getting herself killed, not the railroad. Instead of looking at the back of the retreating train she should have been looking both ways for another train! I don't know if she was just a bad reckless driver in general or if she was just in too big a hurry to look both ways, but it was her fault. I have learned my lesson about railroad crossings from the bad experiences of others and I will always keep that lesson in mind.

Willy

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


Where did the "all for me" attitude come from, the concept that everyone else but you are responsible for your actions, and why have we, as this generations parents, allowed it to grow to this size?

Ed

Hmmmm - Talk about taking responsibility for one's actions (our generation, not Ed). I could have written what Ed wrote, having grown up at about the same time. We learned our limits, tested them (some more than others), and generally learned to respect our elders and those around us. In return we garnered a lot of trust, and more often than not, we deserved it. What we may have missed while raising our kids was some of the early stuff, the groundwork, if you will, on which that trust and respect was built. Some blame can probably be laid on the "experts" of the day, whose opinions still seem to carry a lot of weight. When the paddle and the discipline it represented went out the door, so did a lot of the authority of the teachers. The wild children could no longer be controlled, and control of the rest of the class went, too.

So now, you can be late for class. The teacher can't do anything to you, and your parents will likely figure the teacher is singling you out. Your misdeed has no consequences. Another lesson learned.

Consider, too, the age of the video game. When we played sandlot baseball or a game of Monopoly, somebody won and somebody lost. We were disappointed if we lost (maybe really disappointed if it was a big game or to our sister), but life went on. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. If it was an "official" game (ie, school or Little League) your accomplishment (or lack of it) was hung out for all to see. On a recent visit to my old High School, I found that my name had only recently been superceded on a school record in track. Some of my teammates are still on the record board. On the other hand, if you play video games, your losses are buried in your XBox, if you consider them losses at all. Only your successes are celebrated, if you choose to share them ("Man, I got to Level 1756 today!" - the missing factor being that he failed to reach level 1757)

The relative maturity of people today might enter into the equation, too. Perhaps that inimitable aura of teenage invincibility is lasting well beyond the teenage years.

What does this fix? Nothing. Can we fix the problem? If the last casualty (I won't call her a victim) in the Chicago area is any indication, it'll take a while. (She had apparently been repeatedly warned by her friends not to cross the tracks there.) All we can do is continue to get the word out to everyone, including the politicians, that there is a problem. As I noted earlier, there are undoubtedly problem crossings, just as there are problem road intersections. Those we can attempt to fix. As for the rest of them, well.....

[Anonymous]

Trains don't jump out from behind cars on main street. They only place they drive is down those two tracks. It doesn't take much to use that little bit of common sense to keep yourself alive.

[Anonymous]

Well, unless it's the movie "wrongfully accused" with Leslie Nielson, then Trains jump off the tracks and follow people throuhg the woods

[coalminer3]

Years ago there was an old AAR (I think) slogan that said, "cross crossings cautiously" (try saying that fast after a few cold ones...); it applies today. Also, locomotives are a lot quiter than they were; amazing how they can appear so quietly and suddenly.

IMHO -all for me attitude started in the 1960s.

Here ends the rant for today.

work safe

[Anonymous]

That sounds like the makings of a good nightmare.

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

Well, unless it's the movie "wrongfully accused" with Leslie Nielson, then Trains jump off the tracks and follow people throuhg the woods

[Mookie]

You know - this seems to be a good place to insert something that just blows my mind - and I hear it fairly often.

My police scanner - call for a police person to go to someone's house because their 3 year old is out of control! That was the youngest one. The rest range in age from 5-17.

I understand you can't beat the daylights out of your kids, but when did discipline of any kind become extinct? Maybe like Coalminer3 said - it began in the 60's - when hippies and drugs and flowers ruled. (But - I raised a daughter pretty much alone from 1965 on and she turned out great!).

Think I am getting a new wrinkle over this....

