NY Times investigates RR accidents in expose

[Anonymous]

Beginning Sunday, July 11 The New York Times will publish an expose into RR accident investigations.

Sunday's edition starts with grade crossings. Of 3,000 crossing accidents last year only 4 were investigated by the feds.

The UP, BNSF, KCS, and NS railroads are blasted. The article discusses evidence tampering, black box malfunctions, maintenance, slow orders, etc.

Should be an interesting series.

[Anonymous]

I suppose you have to have a subscription to that website in order to get the stories?

I think the NYTimes is like that, aren't they?

[Anonymous]

Oh ok, at least it's free.

[edblysard]

Oh boy, hope Bergie has his eyes peeled for the M&M twins, this is right UP their alley...
(yes, thats a bad pun)

Most grade crossing accidents are the fault of the motorist, and all of us who run the trains can testify to that.
Also, all of us who run the train report to our supervisors any gate or safety device we see malfunctioning.
Beyond that, it is out of the T&E employees control.

All that said, it still is shameful if what the reporters claim is true.

Destruction or altering any record or physical evidence of any kind is illegal.

The sad part is currently, there is no legal remedy to prevent the carriers from doing just what the report claims, other than judges issuing sanctions, which amount to not much more than a fine.

Because the accident invistigation is pretty much the jurisdiction of the railroad itself, one would have to imagine that the carrier does all that it can to limit its liability.

But tampering with evidence, and losing documents and tape recordings it (the carrier) knows are relevant, is still a crime.

Of course, the mentality of "if you cant see it, hear it, or find it, then it dosnt exsist, and it cant be produced in court" is the main reason they do stuff like this.

Sad too, because in almost every instance quoted, it would have been much more cost efficent for the railroad to fix the problem in the first place, instead of playing the odds that nothing will happen, or, if something does occure, betting that they can offer a large enough settlement to make the plantif go away.

Down here on the little old railroad I work for, all of our grade crossing devices are installed and maintained by UP.

If a train crew finds a defective device at a grade crossing, we flag the crossing, and call in the location to our yardmaster/dispatcher.

In the 8 years I have been here, the longest it took UP to have someone there working on it was 9 hours, and that was on a grade crossing out in a industrial location, in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night.

Vegetation isnt a problem here either.

When we can legally remove any over grown brush, we do so.

If a train crew reports a crossing that they feel is obstructed by any brush or debris, our MOW guys get to it the same day.

Where we have no legal right to enter, (private porperty) we have taken legal action to force the home owner or business to clear the area, and, if it is a industry that is a customer of ours, we have refused to work the plant, as a matter of policy, until they fix the problem.

There is one instance that stands out in my time here.

A lumber company(I am leaving their name out on purpose) leased a small part of their front parking lot to a taco vendor, who placed one of those portable, on a trailer type taco stands in this spot.

You know the kind I am talking about, they have a small stove in them, a ice box, and a serving window in the side.

Good tacos, bad location, as the stand blocked the view of the crossing and tracks not only for the motorist entering and leaving the lumber company's lot, but also our view from the locomotive of any automobiles approach to the crossing from inside the lumber company's parking lot.

We approached the guy who owned the stand, and asked him to move it back from the tracks, about 50', and explained why.
His response, although descriptive, was...well, lets say I dont think I could do that to myself.

Our Superintendent then approached the lumber company, and asked them to make him move, which they refused to do, claiming they had a legal contract with the taco vendor for that one spot, and they couldnt force him to move until the contract expired, which they claimed was for the three months of summer.

Solution?
Leave the lumber company's spot cars, full of plywood and really nice douglas fir 2x4s, on the sideing just outside of their fence.

After a few days of not only being denied their lumber, but not being able to ship their pre-fab roof joist out, and seeing their cars slowly becoming less than car load shipments, due to the locals helping themselves at night to a few sheets of plywood here and there, and a few studs and beams, the management of the lumber yard decided that what ever the taco guy was paying them to rent their parking lot wasnt enough.

We can do that because our contract with almost every industry and customer we service states they have the responsibility to maintain a safe and hazard free enviroment in and around all the rail facilities within their property where we provide switching service, and if they fail to do so, the local crews may report it as a unsafe condition, and suspend service for that day.

If the problem is not resolved, the superintendent may suspend all service until said problem is corrected.

