NY Times investigates RR accidents in expose

[jeaton]

MC-Thanks for bringing this back. I was on the road and didn't have a chance to follow the thread when it came up.

I, as many, felt that the article was an ambush. Find the relatively rare event where the railroads and/or regulators might be culpable and make it sound like it is the norm. Objectivity would have suggested that the reporters should have looked at the few reports suggesting railroad error and questioned if it goes on all the time. It appears they decided that it goes on all the time and then started their investigation. Either that, or after completing the investigation, they realized they didn't have a really hot story, and had to write so they wouldn't get hell from the Times' editors for wasting time and money on a "puff piece". As for quality editorial oversight at the Times, does "Fabrication" ring a bell?

The railroads were kind of stuck and had to use some care with their damage control, but I think the FRA was definately intitled to come out with guns blazing.

Jay

[tree68]

Way to go FRA! Unfortunately, none of the "regular" people who read the NYT article will ever see this response. Maybe we should take up a collection to run a full page ad of it in the NYT.

[mudchicken]

Sorry to bring this to the top again, but FRA took the gloves off and called NYT on the carpet for their blatant cheap shot:

http://www.fra.dot.gov

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/PubAffairs/NYT%20Grade%20Crossing%20Issue%20Brieffinal.pdf

(for those of you with .pdf readers_)

[edblysard]

Guys,
Keep in mind, just like what was stated, Ms Blackwell's statements are taken out of context.
If you think about it, well, play this game.
Go back through any of the posting, on just about any subject we have discussed.
Take only sentences that make the writer sound stupid, leave out anything else.

Did you try?

Easy, aint it!

You dont get to read the question the reporter asked the lady, nor do you get to read her entire reply.

I agree with dan though, UP ought to hire a minority female spokesperson.

Have her explain, on a TV add, how dangerous it is around train tracks and crossings.
Set the tone of a well loved highschool teacher explaining why, oh, smoking is bad for you.
Stress the
Stop, Look and Listen (or Live) slogan, heck its plastered on a lot of locomotives.

I also would purchase a full page ad, directly across from the page the reports appear on, itemizing every thing UP has done to improve grade crossings.
Get aggresive.

They wont, of course, flying under the public radar is the norm for railroads.

Ed

[edblysard]

Guys,
Keep in mind, just like what was stated, Ms Blackwell's statements are taken out of context.
If you think about it, well, play this game.
Go back through any of the posting, on just about any subject we have discussed.
Take only sentences that make the writer sound stupid, leave out anything else.

Did you try?

Easy, aint it!

You dont get to read the question the reporter asked the lady, nor do you get to read her entire reply.

I agree with dan though, UP ought to hire a minority female spokesperson.

Have her explain, on a TV add, how dangerous it is around train tracks and crossings.
Set the tone of a well loved highschool teacher explaining why, oh, smoking is bad for you.
Stress the
Stop, Look and Listen (or Live) slogan, heck its plastered on a lot of locomotives.

I also would purchase a full page ad, directly across from the page the reports appear on, itemizing every thing UP has done to improve grade crossings.
Get aggresive.

They wont, of course, flying under the public radar is the norm for railroads.

Ed

[TH&B]

 
Posts: 102

Joined: 04 Jun 2004

Location: roundhouse



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


And I say "the way other people drive makes me ashamed to be a driver !"

[Randy Stahl]

Gee now how hard was that!!!! A much better response than the UP!!!!!
Randy

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: CSX President Michael Ward's Response