[Anonymous]

Don't get me started...I'm a junior high art teacher, and things happen now in junior high that are pretty unbelieveable. We would have never shown disrespect of any kind to a teacher. I've been told f you three times in my life, and all three were in the last two years by junior high school kids.
A couple of seventh graders in my class last year were telling me about all the times they'd been in jail. One of my student's big brother has been in jail many times, and she told another teacher that her brother said being in jail was "fun."
You finally get to a point where trying to stop all the misbehavior isn't worth the time, trouble, grief, for sure paper work, and a sort of "theft" of your energy, spirit and soul.
But I do love it! Every now and then something will happen, even to one of "those" kids that make it all worth while.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

You know - this seems to be a good place to insert something that just blows my mind - and I hear it fairly often.

My police scanner - call for a police person to go to someone's house because their 3 year old is out of control! That was the youngest one. The rest range in age from 5-17.

I understand you can't beat the daylights out of your kids, but when did discipline of any kind become extinct? Maybe like Coalminer3 said - it began in the 60's - when hippies and drugs and flowers ruled. (But - I raised a daughter pretty much alone from 1965 on and she turned out great!).

Think I am getting a new wrinkle over this....

Try, just try, to swat your misbehaving toddler on his diapered butt in public. I wouldn't be the least surprised if you left in 'cuffs and the kid went to child protective services while they sort out your case (figure six months).

I had an co-worker who had repeatedly asked for help from DSS with a problem child (ended up being food allergies). Dad lost his temper when the kid acted out one night and injured his sister - resulting in a slap to the face. It was hard enough to be visible a couple of hours later at school (they were just getting in from a long, medically-related road trip). House was a mess because the house watcher did a lousy job (dog tore up a potting soil bag), and no food in house because they'd been gone for a week. No matter - kids taken away, parents all but in jail. A year later they got the kids back and the kid was finally getting the care he needed. Nobody apologized for the misunderstanding, though.

I, too, have heard the police calls for misbehaving youngsters. Ridiculous. My two learned early that misbehavior held the very real possibility of a swat on the butt. Rarely had to use it. Both are now adults, and upstanding members of their communities. One is defending our country.

Sheesh!

[Anonymous]

Discipline problems probably almost always go back to the parents, or whoever is raising the kids (seems like Grandma keeps doing it more and more). Problem is, by the time kids get into school, their behavior, good or bad is probably pretty well established. So getting them to be disciplined is hard because they've been brought up otherwise.

[Anonymous]

People calling the police to make their kids behave???? OMG!

I suppose I was just about the last generation of kids to get spanked, I was born early 80s. Getting a spanking wasn't fun, but it did teach that for every action there will be a reaction. It taught me that I have to think about what I am going to do before I do it.

Corporal punishment should also be brought back in schools, all I remember from high school was that kids generally didn't care (certainly more from the generations below me) and they had little respect for other people. -- not everyone of course, but it seems to be becoming more and more present.

I don't know, I grew up getting spanked, have no scars or physical damage (no pain that lasted for more than a few minutes - and that was just on my ***), and I think I've turned out to be a pretty nice guy.

Corporal punishment makes sense, because, (it taught me anyhow) that there is a very clear line between right and wrong. You do this, you get this.

Nowadays it just doesn't seem to be the same, even in the past 10 years or so everything has come down to talking it out, or making the kid sit in a corner - so much as laying a finger on your child is wrong.

...I guess I could go on forever on this subject, but most of you can see where I stand.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

As I've said ALL crossing don't care if they have one train a day THEY ALL NEED GATES WITH LIGHTS so beancounter excutives SPEND YOUR LOOT

In 99.9% of all road crossings....THE RAILROAD WAS THERE FIRST...The railroads granted easments to local authorities and private individuals for them to cross the railroads PRIVATE PROPERTY.. The hindsight of 175 years of railroad experience indicates that these easments should never have been granted and should have been fought at nearly all costs. Since the Federal, State, Local authorities and Private Individuals are the ones who have sought to impinge upon the private property rights of the railroads....THEY SHOULD BEAR THE EXPENSE of protecting their populations that use the crossings

Doggy - It is time for you to cough up your TAX dollars to have your local authorities either protect all the crossings in your area or CLOSE THE CROSSINGS. Protection takes more forms than flashing lights and/or gates....the prefered methods are to either close the crossing or grade separate the crossing....Come on Doggy - SPEND YOUR LOOT!