So, it has been my experience that most of the "bad" or unsafe crossings here, at least, are dealth with rather quickly.

In fact, almost every crossing in Houston, when reported as unsafe, be it UP or BNSF, or one of ours, is handled fast.

That said, seems that UP, outside of this area, at least, has taken a far different approach to the problem, if the facts reported are to be belived.

Sad too, its so much easier to fix the problem in the first place...

I am going to follow this story with a lot of interest.

Oh, and like Mark said, you can read the entire "newspaper" on their site, its free, and in the last year I have been reading it, spam free too!

Ed.

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Macguy: You can sign up to the NY Times site for free -- I've read their website for years and it has virtually the entire content of the print version. (I don't understand the business model, but that's not my problem!)

You do have to give them your e-mail address, but to protect your home address you can always acquire a Yahoo e-mail account (that's what I do for any site that requires an e-mail address). I've never received any spam from the Times since I signed up, even at the dead-end Yahoo inbox I use.

The article is worth reading by anyone interested in railroads, and I'll be looking forward to the subsequent installments. I highly recommend you read it.

Candidly, I do not think it is the best example of investigative reporting I've seen from the Times, certainly not of the quality of the Tyler Pipe investigative article of last year. I do not think the article is balanced. Nonetheless, the allegations it contains of systemic coverups and destruction of evidence are shocking and appear well substantiated. I think this report has a high possibility of causing tremendous damage to the railroad industry -- financially, politically, and reputation-wise. Anyone who is involved with or interested in railroads has to be extremely dismayed right now, and I don't expect when I talk to people in the business Monday that I'll hear a single one of them blustering about "irresponsible drivers" or "activist judges," either. Bluster and posturing and ranting isn't going to make this go away.

Mark,
Can you give us a link to web site? Would love to watch that story myself.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WearyErie

Beginning Sunday, July 11 The New York Times will publish an expose into RR accident investigations.

Sunday's edition starts with grade crossings. Of 3,000 crossing accidents last year only 4 were investigated by the feds.

The UP, BNSF, KCS, and NS railroads are blasted. The article discusses evidence tampering, black box malfunctions, maintenance, slow orders, etc.

Should be an interesting series.

Sounds like a mess...

LC

[WDGF]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill
But that question is completely missing from the story! Why is it missing? Perhaps because the answer wouldn't take the reporter and editor where they wanted to go?

This reminds me very much of the television "investigative" reports that pop up every ratings period. Is there an equivalent for newpapers?

[edblysard]

WDGF,
No, I dont think there is a sweeps week for newspapers, but, articles like this do sell newspapers.
Note this story is very prominent in the national section.
Politics plays a large role in what appears in papers like this.

Think back to the Watergate era...remember the Post every running anything that presented Nixon's side to the story, other than short, out of context quotes?

I noticed this paticular article seemed to foucs on UP quite intently.
BNSF and KCS, were mentioned, but only briefly, and CSX and NS, although mentioned, were almost aplauded for having fixed "their problems"

It almost makes you wonder how much influence could be exerted by shippers, who happen to be advitisers also.
For all we know, UP may be delivering newsprint rolls late to the NY Times printer....

The report was rather biased in other ways.
It did note that crossing accident were down quite a bit in tte last few years, and it did note that one of the major reasons was due to grade crossing removal, but it failed to mention that almost every grade crossing that gets removed is removed because the railroads push for it, nor does it mention that grade crossing closings are a top priority with the AAR and FRA.

Linda Morgan was quoted in a TV special once as saying "the safest crossing, is the one that's not there", yet I failed to find credit given to any railroad for this attitude in the report.

While we were shown video and audio bites from the victims point of veiw, none were presented which allowed UP to respond, yet I am sure that, if offered, Ms. Blackwell would have been happy to provide the Times with UP's response and footage.

The entire article smacks of the attitude that railroads, UP in paticular, are the somewhat evil big industry, intent on harming the little guy in pursuit of profit.

And one thing that bothered me greatly about the report is that fact that it puts forth the notion that the actions and attitudes such as reported are the norm at all railroad crossing accidents, nation and industry wide.

No where does it present the or report on the other times where the railroads has gone to great lengths to solve some of the problems.

Remember the incident where the school bus was trapped at a crossing by the traffic lights bad timing, and was struck by the comuter train.
The railroad there had every legal right to download the black box, and then provide the NTSB with the information.
Instead, they handed the event recorder over to the NTSB, un altered and intact.

