No, I meant the authorities quoted in the article. You are the one trying to twist my posts to meet your views.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann I bet convicted one will get all giddy at this post...
I bet convicted one will get all giddy at this post...
WOW, you get huffy easily, don't you?
deleted (unintentional second post)
zugmann Nope. You twisted my words. Or more acuratley, you ignored one key word: THOSE But your hatred of cops clouded your judgment. I expected nothing less.
Nope. You twisted my words. Or more acuratley, you ignored one key word:
THOSE
But your hatred of cops clouded your judgment. I expected nothing less.
More accurately, you must mean "those" who fail to agree with you on this point?
I do not think that a reflective stripe transfers liability. If anything, it may reduce liability as just about every other transportation mode uses the concept with regularity. For example, state police here use a set of yellow/black reflective stripes on their rear bumpers. So if I go out and hit a local police car, can I blame it on the state police?
Granted, the police issue isn't a regulation, but you know it was only an amount of time before that reflective stripes were coming. After all, CP cars have had them for ages.
zugmann Hard to see is not impossible to see. Slight difference that I have explained many times in several threads. YOu don't agree with the FRA's reasoning; that's fine. Let me ask you Bucyrus - do you believe these drivers bear any responsibility at all in hitting this train?
Hard to see is not impossible to see. Slight difference that I have explained many times in several threads. YOu don't agree with the FRA's reasoning; that's fine.
Let me ask you Bucyrus - do you believe these drivers bear any responsibility at all in hitting this train?
Just to clarify:
I do not agree with the FRA's reasoning. I think it is fuzzy-minded and touchy-feelie. I also do not think they have thought through what is implied in their placing of the responsibility for hitting trains onto the railroads.
And I do believe that the drivers who hit the tank cars in this latest incident are 100% at fault for the crashes.
These two postions are consistent with each other.
Convicted One no "twist" was required. It's common for people to support authority whenever it suits them, and disdain it when it don't. Welcome to the club.
no "twist" was required. It's common for people to support authority whenever it suits them, and disdain it when it don't. Welcome to the club.
It was not a description of every authority, and didn't even have to pertain to law enforcement officials. Many people can be an "authority" and not be a cop. But your hatred of cops clouded your judgment. I expected nothing less.
Hard to see is not impossible to see. Slight difference that I have explained many times in several threads. You don't agree with the FRA's reasoning; that's fine.
zugmann schlimm: In today's Trib: "Authorities say it's likely the drivers couldn't see the train cars in the dark or without any other safeguards." If those "authorities" conclusions are accurate (and they were at the scene of the accident, a fact which no one on this thread can claim, then it is not surprising that the train would be hit (remember, it was it from opposite sides in two independent events), even by non-idiot drivers. Those authorities are full of crap. I guess we should all just blindly fly down all roads, completely oblivious to what may be in front of us... To hell with personal responsibility. I need flashing lights and a singing telegram for me to pay attention as I operate my multi-ton vehicle. What a country!
schlimm: In today's Trib: "Authorities say it's likely the drivers couldn't see the train cars in the dark or without any other safeguards." If those "authorities" conclusions are accurate (and they were at the scene of the accident, a fact which no one on this thread can claim, then it is not surprising that the train would be hit (remember, it was it from opposite sides in two independent events), even by non-idiot drivers.
In today's Trib: "Authorities say it's likely the drivers couldn't see the train cars in the dark or without any other safeguards."
If those "authorities" conclusions are accurate (and they were at the scene of the accident, a fact which no one on this thread can claim, then it is not surprising that the train would be hit (remember, it was it from opposite sides in two independent events), even by non-idiot drivers.
Those authorities are full of crap. I guess we should all just blindly fly down all roads, completely oblivious to what may be in front of us...
To hell with personal responsibility. I need flashing lights and a singing telegram for me to pay attention as I operate my multi-ton vehicle. What a country!
Well then the FRA is full of crap too because they have published extensive reasoning why drivers have a hard time seeing trains at night.
From CYBERDRIVEILLINOIS website:
"A driver may not enter a highway railroad crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the crossing to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing passage of a train or other railroad equipment using the rails. Violators are subject to a $500 fine or 50 hours of community service and a one-month suspension of driving privileges."
Nance-CCABW/LEI
“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” --Will Rogers
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right! --unknown
Stop the trolling, convicted. You know dam well what I meant. No need to twist my words to fit your screwed-up anti-law enforcement opinion.
Bucyrus Here, the train is sitting on the tracks, not moving, already occupying the crossing. Big difference. You can't compare the two. I am not asking you to compare the two. I am asking whether Katie Lunn broke the Illinois law by not yielding to trains at the crossing; or whether she was in innocent victim of the signal maintainers' mistake in deactivating the signals. Which is it?
Here, the train is sitting on the tracks, not moving, already occupying the crossing. Big difference. You can't compare the two.