[Puckdropper]

I have no experience in raising children, but have lots of experience in being raised. One thing that is very clear in my family is the fact that Dad and Mom love us and each other. They also love God and have taught their children the truth about Him. (Read the Bible, not one of those "special" ones, but an honest to goodness Bible.) Perhaps this is the biggest help in bringing up children. Unconsciously, a child will know that he (substitue female pronouns if you wish) misbehaved and his parents DON'T want to punish him, but MUST because they LOVE him.

We all help in raising our cats. They know the rules, and we enforce them, but we love them. They know to stay off the kitchen counter, but can get up on the bathroom sink, etc... Every so often, a good yelling reminds them of what they're supposed to do, and if that doesn't work, they get picked up and looked straight in the eye. (Or sometimes rudely pushed off whereever it was they were.) They know we mean business. Cats are like children, most the times a non-abused child responds sufficiently to being yelled at or preached to, but occasionally need something physical as punishment.

You can have all the warning devices in the world, but without knowledge of their use or without a healthy mistrust of electronics (meaning you trust them to work, but know they don't always) collisions will still happen.

[edblysard]

Macguy,
You bet, cops arent just cops anymore, they are social services, dispute resolution experts, arbitrators, and baby sitters, along with being cops.
People call them for just about every thing from their 4 or 5 year old being a snot nosed brat to getting their cat out of a tree.(it happens, Mookie, sorry)

And like you, I got my fanny waxed quite often as a kid, with no permanent injury, either to my fanny or self image.
But you can bet your last dollar I would never be rude to someone older than myself, and I dont act like a self centered jerk in public,and dont allow my kids to do so either.
Once they grow up and move out, they can speak and act any way they choose, but as long as they live under my roof, they will use the manners my wife and I taught them, or get a dose of applied psychology.

Ed[:)]

[Anonymous]

There is a new group, or relitivly with the wacky point of veiw that the railroads are to blame. The Group is called Angels on Tracks.

Here is a post from Train-sim.com message boards.