The article failed to mention the numurous times railroad have sponsered police and law enforcement ride alongs/sting operations, where the law enforcement folks get to see first hand how often the general public ignores the grade crossing devices.

Dont misunderstand me, if the folks at UP did what the article states, and I have no real reason to belive otherwise, then they commited crimes, for which they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
I also belive that the investigation of crossing accidents should, by law, be left up to the law enforcement agencies, not the railroads.
I can make such a statement, because I belive that in almost every instance, law enforcement investigaters will find that the drives of the car was at fault.
In the few instances where railroads bear the brunt of the blame, then the railroad should fix the problem, if it is with their jurisdiction to do so, and pay whatever the courts find as punitive damages.

But remember, almost every at grade crossing is the product of the local officals deciding to cross private property, and having to sue a railroad to gain access to install their crossing over our tracks, with little or no input from us as to how to design and install such crossings.
Note the photo of the garbage truck site, the one in the audio clip, where the victim is standing in front of the crossing.
That is a private crossing, a dirt and gravel road installed by a moron, not a well designed or protected crossing.
I would bet they almost get hit there all the time, and with good reason...


Ed

[wabash1]

Ed

To add to the mix here on the NS Most cases it is trainmasters and roadformans who give statements to the public about accidents. and in some cases where news crews have come to the sceane of a accident the officials have told the news people to leave. if they refuse and try using the lame i am the media then the officials got o the police and have them arrested if they wont leave as they are tresspassing. Also I cant believe the event recorder recorded a train going 158mph and 138 ( as close as i can remeber it saying) but if the thing was recording metric then wouldnt that be around 60mph?

The just of the matter is there is a witch hunt and it seems they are picking on the union pacific for now. and that i still think it is one sided reporting. If the recorders was tampered with this would be admisable in court and most certainly they would lose the case. also there was a statement that the trooper was to ask for a copy of the event recorder records at the sceane. Most engineers know that these are either 8 track tape type or the new ones are like a 1.5 floppy and downloaded on them. unless someone brings a lap top computor they cant read these things in the field and i have never seen a official carry a printer with them. police dont have the soft ware to read these tapes either. this is one reason i report buffs ( who think they need to get close for the picture) near misses and anyone else who gets on the property to see what we do. and let the law handle it the way they want.

[Randy Stahl]

Unfortunatly I have seen many event recorders that provided erronious information, including speeds that were wrong, there are few standards when it comes to event recorders, every railroad has a different idea . If you mix up axle gens you can double the indicated speeds, ie replace a 20 ppr with a 60 ppr
I have done many accident investigations, I prefer not to talk about it , I have seen many very sad things.
Randy

[Anonymous]

OK, Antigates this is the original thread...

LC

[mudchicken]

(1) Saw the article on the front page of Denver's Sunday paper plus the local reporters added on to the article by tacking a horribly one-sided view of the Castle Rock near -fatality to the article. (just to stir it up a little more, and brainwa***he rest)....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2265399,00.html

(2) The article belonged in the op-ed section of the paper, not the front page.

(3) In MHO, the NY Times and the Denver Post are in a hurry to "suck-up" to the Litigation Lawyers, er um Democatic presidential candidates. I wonder how long before the motivations to write the article come to light and NY Times suffers another error in journalistic integrity???

Mark, would not have thought of the term "scurrilous", but it DOES fit!


[V][V][V]

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Sure: www.nytimes.com

You'll find it right on the home page.

Thank You Sir![:)]

I "just" signed up and got a chance to read the article.

[locomutt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

(1) Saw the article on the front page of Denver's Sunday paper plus the local reporters added on to the article by tacking a horribly one-sided view of the Castle Rock near -fatality to the article. (just to stir it up a little more, and brainwa***he rest)....
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2265399,00.html

(2) The article belonged in the op-ed section of the paper, not the front page.

(3) In MHO, the NY Times and the Denver Post are in a hurry to "suck-up" to the Litigation Lawyers, er um Democatic presidential candidates. I wonder how long before the motivations to write the article come to light and NY Times suffers another error in journalistic integrity???

Mark, would not have thought of the term "scurrilous", but it DOES fit!


[V][V][V]

"Just" read that article also,"very interesting"

[Big_Boy_4005]

When you get right down to it a train only has one set of laws to obey.