I am not asking you to compare the two.
I am asking whether Katie Lunn broke the Illinois law by not yielding to trains at the crossing; or whether she was in innocent victim of the signal maintainers' mistake in deactivating the signals. Which is it?
Is there an Illinois law that specifies how long a stopped train may block a road intersection? Perhaps the train was an outlaw as well? Then a proportionate share of responsibility would fall onto each party.
zugmann Those authorities are full of crap.
Those authorities are full of crap.
I thought you liked "authorities"?
Something, I believe, yet to be mentioned here is that when I was taught to drive, you were to have your vehicle under control at all times, using speed reasonable and prudent for conditions. 'Darkness ' and 'railroad crossing' are both conditions. If the street dips/tips that much, that, too, would be a 'condition.' And there's still the law, which requires, not suggests, drivers to yield to trains, unless I miss my guess.
Yes, apparently the lights/gates were not working, but still...come on.
Sawtooth500 The big difference is that Katie Lunn didn't drive into anything - the crossing was clear as she was driving but just as she happened upon it Amtrak hit her. So really she didn't see the train and should have been protected by the crossing gates. Here, the train is sitting on the tracks, not moving, already occupying the crossing. Big difference. You can't compare the two.
The big difference is that Katie Lunn didn't drive into anything - the crossing was clear as she was driving but just as she happened upon it Amtrak hit her. So really she didn't see the train and should have been protected by the crossing gates.
If a jury totally disregards the relevant statutes in reaching a decision, it would be an easy appeal.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus In a thread about that, somebody here was adamant that a signal failure to activate would mean that the railroad was at fault, and that every court in Illinois would agree with that.
I'd hate to speculate on what results from a jury trial in any case similiar to these. Too many times it's less of who the law says is in the right and more on which side is more convincing. The big bad corporation trying to grab every cent they can no matter who they run over, or the motorist just out driving along innocently minding there own business.
Jeff
schlimm In today's Trib: "Authorities say it's likely the drivers couldn't see the train cars in the dark or without any other safeguards." If those "authorities" conclusions are accurate (and they were at the scene of the accident, a fact which no one on this thread can claim, then it is not surprising that the train would be hit (remember, it was it from opposite sides in two independent events), even by non-idiot drivers.
StillGrande The driver interviewed mentioned that the crossing was elevated and the trains were against the sky from the street. His sightlines, probably some distance before the impact, showed a clear street in front of him.
The driver interviewed mentioned that the crossing was elevated and the trains were against the sky from the street. His sightlines, probably some distance before the impact, showed a clear street in front of him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The driver is just trying to justify (maybe to himself?) WHY he hit a stopped train. Either he was out-driving his headlights, or he wasn't paying attention. Otherwise, he wouldn't have hit a tank car.
Bottom line: those drivers screwed up. It happens - we are only human. None of us is perfect. Who among us hasn't taken a curve a few mph faster than we should have, or missed a stop sign on an unfamiliar road, or went through a yellow light when we should have stopped? Tee drivers survived - so they should thank their lord of choice and move on with a valuable lesson learned.
Just sayin'.
Bucyrus So which way is it? Was the Katie Lunn crash just another moron problem, or was she an innocent victim?
So which way is it? Was the Katie Lunn crash just another moron problem, or was she an innocent victim?
Probably a little from "column A" and a little from "column B".
Just because some one fails to observe a safety law, in not cart blanche to do to them whatever one might.
If you rear-end a drunk driver stopped at a traffic light, does the fact that he was OWI absolve you from responsibility?
I am loathe to read too much into the visibility at the time of impact of either car by the photo provided as it was taken after a number of emergency vehicles had arrived at the scene, so the lighting conditions are not identical.
The driver interviewed mentioned that the crossing was elevated and the trains were against the sky from the street. His sightlines, probably some distance before the impact, showed a clear street in front of him. I doubt his mind even processed what the short yellow floating stripes were to either side of the impact point. It did not fit with the expected view, so his mind simply ignored it. People do this all the time (yes, even you).
The second car hit between the two. Trying to say the wheels were reflective from a flash shot at night is a good try, but I doubt they reflected much back to the driver on that side. They are seeing the street in front of them. They probably thought they hit a blacked out auto rather than a train.
The white car next to the tankers actually works against the driver. They would see the car stopped and more visible, drawing their fleeting attention to that rather than the car in the crossing. All visual information to them would be the train is clear and stopped anyway. Again, the small reflectors would be above the sightlines and smaller than the large white object.
If the fusee lasts 10 minutes, then there is a good chance it had burned out beforehand.
If there were cars before them that had turned around and were going the other way on the street, that would be another visual cue to the drivers that the crossing was clear (traffic the other way).
You are going to have a heck of an argument that the drivers were "outdriving" their headlights at 35 mph, even if the speed limit is 30 there.