Forwarded message I got this morning.
(Orginal sender's name hidden)
> > dear angels on track,
> > >
> > > I agree with your effort's to get railroad crossing's to be
> > better
> > > lighted with crossing light's, gates, etc. But I must say that
> > your
> > > slogan of " Bad crossing's kill good driver's" is not even true.
> > First
> > > off, the railroad has been here for over 150 years. Back in the
> > old day's
> > > train's crossed crossing's that only had a crossing sign at over
> > 90 MPH.
> > > People did not get killed. They looked, listened, and then crossed
> > the
> > > track. A driver that does not take the time to look before they
> > cross is
> > > stupid. The railroad has al way's had the right of way, and will
> > al
> > > way's. There is nothing that can be done about that. If you want
> > to make
> > > a difference, put the responsibility where it belong's. On the
> > stupid
> > > driver that think's that he or she does not have to slow down,
> > look, or
> > > listen. The Federal law requires engineers to blow there horn. Now
> > The
> > > engineer also suffers with a death at a crossing. many people have
> > had to
> > > get serious care because at night they dream of the face of the
> > child
> > > staring at them just before impact and there is nothing that they
> > can do.
> > > Please. They are just doing there job. They are just as innocent
> > as the
> > > person that crossed in front of the train and got hit. This nation
> > has
> > > gone way to far in not putting the responsibility on the person
> > who is
> > > actually responsible. So again I agree with you trying to get
> > more
> > > protection, but your slogan is false. If they were good drivers
> > they
> > > would not have pulled out in front of that train.
> > >
> > > B.P.
>
> > Mr. Porter. Thank you for contacting our Foundation, and while
> > you state you take exception to our slogan "Bad Crossings Kill
> > Good Drivers", I must tell you that the opinions of others will
> > never
> > alter the mission or focus of our Foundation.
> >
> > This slogan was not just pulled out of a hat. It is based on fact.
> > Only approximately 20% of our nation's railroad crossings are
> > protected with gates. Most, if not all, railroad crossings do not
> > meet FHWA/AASHTO sight line requirements for safe passage
> > across tracks. Even crossings with protection (gates and lights)
> > malfunction. Crossings with passive markings (crossbucks, stop
> > signs, Buckeye crossbucks) do not warn of an approaching train.
> > All of these are BAD CROSSINGS and kill hundreds of people
> > each year. To believe that all railroad crossing accidents are
> > caused by irresponsible motorists, is a unfounded stereotype that
> > has been accepted by unknowing individuals.
> >
> > And contrary to your statement ("back in the old days train's
> > crossed
> > crossings that only had a crossing sign at over 90 mph.
> > People did not get killed").... thousands were killed each year
> > and thousands were injured during the late 1800's and early/mid
> > 1900's. Crossing accidents have only decreased due to railroad
> > mergers,
> > crossing consolidations and closures, and installation of
> > protection
> > devices (gates). The safest year in railroad history (1999), 1369
> > people were injured and 402 people lost their lives. I find that
> > solemn
> > statistic to brag about, especially to those, like myself, who have
> > lost
> > a loved one to a dangerous crossing.
> >
> > To say all you have to do is look, listen and cross, is a dangerous
> > assumption and a deadly one at best. If you can't see down the
> > tracks
> > because sight obstructions such as trees, buildings, brush, parked
> > railroad
> > equipment, how can a motorist tell if a train is coming? If the FRA
> > whistle
> > ban is adopted
> > this coming December trains will not sound their horns at whistle
> > posts
> > posted 1/4 mile down the track, what will you listen for? Do you
> > honestly think that the railroad companies and their employees
> > always
> > follow required safety procedures such as train speeds, flagging
> > crossings
> > that have malfunctioned, etc., and the railroad companies have no
> > responsibility
> > for public safety?
> >
> > The fact is there is alot that can be done about dangerous railroad
> > crossings.
> > First, there is no excuse why all railroad crossings are not
> > protected with
> > properly functioning gates. Second, there is nothing precluding
> > the
> > railroads
> > from funding installation of protection (gates), they just choose
> > not to.
> > Third,
> > instead of always blaming the motorists for virtually all railroad
> > crossing
> > accidents,
> > current educational programs and organizations (funded by railroads)
> > should
> > present an unbiased message, based on facts, to address the true
> > causes
> > for railroad crossing accidents. These messages are used to focus
> > on the
> > victim and not the railroads conscious disregard for public safety.
> > Fourth,
> > all speed tapes and event recorders should be turned over to an
> > independent
> > agency after an accident, not the railroads involved. Also taking
> > into
> > account
> > most highway patrol, sheriff departments, emergency personnel, and
> > first
> > aid responders have been trained by our nation's railroads in
> > "railroad grade
> >
> > crossing accident investigation" to determine the cause. Now who do
> > you
> > think they will find at fault?
> >
> > You might be interested in knowing that we have the continued
> > support and
> > well wishes from current and past railroad employees. We also have
> > the support from experts within the railroad industry. To tell me
> > that you
> > support our Foundation's goals to install gates at all crossings,
> > but then
> > take exception with our slogan, can only be taken as lack of
> > knowledge
> > on your part as to what needs to change. Nowhere in our slogan do
> > we
> > mention railroad employees, we address the crossings. And, bad
> > crossings
> > also kill railroad employees. You might want to visit the
> > http://www.csx-sucks.com
> > website. Go to safety. Read the posts from those employees. They
> > support
> > what we are saying, and confirm the lack of concern that exists
> > today for
> > dangerous crossings. And, we also have the RRESQ link posted on
> > our
> > website (Crossing To Safety section). If we were not interested in
> > the
> > safety of all, public and railroad employees, why would we have a
> > link on
> > our website?
> >
> > I will not argue with you. I will repeat that you are sadly
> > mistaken
> > and too readily willing to accept what has been accepted for far too
> > long
> > as to what causes these accidents. Only those people with a
> > sincere
> > wi***o stop these needless tragedies, will open up their minds and
> > look at the other side of the story............that which has not
> > been
> > told in the past. May God send peace and understanding to your
> > heart to understand our Foundation.
> >
> > Vicky L. Moore, Trustee
> > The Angels on Track Foundation
> > Crossing To Safety
> > "BAD CROSSINGS KILL GOOD DRIVERS" (R)
> >
> >
> >
> > Well Vicky L. Moore,
>
> Thank you for at least writing back. I have to say that I am
> ignorant of some thing's and you have given me some interesting info. I
> thank you for that information, but I believe that you also are ignorant
> of some thing's, but you said "I will not argue with you. I will repeat
> that you are sadly mistaken". That lead's me to believe that you are not
> as you said ready to "open up their minds and look at the other side of
> the story......" So I will not waist your time or mine. Good luck in your
> work and I wish you well.
> Have a super day
>
> B.P.