The laws of physics!

Reporters, lawyers and motorists are mostly idiots. The railroads came long before the roads. The public crosses at their own risk. The railroads try to make it as safe as possible, and try to warn people when a train is coming. No system is perfect, but have the railroads really done anything wrong?

People don't understand that trains can't stop. Nobody wants to have an accident, especially the railroad, but motorists have become complacent. They think that the signals will protect them and that if they aren't on, it must be safe.

As far as I know, school buses are still required to stop at all grade crossings, open the door and look both ways, but for the average motorist this isn't practical. Driving a car is dangerous. A moment's inattention, and splat!!! If it happens on the tracks, it must have been the train.

By the way, I consider myself politically liberal, but there is no substitute for common sense and caution in matters of life and death.

[ValleyX]

Go to csx-sucks.com and read what some of the posters on there post. One, I think, was run off these boards for her impassioned words that more or less would attempt to lead one to believe that most engineers run their trains right off the tracks to chase down poor, innocent motorists.

This article is in that same vein. In many years of experience, I've seen exactly one time where a set of gates and flashers failed to work and we didn't have any knowledge of it before we went across the crossing. Now, that upset me and we reported it promptly, other trains were required to protect the crossing before proceeding and it was fixed promptly, too. But that was only one time.

Life is a series of risks, we can all cower under the bed or get out and take our chances. I'm so sick of the "everything has to be perfectly safe" crowd that I can't hardly stand it. Everything can't be perfectly, totally, completely, without question safe or I believe that there is nothing that would get done.

The public will suck this up because the public knows little about railroads in general and are gullible about things they know nothing about. And, it's the NY Times. My, my.

[edblysard]

Note too, that one of the M&M twins, Mike P, was a juor in the case reported in todays edition.
Which explaines his one sided, obstinate persuit of "the railroads is allways at fault" position.
Granted, fixing the lights while the police are on site and investigating is a pretty cheap trick, and is altering evidence, and yes, according to the trooper, the view was blocked by vegatation, the young lady still should have stoped, looked and listened.
$25,000.00 to settel is still pretty cheap.

Keep in mind what you read in the reports is only what the reporter decides to report.
And again, no mention is given of the other instances where railroads do the right thing, without beings forced to do so by lawsuits.


PI attorneys, as Mark pointed out, are not the driving force behind todays lawsuit happy public, but are a direct result of the mentality that some one, other than the person injuried, must be responsible for the injuried person actions and resulting injuries.
The need to blame anyone else other than themselves for what happed has created a niche for them, and they fill it quite well.


As the father of three daughters, which some forum members have met, I can feel for the folks mentioned in todays article.
But, as some forum members can tell you, even my 5 year old knows to stay away from trains, and stop, look and listen.
How does she knows this?
Because we taught her to.
Its not the railroad responsibility to teach my kids to be careful around trains, its mine.
My oldest daughter is learning to drive, and I took the time to take her to several of the worst crossing here, and show her what to do, and how to be careful.
She already knows that, if she feels that she cant safely cross, dont.
Find another crossing.
If there isnt one anywhere else, stop completly, get out, and look.
She knows how fast trains go, and that they can sneak up on you quite quickly.
You guys have all seen my kids, they were in a photo of the day, waving at a BNSF train near our house.
Note they are all well away from the tracks.
Where did they learn that?
From us.
Ultimatly, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach their kids how dangerous train are.
All of us in the industry already know that, we deal with them everyday, and it is understood by all of us that all it takes is a second of not paying attention for things to go really wrong, really quick.
The public dosnt seem to want to bear the responsibility of their own actions around huge moving equipment.
These articles, while seeming to be about under reporting accidents, which is, I admit, wrong, really seem to be about placing blame for accidents, and seem to be headed in the direction of it being the railroad fault at almost every one they reported on.
While they dont squarly place blame, they certainly do seem to be baised in that direction.

I wonder how fast Mike P contacted the reporters when he heard about the story....
I look for Missouri(aka Robert Pines) to show up in there real soon.

