selector Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC. Crandell
Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC.
Crandell
Where would you place the 'responsibility' of an incident where a person on an ATV or snowmobile runs into some parked freight cars sitting on a siding at night out in the boonies?
Bucyrus selector: if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility. Crandell You have got to be kidding.
selector: if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility. Crandell
if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility.
You have got to be kidding.
Crandell's reply:
“Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC.
Crandell”
I hear your words, but I don’t see how you can put them into practice. You say that both the driver and the railroad share the responsibility at a grade crossing. I assume that you mean that the motorist must yield to the train, but the railroad has the responsibility to make the cars easier to see by putting reflectors on them. Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
If reflectors on freight cars make the difference between the railroad meeting its obligation to make the crossings safe, then it has to follow that if a driver hits a car without reflectors, and the driver says he did not see the freight car, then it is the railroad’s fault.
And if reflectors make it easier for drivers to see freight cars, why stop there? Wouldn’t flashing strobe lights on the sides of freight cars make it still safer? Of course it would. So why would adding reflectors be just enough of a response to satisfy the railroad’s obligation in this shared responsibility you speak of?
Bucyrus ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
Not at all. Once the problem was identified, call it a defect in human engineering, it would have been irresponsible for nobody to do anything. Highway safety types would have suggested remediation of some kind, and presumably one of the recommendations would have been to place a few reflectors on the sides of rolling stock so that they could be more visible at dark, uncontrolled, level crossings where only crossbucks indicate a potential hazard...an oncoming or a transiting train. Heavens knows the warnings to motorists seem to have become more obvious, more attention-getting.
Bucyrus If reflectors on freight cars make the difference between the railroad meeting its obligation to make the crossings safe, then it has to follow that if a driver hits a car without reflectors, and the driver says he did not see the freight car, then it is the railroad’s fault. And if reflectors make it easier for drivers to see freight cars, why stop there? Wouldn’t flashing strobe lights on the sides of freight cars make it still safer? Of course it would. So why would adding reflectors be just enough of a response to satisfy the railroad’s obligation in this shared responsibility you speak of?
I take your point, although it seems perilously close to a reductio ad absurdum to both of us..? We tend to deal with problems incrementally. We could also bar trains from all level crossings, but it would be a draconian solution that begets all sorts of other problems. Somewhere, where the fender meets the stirrup, is a simple, perhaps single, step (such as the addition of a reflector) that neutralizes the problem effectively. For the time being. If a cross-buck has become nothing more than yet another roadside indicator calling out for attention, and is all that exists at that crossing, and if trains are few and far between, local drivers are wont to become careless. It is called habituation in my field. Things that are no longer novel lose their attention-grabbing capacity. Most mothers eventually learn to let their babies squall for a bit...doesn't hurt them. Blinking lights and sirens soon lose their impact. The more strident something is, the more likely we'll attend to it, but always more-so if it is simply....new. It causes us caution, even mistrust, and lies at the root of much of what we term racist behaviour.
I wouldn't discount the eventuality of strobes, by the way...as absurd as it may appear to be, something is going to replace the reflectors in time...probably...maybe.
Jeez, look at how far this discussion has drifted froim graffiti on trains! My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock. Then again, some of the cars I've seen here in Richmond on CSX trackage is so decrepit the taggers may be doing CSX a favor by painting the cars for them! Maybe CSX doesn't care what kind of paint is on the cars as long as it keeps them from rusting. One thing is for sure, if I was "Mr. Tropicana" (the juice train runs through here) and I saw what was happening to my rolling billboards I'd be throwing a fit! Taggers apparantly can't resist a big white "canvas."
selector Bucyrus: ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars? Not at all. Once the problem was identified, call it a defect in human engineering, it would have been irresponsible for nobody to do anything. Highway safety types would have suggested remediation of some kind, and presumably one of the recommendations would have been to place a few reflectors on the sides of rolling stock so that they could be more visible at dark, uncontrolled, level crossings where only crossbucks indicate a potential hazard...an oncoming or a transiting train. Heavens knows the warnings to motorists seem to have become more obvious, more attention-getting. Crandell
Bucyrus: ... Does that mean that the railroads were irresponsible prior to the trend of putting reflectors on the sides of cars?
When you say that once the problem was discovered, it would have been irresponsible to do nothing, are you suggesting that the problem of drivers having trouble seeing trains fouling grade crossings has just been discovered and has thus resulted in the reflector mandate?
If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. Some railroads began reflectorizing the sides of their rolling stock and locomotives 60 years ago. So clearly the problem must have been understood long before this reflector mandate, and yet the industry, as a whole, did nothing. How can you say they were not irresponsible?
Firelock76 My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock.
My opinion on graffiti is it's a pretty poor comment on railyard security if the perpetrators have enough time to paint the elaborite "artwork" I've seen on some rolling stock.
Years ago I contracted with Southern Pacific to spot several empty box cars on alittle used siding behind a warehouse we owned in Santa Clara Ca, using them for overflow storage while we did seismic retrofit inside the tenant's adjoining area.
Called the RR at the end of the project and "ordered" the removal of the cars, and they sat there a good 4 months before the RR thought to come retrieve them.