Here is the link if any are interested. http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/8049.html

I also find it funny, that an organization like that feels the need to send hate mail to railfans who have a quite different point of view...

[Anonymous]

"MISSOURI", the person not the state, must be connected to that organization somehow.

[Rick Gates]

Opinions on this subject vary, and because we are in a Trains forum, will be one sided on behalf of the railroads. They also, seem to have taken an aside based on our own morals and values and upbringing. From what I can glean from these responses, I should agree with most everyone, and I believe as Hillary said, "It takes a village." My parents raised me much the same as you have related yours, the rod was not spared. Because they are my parents, they would say that I turned out OK. Many would disagree. Bias is in play here. Of course, my daughters are great too. Willingness, open-mindedness, and honesty are needed to best see all sides of any issue. The "blame" we are always so ready to access, does not always lie squarely on any one piece of the puzzle. For instance. I checked on the http://angelsontrack.org/report.htm. The first thing I saw raised my predjudice as a railfan. It was their motto: "Bad Crossings Kill Good Drivers." From my own experiences, I tend to believe that most crossing accidents are the driver's fault. I investigated futher, with an open mind, and found that this website/orginization spawned from a tragic accident March 25, 1995 in Ohio. Six young people were hit by a Conrail train traveling at 60mph through a road crossing with only crossbuck signs and an obsructed view due to trees and overgrowth vegetation. Three were killed and the other three seriously injured. Two of these were brothers. From what I can see, their mother Vicky Moore is responsible for starting this organization, possibly and in part, as a way of dealing with her grief over the loss of her son Ryan. I can relate to this as some of the victims of the Chase accident started a similar watchdog/lobby group called "Safe Travel America." The Mission statement of Angels on Track, mentions only Ohio (for now) and, indicates it is to help "highway authorities" fund improvements for safety including education. It seems to me that they are not placing any blame squarely on the shoulders of railroads though they invite their cooperation. I still believe the motto may be misleading however, I would also be mislead into a predjudiced attitude (as has been done by others concerning this group) if I did not investigate further with an open mind. Writing spited letters without checking all the facts will only invite spiteful replies. We have read that example. I believe RR crossings should be eliminated or fully protected wherever possible. This is not practical at many locations and would be paid for by us, the taxpayers. Education about this subject that reaches everyone seems the best approach. That would take efforts by all those that are knowledgeable about the subject. The neighbors helped to raise kids in my neighborhood when I was growing up also. They didn't blame the unions about their job situation, they attended meetings and had their voice heard. They attended, PTA, City/County forums, not only voted, but wrote letters and attended town halls. I was taught not to keep complaining about a situation if I did nothing about it. So, I stay involved in union meetings and the like to further the chances of positive change. What might these tradgedies spar you to do? You folks are very knowledgeable. [:-^]

[daveklepper]

I think this discussion is a most important one and already says everthing I have to sat on the subject. Dave Klepper

[Puckdropper]

Rick, may I attempt to sum up your post in one sentence? Get all the facts before making a decision.