Ed

[Anonymous]

I too read Mark's post. A couple of points about :

1. Litigation Lawyers

Litigation lawyers are neutral. Obviously, there are those in the plaintiff's bar that fight for high contingency fees and fight against limits on those fees. What you discount is that lawyers MUST look over their shoulder for malpractice as well. Lawsuits against lawyers in injury cases have proliferated in recent years with rising malpractice premiums and other overhead (expensive computer calendaring and additional staff and investigation included) to keep a handle on the caseload making for greater pressure to increase earnings to cover this overhead. Also, the attorney malpractice concern requires a good lawyer to make sure he sues everyone who might have responsibility for the incident in question. If he doesn't and it turns out that someone else was responsible and the statue of limitations against the responsible party has passed...the lawyer takes the hit. So, this leads to lawyers naming everyone who may be responsible in any lawsuit.

2. The New York Times

The NYT used to be a responsible paper. The article in question reminds me more of the New York Post and not the Times I knew. Of course, that was before they hired people who made up news too.

3. Signal Maintainer-Subsequent Repairs

This article and the prior one makes far too much about repairing problems. What should a responsible company do once it is notified of a problem?! Leave the equipment broken for the next potential victim??? Leave the brush obstructing the view??? Obviously not. In fact, the law of evidence is quite clear that evidence of subsequent repair canot be considered as evidence of liability (fault) in court. This rule is meant to encourage repairs of known problems promptly. The NYT is merely sensationalizing the repairs to make it look improper. Shame on them.

LC

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

As usual, Mark H. hits the nails on the head... several of them!

A few thoughts, though... on litigation lawyers. Mark notes that they, as a class, are 'value neutral'. How true. And how sad. There was a time when litigation lawyers \could be counted on to have very high standards of values, and advise clients accordingly. Not any more -- the only value that litigation lawyers seem to have today is 'can I convince a jury to award a lot of money to my client so I can make a lot of money'. Yes, we the people could (if the litigation lawyers weren't such a powerful political force) change the laws to reduce the money incentive, but such legislation has been tried, and usually fails (same problem in medical malpractice, among other areas).

Also, years ago the New York Times was regarded as one of the best and finest newspapers in the world. Their motto was 'All the news that's fit to print' and they did a fine, unbiased job of reporting. Opinion was confined to their excellent editorial pages. Not any more, friends. I wouldn't trust the New York Times for an accurate report of today's weather. Which is a real pity.

A third thought: in one (1) (singular instance) it was reported that a signal maintainer 'got there before the investigators and replaced some equipment' implying, but NOT PROVING (sorry for shouting), a coverup. Is it possible that he was trying to get the signals -- which may have been damaged (nobody says) working again, to try to protect the next Darwin candidate? Does anyone know?

As I said on the other thread on this series...

Sigh...

[Randy Stahl]

Too bad I can't say what I really want to say ( bad word issues) I do feel how ever that the UP spokes person Miss Blackwell doesn't have a clue what the hell she's talking about. I believe there is some factual basis motivating these attacks and the sad part is it makes me ashamed to be a railroader
Randy

[dharmon]

After reading the articles, several things come to mind. First as Mr. Stahl points out, UP's spokesperson isn't really doing such a grand job. It would appear that since RRs have stayed in the background and out of the public focus for a long while, that they don't have the polished spin that many other industries have when dealing with the public.

The another is that the NYT which is in a position to spin the story, is choosing to capitalize on the little people vs. big bad industry wave that has once again become popular of late. Enron and Worldcom have become tired subjects, and thus a new "killer" has to found. As the number of industries (not just RRs, but all business) grows smaller because of mergers and buyouts, those that remian become larger and more "evil". The RRs are an easy target, primarily due to misconceptions and ignorance regarding who is responsible for what when it comes to grade crossings. Mudchicken can and has expounded on this subject until he's blue in the beak. It's not quite as sensational to go after a county government.

And lastly one of the things of note was about the guy hauling potatos that got hit in WA. He had been driving 12-14 hours and was shielding his eyes against the sun before he was hit. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture.

It saddens me when folks get hit by trains, becasue there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to happen. If there was negligence or malice pure and simple, then those responsible should be hung out to dry. If there was a simple malfuntion ther RRs hold some responsibility....... BUT I still look both ways before I cross the street even with a Walk signal. There is a rule in Maritime Rules of the Road which states that even if you have right of way and are doing everything right and the other vessel isn't, and you had an opportunity to do something to avoid collision and didn't, you share some responsibility.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


It saddens me when folks get hit by trains, becasue there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to happen. If there was negligence or malice pure and simple, then those responsible should be hung out to dry. If there was a simple malfuntion ther RRs hold some responsibility....... BUT I still look both ways before I cross the street even with a Walk signal. There is a rule in Maritime Rules of the Road which states that even if you have right of way and are doing everything right and the other vessel isn't, and you had an opportunity to do something to avoid collision and didn't, you share some responsibility.