Peoples' brains are wired to look for the usual, not the unusual. That is why this works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4
If the signals had been out for a significant time, the railroad is going to have a hard time convincing a jury of drivers that they did everything they could to prevent the collision.
Just saying.
The way I read the Illinois law, drivers are required to yield to trains at signalized crossings even when the signals are inactivated. According to that, there can be no excuse for either getting hit by a train or running into a train if the signals fail to activate for any reason. Operation Lifesaver has told me that is the law of the land and applies everywhere.
Last September, Katie Lunn was killed by an Amtrak train in Chicago because signal maintainers had mistakenly de-activated the crossing signals.
In a thread about that, somebody here was adamant that a signal failure to activate would mean that the railroad was at fault, and that every court in Illinois would agree with that.
greyhounds It's not as bad as I thought. The crossing signals didn't fail to activate. They had been deactivated intentionally. But still, there were four people seriously hurt and in the hospital. Time to find a better way.
It's not as bad as I thought. The crossing signals didn't fail to activate. They had been deactivated intentionally. But still, there were four people seriously hurt and in the hospital. Time to find a better way.
From a liability point of view, having the crossing protection INTENTIONALLY disabled looks far worse than if it had simply malfunctioned.
schlimm MP173: Not sure under which rulebook the railroad was operating on, but the CSX rule 100J states: "When equipment is standing and obscuring highway traffic's view, an employee must protect the highway traffic against movement on adjacent tracks." Further it states "Activation Failure - with no flagger/no police - MUST STOP. Crew member flag traffic and reboard." Ed Rather a different set of duties for the rail crew than some posters have suggested.
MP173: Not sure under which rulebook the railroad was operating on, but the CSX rule 100J states: "When equipment is standing and obscuring highway traffic's view, an employee must protect the highway traffic against movement on adjacent tracks." Further it states "Activation Failure - with no flagger/no police - MUST STOP. Crew member flag traffic and reboard." Ed
Not sure under which rulebook the railroad was operating on, but the CSX rule 100J states:
"When equipment is standing and obscuring highway traffic's view, an employee must protect the highway traffic against movement on adjacent tracks."
Further it states "Activation Failure - with no flagger/no police - MUST STOP. Crew member flag traffic and reboard."
Ed
Rather a different set of duties for the rail crew than some posters have suggested.
How so? Unless I've missed a post, all who've touched on the subject pretty much say the same thing. Train stops, crewmember gets on the ground to warn traffic until the crossing is occupied. Once fulfilled, crewmember gets back on and train goes on.
Are you're talking about the standing equipment blocking vision of adjacent tracks in Ed's post? That concerns equipment stopped close to, but not totally on a crossing. Not equipment that is completely occupying the crossing.
greyhounds This is the best report I've seen on the incident yet. http://www.suntimes.com/3814240-417/no-flashing-lights-or-gates-before-freight-train-crash-witness-says.html [snip] According to this the crossing circuit had been compromised by the snow and salt applied to the road surfaces. So the railroad did the "responsible thing" (an FRA type said) and took the lights and gates out of service. Otherwise they'd fail safe and block the road continuously. I don't know how the railroad would "fix" an abundance of salt in the ground. The crew flagged the crossing and left burning fussees on the road. Reports differ, naturally, as to whether the fussees were still burning when the autos ran in to the train. It's not as bad as I thought. The crossing signals didn't fail to activate. They had been deactivated intentionally. But still, there were four people seriously hurt and in the hospital. Time to find a better way.
http://www.suntimes.com/3814240-417/no-flashing-lights-or-gates-before-freight-train-crash-witness-says.html
[snip] According to this the crossing circuit had been compromised by the snow and salt applied to the road surfaces. So the railroad did the "responsible thing" (an FRA type said) and took the lights and gates out of service. Otherwise they'd fail safe and block the road continuously. I don't know how the railroad would "fix" an abundance of salt in the ground.
The crew flagged the crossing and left burning fussees on the road. Reports differ, naturally, as to whether the fussees were still burning when the autos ran in to the train.
Yep - this is the proverbial "hard case" either way, but some other meaures could have been taken - such as have a full-time flagman or an 'on-call' signal maintainer, brakeman, or trainmaster/ supervisor type there to either 'flag' or manually activate the crossing signals, etc.
Longer term, maybe have these things capable of essentially manual activation and shut-off in such abnormal cases at/ by either the box at the crossing, phone line, addressable radio, or computer control by the train crew or Dispatcher, etc.
- Paul North.
MP173 Not sure under which rulebook the railroad was operating on, but the CSX rule 100J states: "When equipment is standing and obscuring highway traffic's view, an employee must protect the highway traffic against movement on adjacent tracks." Further it states "Activation Failure - with no flagger/no police - MUST STOP. Crew member flag traffic and reboard." Ed
Bottom line: You are a moron if you out-drive your headlights.
Period.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.