Bad crossings can kill good drivers, but chances are you know it's bad. Part of driving is watching all that's around you and looking for hazards. That doesn't just mean eight year olds playing in the front yard, that means unsafe roadside conditions.

If a private (like a driveway) crossing is bad, come to a complete stop and roll the windows down. Even private crossings have to be whistled for, and if you can hear a whistle, don't cross. I heard an Amtrak before it even activated the crossing circuits. (Stopped and watched, but a semi could have passed over the tracks at about 20 mph safely.)

[edblysard]

Rick,
Lucky dog you, you missed the M&M twins, a pair of forum members, Mike and Missouri.
Mike was just a instigater, and Missouri was flat out rabid loon.
Both would start a thread out with a almost intelligent question or statement, and after a few replies from other forum members, would suddenly become hostile, accusing railroads of conspiring to muder innocent drivers, stealing crossing devices, defrauding the public, all sorts of bizzar accusations, including muder.
Missouri's favorite accusation/gripe was the line or angle of vision at crossings.
When it was pointed out that most of the property surrounding railroad crossings was private porperty, and that railroads had no legal ability to clear the property, he responded that railroads had the moral necessary to buy the land and clear it.

If you get the chance, visit CSX sucks .com, and read Mr Robert Pines postings there, one and the same person as Missouri, which was his user ID here, before the editors at Trains.com removed his access to this site..

Discussing anything with him was sorta like arguing with a brick wall, you can, if you want to, but all you ever got out of it was a headache.

I too went to Mrs Moores site.

The first thing that bothered me was the front page image of children playing in the middle of the tracks, with a train approaching in the back ground.
Now, I feel very sorry for the lady, I would lose my mind if something even remotely like that happened to her son ever happened to any of my three daughters.
But...
From what I could gather from the site, they too think railroads get to choose what safety devices are, and are not installed at crossings, and that railroads somehow bear the responsibility of what drivers of private vehicles do at such crossings.
From their standpoint, we, the railroads, should protect their children from doing dangerous things, like running through railroad crossings without looking both ways.
She also feels we should remove buildings and vegatation along the sight lines at crossings, reguardless wether the railroad owns the property the obstruction is on or not.
I e-mailed her, and explained that while each state has different laws reguarding who builds what part of each crossings, and who decides what is installed, down here in Texas, the state or local DOT gets to make these decisions, often after having sued the railroads for access and a easement to use.
Her reply was the law of emminent domain allows railroads to remove or destroy private porperty to keep the sight lines clear, and that if railroads dont install quad gates and insure clear vision for several thousand feet each way, that we were murders.

Well, maybe in Ohio, but in Texas, you enter someones private property, with out express permission, and destroy or remove something, you will be,
A: Shot.
B:Shot again.
C: Shot several more times, just to make sure.
D: If you survive being shot to ***t, your sued for all your worth.


In her message to her son, Mrs Moore commented on the fact that had her son been better able to judge the speed of the approaching train(which implies he saw the train before entering the crossing) he might have made a better decision about trying to beat it to the crossing.