What? ME take responsibility for my actions? NO WAY!

Sorry, couldnt resist.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


It saddens me when folks get hit by trains, becasue there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to happen. If there was negligence or malice pure and simple, then those responsible should be hung out to dry. If there was a simple malfuntion ther RRs hold some responsibility....... BUT I still look both ways before I cross the street even with a Walk signal. There is a rule in Maritime Rules of the Road which states that even if you have right of way and are doing everything right and the other vessel isn't, and you had an opportunity to do something to avoid collision and didn't, you share some responsibility.

Someone on this forum gave me the basis for a sign on my desk - "Naut Mi"....I love it - explains a lot of the people in my building!
What? ME take responsibility for my actions? NO WAY!

Sorry, couldnt resist.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon


It saddens me when folks get hit by trains, becasue there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to happen. If there was negligence or malice pure and simple, then those responsible should be hung out to dry. If there was a simple malfuntion ther RRs hold some responsibility....... BUT I still look both ways before I cross the street even with a Walk signal. There is a rule in Maritime Rules of the Road which states that even if you have right of way and are doing everything right and the other vessel isn't, and you had an opportunity to do something to avoid collision and didn't, you share some responsibility.

What? ME take responsibility for my actions? NO WAY!

Sorry, couldnt resist.

I know. Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past. It's been laid to rest alongside the rest of his family....common sense, moral courage, virtue, consideration of others, and community service. RIP!

Viva la litigators!!! Every man for himself!!! Blame your neighbor!!! Not in my Backyard!!!

[BNSFNUT]

Bad signals, poor veiw, sun in the eyes, fog. An railroad crossing consist of at least 2 large metal rails. It is very hard to miss 2 steel rails in the road. I amazes me how many peaple will look both ways before crossing a street but drive across a train crossing with out even looking. I you can't see whats comming stop! If you miss that fact that there is a grade crossing due to visiblity you are driving to fast for conditions, this can get you a ticket here in NY.
THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO PUT YOUR BODY IN FRONT OF A TRAIN!
Ok I get of my soap box now.

[espeefoamer]

Just read the Denver Pest ,er Post , article.Did a cattle truck turn over in here or what! Something really STINKS![:(!] blaming the railroads really does what a vacuum cleaner does.[:(!]

[edblysard]

Dan,
One of the first rules of action, when being sued, is...
Shut up.
The burden of proof rest entirely on the plaintiff.
Under the law, you, as the defendant do not have to say a single thing in your defense, you are not required to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt.
As long as you dont open your mouth and say anything that might be used against you, the person bringing suit has to do the leg work.
Ms. Blackwell is doing exactly what she is paid to do, admit as little as she can, by saying a whole bunch of nothing.
Railroads, and all other large companies have two things the average citizen lack, time and money.

Because adjudication of federal regs is so lax and leinent, large corpations know that the longer they wait, the less resources the plaintiff will have, and at some point, they will give up and settle.

Think about it, when was the last time you read or saw a really large company get fined in such a manner that the fine and any sanctions assessed made any difference in the way they company does business?

Even the Enron deal...its gotton to the point that the justice dept really dosnt even know who to prosecute, they just lit out after Ken Lay for the press value.

Did UP, CSX and NS do the things mentiones in the reports?

Who knows, what we have been shown is information taken from court reports, and then edited again by the reporters to back up their story.

Taken out of context, just about any testimoney, when reworded or edited, can be used to make anyone look bad.

That said, I am pretty sure most of the incidents mentioned did happen, but are reported out of context.

Even if they wern't, I still doubt that such actions are corporate policy.

All of us in the industry have seen middle management make stupendiously stupid decisions.

Trainmasters often do the dumbest things.

If the top brass chose not to enforce their own guidlines, and leave it up to the middle management, then things like what was reported will continue to happen.

None of which ever relives the general public of the responsibility of following the three simple grade crossing rules...
Stop.
Look.
Listen.

Ed

[Mookie]

Nice picture of CSX # 2657 in the Omaha Weird Herald. Won't go into the whole story, but two things.