It's opportunities such as that which the taggers capitalize on
Bucyrus ... If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. ... ... How can you say they were not irresponsible?
...
If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. ...
... How can you say they were not irresponsible?
Was there ever a time when it was acceptable for drivers to drive into the side of rail cars? What was our understanding of the nature of this phenomenon? When did we decide that the roadkill numbers were indicative of a growing problem? Every leader of a rail company ought to have considered those questions at some time.
My point is that they were only irresponsible once they realized their process was instrumental in the deaths of motorists who were expected to cross their paths and effected to do nothing about it. It seems unconscionable to me if this were ever the case. I suspect the leaders at all levels felt sufficiently uncomfortable that they eventually placed cross-bucks and wig-wags at level crossings. It was at the very least a sign of good will toward the public. Reflectors are merely signs of continued good will.
It isn't just railroad rolling stock. Take a good look at the sides of most modern highway trailers, esp. the flat or lowboy types - they too have reflectorized strips or stripes, for much the same reason I think. For one example, see: http://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_37973_37973
-Paul North.
selector Bucyrus: ... If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. ... ... How can you say they were not irresponsible? Was there ever a time when it was acceptable for drivers to drive into the side of rail cars? What was our understanding of the nature of this phenomenon? When did we decide that the roadkill numbers were indicative of a growing problem? Every leader of a rail company ought to have considered those questions at some time. My point is that they were only irresponsible once they realized their process was instrumental in the deaths of motorists who were expected to cross their paths and effected to do nothing about it. It seems unconscionable to me if this were ever the case. I suspect the leaders at all levels felt sufficiently uncomfortable that they eventually placed cross-bucks and wig-wags at level crossings. It was at the very least a sign of good will toward the public. Reflectors are merely signs of continued good will. Crandell
Bucyrus: ... If so, I don’t understand your conclusion because drivers have been running into the sides of trains for 150 years. ... ... How can you say they were not irresponsible?
Crandell,
I’m sure it was not intentional, but the way you have quoted me out of context switches the meaning of what I said.
So just to be clear, when I asked you if “they” were being irresponsible, by “they”, I was referring to the railroads for not adding reflectors earlier, not to the drivers who run into trains. Of course, the drivers who run into to trains are irresponsible. That has been my point all along here.
But earlier, you said that once the problem of drivers running into trains was discovered, it would have been irresponsible for railroads to do nothing about it. You were referring to the new reflector mandate as the railroads “doing something about it.” I then asked if the railroads were irresponsible for not having done something about it sooner, since they must have known about the problem for at least 150 years. Surely the answer has to be yes if, as you say, the railroads would have been irresponsible for not adding reflectors as soon as they realized that drivers run into the sides of trains. It took them 150 years to do something about it. Would that not be irresponsible?
But my position all along here has been that the railroads were not irresponsible for not adding reflectors, because the law has always been that the driver bears all of the responsibility for running into trains. It did not take the railroads years and years to figure out that their trains were killing people at crossings, as you suggest. They knew there was a blood bath by second half of the 1800s. But their responsibility was only to mark the crossings with a warning, and the rest was up to the crossers to yield to the trains.
I do agree with you that regardless of the fact that the trains have the right of way, it is in their interest to have as few crashes as possible. So adding reflectors for goodwill, as you say, is fine. But earlier in this thread you said:
“The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility.”
The railroad industry, Operation Lifesaver, and the law would disagree with your position.
I understood you, Bucyrus, and have responded accordingly. Both parties, in my view, and despite what lawmakers may think, even today, are meant to share a common intersection, and therefore the responsibility for what happens there is de facto mutually and evenly distributed. That is my position. In time, the Law may see it my way, perhaps not.
Yes, a driver is in control of a moving vehicle and is responsible for what takes place up to the point of accident, or happenstance. Then it is merely unfortunate. Had the railroads maintained all along that the misfortune was solely due to drivers in such accidents, then I could understand their being steadfast (and obtuse) to this day. But they clearly have not. The very nature of railroad crossings with controlling devices suggests that the responsibility is to be shared.
The part you quoted of mine is true; drivers must adhere to a defined path, and that path intersects with a potential hazard. They can't deviate to a point 20 meters beside a controlled crossing and attempt to cross the tracks, not practically, and not legally. So, while the train is confined to a defined route, no less so is the driver of the automobile with considerably more control and variance in a lane...or out of it. At a rural, uncontrolled, and seldom traveled crossing, and in the gloom of night, and if the numbers of deaths at such crossings outstripped all other crossing deaths, would we not presume that such crossings need more attention? And if the attention is methodical and illuminates the problem, and if the problem turns out to be ultra-low visibility of the sides of rail cars, we would have two options: control the traffic another way, something more positive, or alter the appearance of rail cars.
I don't know what the actual stats are, but it seems to me that there is a real problem as reported by some respondents here. If it turns out that only two 20 square-inch reflectors per car side solves the problem, or reduces the incidence of catastrophe for drivers at uncontrolled crossings, it seems to be a small thing to do. And if it is a small thing to do, should it be the motorists who bear that responsibility?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.