In our e-mail discussion, I pointed out that there really is only one decision anyone should make at a crossing, when they know a train is approaching, the decision to stop clear of the crossing.
Her response was that "all children are impaitent, the railroad should be responsible for making sure they cant harm themselves at the railroads crossings"
She went on to state that all railroaders who opperate trains over these "killer" crossings should either refuse to do so, or slow down to a speed that allows us to stop our train before we run over the person who made a bad judgement call.
She finished her response with the statement that those of us who dont , are murders.
I pointed out to her she may get better results by approaching the people who design and install the crossings, which we dont want in the first place,to which she responded by again referring to railroaders and railroads as murders.

Not the best way to garner the help or sympathies of a select group of people, calling them murders for doing their job.

Through out her triade, she constantly referred to OLI as a conspiricy to hide the "truth" from the public, and to shift blame for all crossing accidents onto the driver.
That was one of Mike P and Missouri's favorite themes also.
So, again, a brick wall to argue with, and the same results.

After a few evenings of researching her, and several members of the organization, and reading their messages, I came away with this.

Unlike MADD, which is active in schools, and functions with the cooperation of almost every law enforcement agency in the US, and who is making a concerted effort to educate young drivers of the danger of drinking and driving, including stressing the importance of making good decisions before you get behind the wheel of your car,
Angles on the Tracks, and it members, seem more intent on taking the decision making process out of the hands of the driver, and finding some way, no matter how ludicrus, of placing liability on the railroad in such a manner that monetary recovery becomes the major issue.

What they are asking for is economicaly impossible, and in quite a few instances, legally impossible too.

They want that pie in sky, someone else to be completly responsible for their kids, and if they cant get that, they want the right to sue, not only the railroad, but the railroaders involved, for unlimited recovery.

Sad, but it boils down to, "if you cant prevent my kids from doing something dumb, and protect them from themselves, I want to be able to sue you for as much as possible when my kids get hurt or killed, as a result of their bad decision making skills".

I am a reasonable person, I try to remain level headed, and to look at all sides to any issue before I form an opinion, and said opinion is subject to change, based on additonal facts and information provided.

My personal opinion is that the safest crossing is the one that isnt there.
Underpasses and overpasses make sense, dead people and lawsuits dont.

With that, all I can really add to this is,
Thank God they are in Ohio, and I hope they stay there.

Ed

[JoeKoh]

Ed is correct.The M&M twins were a pain.Missouri would argue until the cows came home and then some.simply put you have a choice when you come to a crossing.I choose to stop look listen and live.gates and lights are good but its the person behind the wheel.
stay safe
Joe

[Anonymous]

A while ago in my town some idiot kids ages 16-20 (older than me by the way) decided it would be cool to put a stolen van onto a grade crossing and let a train hit it. When the Kansas City Southern coal drag came along, I can just imagine the horror of the engineer and conductor, who probably thought someone was in the van. That train crew had already flipped over a few hoppers at Roodhouse, hit a deer a little north of where this happened, so I bet those guys (or ladies) were pretty stressed out. For those of you who say that honest people are hard to come by these days, I agree with you-I;m only 14 and have seen some very bad and wrong things done to other people. put the responsibility where it belongs-we all make mistakes but that gives us no right to blame other people. People need to be safer on the road indeed, there's something like a car accident every 30 seconds, a fatal one every 20 minutes. Make you wonder how many of those happened by a crossbuck.

[Anonymous]

I went to that CSXsucks website for2 seconds, and I was disgusted that people like that are allowed to live in the USA. Those m&m twins are perverse, siiiiccccckkk people.
I do not want that site on my computer ever again, in fact I went to it by GOOGLE so it wouldn't be on the list of websites I visit. "rabid loon" doesn't begin do describe how sick and twisted those people are. The only place they belong is in a "rubber room" at a max. security mental center/ prison. I can't believe how demented some people really are

[Anonymous]

Some cities have installed cameras at intersections and also inside patrol cars. It's an expensive lay out to do initially, but in one city (Paradise Valley, AZ) you end up getting a ticket in the mail (and you can see the picture they took of you at the courthouse). I wonder if the railroads have ever considered installing cameras at gate crossings and having the local cops write tickets off them?

Erik