1: They wondered why the police didn't notify the authorities about the rail accidents instead of relying on the railroads to do it.

2: They said that bottom line was people have to take responsibility. I disagree. That would come under looking out for # 1 and some common sense. We all know those two things don't exist in the present. We have gotten to be a nation of people needing a babysitter so we don't fall and go boom and common sense is a disease you want to avoid.

Growl....

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Dan,
One of the first rules of action, when being sued, is...
Shut up.
The burden of proof rest entirely on the plaintiff.
Under the law, you, as the defendant do not have to say a single thing in your defense, you are not required to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt.
As long as you dont open your mouth and say anything that might be used against you, the person bringing suit has to do the leg work.
Ms. Blackwell is doing exactly what she is paid to do, admit as little as she can, by saying a whole bunch of nothing.

I agree. I guess I need to clarify. Seems companies that know they are guilty have no comment. Companies that aren't sure, spin out a release and mouthy spokesfolks that say alot...but absolutely nothing. Ms Blackwell kind of struck me as wishy washy....tried to say something and nothing and came off as less than polished.....However (and this just came to me as I am writing this) , that being said...she may be an incredibly effective speaker, and after all..we are just seeing the quotes the NYT chose to include...... If I were with UPs PR dept.....(and I know some folks are going to be offended by this) I would have a black or hispanic female in the mid 50s as my spokesperson and go on the offensive about personal responsbility and such ...in a firm grandmotherly, that makes folks feel stupid for treating a RR crossing like walking across the hall. But that's why I'm in the business of breaking things.....you don't have to say sorry too often.

[Anonymous]

I'm a cop in rural Alabama near a fairly busy NS line. In the past year I've watched a friend's daughter go to the hospital for racing a train across a crossing. (She's now capable of sitting up and eating lunch on her own.) Near my church, a 17 year old tried to beat a train across an ungated (but marked) crossing... and lost. Fatally. That's one near miss and a fatality in a fairly small area of Alabama. The Alabama State Troopers do the investigations on all fatalities, and they are the ones who collect the evidence. They are the ones who have the special training to investigate traffic accidents. Most folks don't realize that cops are the ones who are responsible for collecting, storing, and preserving evidence. So, I have to wonder why people blame railroads for "destroying evidence?" Especially when railroads, like people, have a constitutional right not to incriminate themselves.

As far as bad reputations go, railroads have had bad reps for over a century. I don't think a spin doctor could do much with Cornelius Vanderbilt saying "The public be damned." (The quote, like much else that occurs in the media, was taken out of context. He was talking about passenger service and the more profitable side of the business, running freight. We are repeating history....)

The fact of the matter is that railroads and streets don't go well together. You will have fatalities occur at any crossing, because the vast majority of drivers all over the world are lethal weapons behind the wheel of a car. If nothing else, the article pointed out that railroads and street crossings are dangerous places to be. Considering the NY Times reading audience is primarily aimed at folks who live comfortably along the NEC (which probably doesn't have grade crossings where the ACELA runs...) it is at least a cautionary reminder. Maybe, just maybe, it will wake up local legislators who have been sitting on their butts and don't see bridging or tunneling grade crossings as sufficiently sexy.

Cynic that I am, I kinda doubt it. It's easier to believe that UP, CSX, BNSF, and NS are evil, money grubbing, deep pocketed American corporations a la Enron.

Erik

[Randy Stahl]

In my view the spokes person for the UP did not say nothing as perhaps she should have done. The UP already has 7 sanctions against them the explanations Ms Blackwell gave were not competant. Having been involved in MANY grade crossing injury investigations with and with out fatalitys I do know that I am intructed to cooperate with the local police and law enforcement to the best of my ability. If I download an event recorder and a police officer is standing right there I must give him the information that he wants regarding train speed, horn, bell etc. The bottom line is the class one RRs have everyone stretched so damn thin that a road foremans territory might extend 1000 miles, how prompt of a response do you think there will be in the event of an accident?
You can have mechanical people download the engine at the next servicing, but once the loco is moved from the accident location the collision log is lost more often what happens is it just gets forgotten about. The RRs are innocent but their not doing a good job proving it. How dare the UP take a cavalier approach to this issue, issuing Ill informed statements etc. this reflects badly on me and all railroaders. I am a competant railroader, not a criminal like the NY times likes to think.
Randy