Yesterday and today, the New York Times published lengthy articles on
grade
crossing safety and accident reporting by U.S. railroads, focusing
primarily
on Union Pacific and CSX Transportation. For those of you who have not
seen
the articles, you can read them at the New York Times' website at
www.nytimes.com <http://www.nytimes.com>.
Today's story highlights certain issues that should have been handled
better
by our company related to a 1997 grade crossing fatality involving
17-year-old Hilary Feaster. And while those issues did not lead to the
tragic death of Miss Feaster, we do believe they led to her family's
anger
and sorrow over the tragedy, and we deeply and sincerely regret that.
At the same time, CSXT has done exactly what responsible and decent
companies do when they make mistakes - we have learned and improved; and
that is what is missing from today's story.
As each of you know, CSXT is dedicated to safety in all aspects of
operations, and to preventing grade crossing collisions. The results of
our
efforts speak for themselves: In the last 10 years, train miles on CSXT
have
increased 62% and vehicle miles traveled in the United States have
increased
26%. Yet during the same period, grade crossing accidents on CSXT have
decreased 34%. Our efforts are working.
Last year, CSXT spent over $70 million in grade crossing and signal
maintenance and conducted more than 14,000 man-hours of training for our
more than 1,000 professionals who inspect and maintain grade crossing
signals. And in the last three years, long before the Times began its
inquiry, we have further strengthened our grade crossing and public
safety
efforts with these programs:
* Clear Cutting of Vegetation: We have spent nearly $30
million to clear trees and vegetation along CSX's right-of-way, at
public
grade crossings equipped with so-called "passive" traffic control
devices
(commonly referred to as "crossbucks"). The program's goal is to further
enhance visibility for the motoring public.

* Key FRA Reporting Shifted to Audit: Reporting of key
incidents to the Federal Railroad Administration has been shifted from
the
Operations group to Internal Audit to ensure independence and to take
advantage of Audit's analytical tools. That shift covers employee injury
reporting, train accident reporting and grade crossing collision
reporting.

* Public Safety Communications: In addition to support of
Operation Lifesaver, in which many of you and our retired employees
participate, we have recently launched a high-impact advertising
campaign on
crossing safety. Last week, The Wall Street Journal praised the
campaign. We
have also distributed a new videotape to driver and bus driver education
programs throughout our system.
In addition, CSXT has worked with local and state governments to close
duplicative or otherwise unnecessary crossings, and that effort
continues
today. We have also prevented collisions with the industry's first
installation of stalled vehicle signs at all of our crossings. These
signs
provide the direct toll-free line to our Police Communications Center,
which
has been co-located at the Operations Center for better coordination and
communication. Other railroads have now installed their own stalled
vehicle
signs to enhance crossing safety.
These efforts are consistent with meeting our responsibilities at grade
crossings and in reporting all accidents in accordance with federal
regulations and in an accurate and timely fashion. They also represent
the
continued evolution of our reporting and safety practices. I am sure
there
will be systems in place five years from now that are not in place today
-
just as there are processes in place now that weren't in place five
years
ago. That is because we are always on a path of continuous improvement.
All of this is the work of a company and an industry that cares about
safety
- about the safety of its employees, the residents of communities in
which
we operate, and certainly the motoring public. I am disappointed that
the
New York Times chose to highlight isolated cases and examples that are
not
consistent with the overall performance, practices and grade crossing
safety
record of our company.
Critical stories like these in newspapers as prominent as the New York
Times
are always difficult, particularly for a company that is as committed to
safety as we are. But it does not diminish our commitment to safety nor
the
results we have achieved together.
Thank for your daily focus on employee and public safety and for the job
you
are doing for our company everyday.
Michael

[dharmon]

I don't think folks are defending UP as much as they are, at least in my case, defending the RRs as a group. I don't agree with UP's method of enforcing it's trademarks. However, I have and continue to acknowledge that it is within their rights. But at the same time I don't agree with them or any railroad having to pay for someone's inattention or carelessness at a RR crossing. But, if a RR or any company be it trucking, baby food, or whatever, is found to be guilty of gross negligence or tampering, resulting in injury or death, then are at fault, regardless of how much I like or dislike them personally.

[Anonymous]

I have to chime in on this, its just too funny...
A few weeks ago , most people on this (and other message boards) were blasting UP and its management as the second coming of Satan ,for their actions in suing Lionel and Athearn over their trademarks, and now everyone seems to be DEFENDING them for , if the article is accurate, negligence, incompetence, and the unlawful tampering or destruction of evidence at an accident scene. Heck ,for all we know, maybe the reporter is secretly a disgruntled Model railroader for all we know.(LOL!!!) Personally, I think that UP's arrogant "we'll do whatever we damn well please, 'cause we're UP and we don't have to answer to anybody" attitude has finally come around full circle and they're paying for it now. Call it Karmic Justice....
Besides, my money was on CSX to get busted first, for what its worth....given some of the accidents they've had in New York state since the Conrail split up. You'd think they'd be a more opportune target, being practically in the Times back yard.

[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

[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

[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.

[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....

[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

[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.[:(!]

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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

[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.

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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]