http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2010/10/NY%20engineer%20admits%20he%20let%20passenger%20in%20train%20control%20booth.aspx
NEW YORK — A former Long Island Rail Road engineer has pleaded guilty to official misconduct after admitting he allowed a passenger into the control booth of a moving commuter train in July 2009. According to a story from the Associated Press. Ronald Cabrera entered the plea Tuesday in Nassau County Court. He was fined $500 and ordered to perform 50 hours of community service. The railroad has fired Cabrera. Officials say he allowed passenger William Kutsch to operate a train carrying nearly 400 riders. Cabrera was initially charged with reckless endangerment. His lawyer told the New York newspaper Newsday his client only admitted to the misconduct charge and does not concede that he let the passenger get behind the controls. Kutsch faces a reckless endangerment charge and is due in court Oct. 26.
This is so stupid.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
A trainee is (usually - should be always, but I'm sure there are exceptions) qualified on the rulebooks of such railroad. They also are on the payroll (for liability purposes). So no, they are not the same thing.
Is pressing criminal charges over-reactive? Perhaps. But welcome to the litigious society we live in.
Any train crew member that allows a non-authorized person in the cab is a pure idiot in today's day and age. It is just not worth losing your job over.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Should the same rules apply to truck drivers? My claim is that the attention needed to operate a truck is far more intense then that needed to drive a train. Also, truck drivers can have the radio on and be talking away on their cell phones.
petitnj Should the same rules apply to truck drivers? My claim is that the attention needed to operate a truck is far more intense then that needed to drive a train. Also, truck drivers can have the radio on and be talking away on their cell phones.
Many jurisdictions are questioning the practice of using communications devices while operating a motor vehicle. Just because it is currently done doesn't mean it is a wise and safe thing to do. Think BPA and thalidomide....we now get that they were not all they were cracked up to be....or rather, they did more than they initially offered us.
Until I have experience in driving trucks and trains, and attempting to negotiate all the hazards such operations present to me, including while entertaining non-employees against regulations (and the presumed effect it would have on my conscience...possibly a distraction?) I would not be able to support your claim that driving a truck is more intensive in any respect.
Crandell
zugmann A trainee is (usually - should be always, but I'm sure there are exceptions) qualified on the rulebooks of such railroad. They also are on the payroll (for liability purposes). So no, they are not the same thing. Is pressing criminal charges over-reactive? Perhaps. But welcome to the litigious society we live in. Any train crew member that allows a non-authorized person in the cab is a pure idiot in today's day and age. It is just not worth losing your job over.
Zug: Has it nailed!
WE liven in a world where "RISK MANAGEMENT" is the watchword in virtully every business venture.
Lawyers do one thing. THEY SUE! They go for the jugular--(read that as) the one entity with the DEEPEST pockets who can be tied to an act that has caused any kind of Damages. Like Ahab looking for the White Whale. They will put their harpoon into the entity with the deepest pockets.
Just think, had anything at all happened to anyone on the train operated by a person who was not formerly trained and vetted in the operations of THAT specific train. Potentially, anyone on that train would have a legal case to sue the operator corporation (entity). As that entity is responsible ultimately for the conduct or(misconduct ) of THEIR employees. The LAWYERS WOULD SHOP THEIR ACTIONS;, FINDING THE VENUE WHERE THE JURY SELECTIONS WOULD FAVOR A FAVORABLE JUDEMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.
Just the suing alone wouldn't mean anything...if they weren't used to winning. But Zug's observation has merit...the people themselves have changed. In fact, anything that goes wrong in general does seem to be against the big bad railroads, or any other large entities, even when entirely innocent. I now remember the drunk guy who trespassed on Amtrash property, climbed atop a train, grabbed the catenery and got zapped, lived to sue about it, and...actually WON!? Well, I guess with this stuff going on, I now understand why the railroad would panic.
Now about the other part mentioned with truck drivers, it is widely agreed that cell phones (pretty much with any driver, anywhere, any vehicle) can not safely operate a cell phone by any means, and that should flat out be banned all across the US. A recent law, I guess just in PA, bans all drivers of only major vehicles from using cell phones, although why they excluded ordinary drivers, I can't imagine. Now, note that truck drivers do often operate ham radios just fine, and, listening to them quite a bit, are actually very responsible about it. Not only is the whole discussion mechanics different on radios in general, but they often even sign just when the traffic gets thick, so they can safely concentrate on the road without any distraction at all. I would not include radios under the same means as cell phones.
That case involved two guys - and I heard they were sober (if we are thinking about the same case):
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CDEQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvolokh.com%2Ffiles%2Fklein_v_amtrak_mar_31_2008.pdf&rct=j&q=anthony%20ditzler&ei=Miq9TLjMEoKBlAf5ldyVDQ&usg=AFQjCNHuZ4de-iMMjFwM6F53tHdZ132BZw&cad=rja
It's hard to read that opinion (I guess it's an opinion - I'm not hip to legal lingo) and not want to put your fist through the computer screen. The above link is WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA. There is no more personal responsibility anymore.
zugmann That case involved two guys - and I heard they were sober (if we are thinking about the same case): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CDEQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvolokh.com%2Ffiles%2Fklein_v_amtrak_mar_31_2008.pdf&rct=j&q=anthony%20ditzler&ei=Miq9TLjMEoKBlAf5ldyVDQ&usg=AFQjCNHuZ4de-iMMjFwM6F53tHdZ132BZw&cad=rja It's hard to read that opinion (I guess it's an opinion - I'm not hip to legal lingo) and not want to put your fist through the computer screen. The above link is WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA. There is no more personal responsibility anymore.
[quote user=J. Stengal]
It was enough that Amtrak should have realizedthat putting the laddered Norfolk Southern car under the energized catenary line, in adensely populated mixed residential-commercial-industrial area, was an unreasonable act
in disregard of a known risk that would likely put someone in grave peril.[/quote]
Well, that's it. Nobody can park freight cars under catenary inside city limits anymore. What's next, suing a car for driving on a street?
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Remember, it's the LIRR, the rules of logic and common sense do not apply.
About the Amtrak catenary thing: people seem to be able to avoid the third rail on Metro-North and the LIRR way out into the sticks so what's the big deal about laddered trains under catenary in the city?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.