To watch and listen to the almost hysterical responses, I have to wonder if we are all reading the same report? Just how "thoughtful" is it to accuse a research engineer of engaging in "junk science" rather than specifically dispute the assumptions and contentions of the report.? Last I looked, the use of that phrase is typical of political types without any qualifications who attempt to dismiss scientific research because it disagrees with their vested interests. I am not all that certain the report has any practical benefit or not, but having less bias and inflammatory reactions is the only rational way to examine it, IMO.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm To watch and listen to the almost hysterical responses, I have to wonder if we are all reading the same report? Just how "thoughtful" is it to accuse a research engineer of engaging in "junk science" rather than specifically dispute the assumptions and contentions of the report.? Last I looked, the use of that phrase is typical of political types without any qualifications who attempt to dismiss scientific research because it disagrees with their vested interests. I am not all that certain the report has any practical benefit or not, but having less bias and inflammatory reactions is the only rational way to examine it, IMO.
When a "research engineer" does not publish the exact methodologies of his testing along with specific results of those methodologies of testing that can be replicated by others in the same field of research if falls into the junk pile.
The 'report' smacks me as something I would have written in college trying to impress the instructor that I was smarter than I am.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wherever this concept goes, I don’t see its future rising or falling just on this one report. There is no law that says you have to offer your entire concept for peer review right out of the box. Obviously, they are not even at that point in the concept yet. But even as it is, they have already laid a lot on the table in concrete terms. They have made a clear proposal. If all you scientists who want peer review would look at what the report says, there is plenty to critique in concrete terms. You don’t need the whole thing just to get started.
I think that the most interesting aspect of this concept is the relieving of the railroads from liability. Do you honestly believe that as a first step, this report should have come out with an A to Z strategy for making this profound legal change so it can be reviewed by experts? I have no idea of whether this liability relief would be possible, but it seems to me that the report makes a fair case for it. It also makes a compelling case for a sea change in crossing protection starting with getting crossings out of the hands of the private railroads and into the public sector.
It is only a proposal, not the results of conducted experiments. As such it follows the standard format, including an indication of methods for evaluation of all aspects, technology and costs, in chapter 4. hardly "junk science." You folks who are so negative are jumping the gun in your critique. And Ed, please do not put words in quotes and make an attribution as though they were the opinions of others. It is quite dishonest. I am not attacking anyone because they disagree with me. I do not favor change for change's sake. As i said, I do not have an opinion as to whether or not the proposal has any merit. I just think folks should have a more open mind about proposals.
BaltACDThe 'report' smacks me as something I would have written in college trying to impress the instructor that I was smarter than I am.
Had you written this report in college perhaps your instructor would have been impressed. And perhaps he would have been correct to be impressed.
What makes anyone think the public sector wants any more liability for crossings than they already have?
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
zugmannWhat makes anyone think the public sector wants any more liability for crossings than they already have?
Well maybe it would just be a matter of public fairness to not punish the railroads for the fact that trains are hard to stop.
I'll keep this relatively nonpolitical.
Note that this issue was the nominal cause (circa 1928) of the de-emphasis of automatic train control under the provisions of the Esch Act. And people are still confused about what to do with it.
The 'correct' situation is to privatize the warning installations (with public subsidy where deemed in the public interest) for any private crossing... and shift the liability from the railroads over to private owner(s) or to any municipality or other party which wants to keep that crossing open.
Bucyrus zugmannWhat makes anyone think the public sector wants any more liability for crossings than they already have? Well maybe it would just be a matter of public fairness to not punish the railroads for the fact that trains are hard to stop.
I still think a few well-thought out tort reform laws would be more beneficial. I don't see the various towns, hamlets, counties, cities, townships, boroughs and villages really lining up to take on more liability. Be one heck of a fight, for sure.
zugmannI still think a few well-thought out tort reform laws would be more beneficial. I don't see the various towns, hamlets, counties, cities, townships, boroughs and villages really lining up to take on more liability. Be one heck of a fight, for sure.
Where is Jim Hill now that we need him?
zugmannI still think a few well-thought out tort reform laws would be more beneficial. I don't see the various towns, hamlets, counties, cities, townships, boroughs and villages really lining up to take on more liability.
I don’t think the proposal is for the public sector to assume the liability. It is to simply eliminate the liability, so the railroads no longer bear it. Additionally, the public sector would assume all ownership and cost associated with owning and operating the crossings. I understand your point about cities and counties not wanting to assume any more cost, but I believe this would be handled a national basis.
I don’t know who pays for what now, but if the public sector has to assume new costs that result from the railroads being relived of crossing ownership, then maybe they tax the railroads to recover those costs.
Let's put forth the typical accident scenario between two automobiles:
You've just run a red light and been broadsided by another car. Assuming you are not in a 'no fault state' it's your liability insurance that's going to take on the onus of payment. Now, you try, and fail, to beat the train that has right of way and you've run a stop signal in the process.
Shouldn't the same burden fall on the motorist when struck by a train?
Norm
BucyrusI don’t know who pays for what now, but if the public sector has to assume new costs that result from the railroads being relived of crossing ownership, then maybe they tax the railroads to recover those costs.
I'm just a bystander here with no special knowledge of economic factors involved in grade crossings.
Having said that, if I were in a policy making position for any railroad the very last thing I would do is to invite local, county or state government to increase taxes on my road. Any railroad must find it a real challenge just to keep up with all of the taxing authorities it must deal with. And all of those taxing authorities have demands for more services than they can afford. There is no way for the railroad to come out even in that situation.
I understand, but the taxing would only be if the public sector found itself assuming new costs that it had not previously borne. Assuming that the railroads had been liberated from those costs in the changeover, the public sector would be justified in recovering them through a tax increase on the railroads.
But aside from that, the railroads will be liberated from liability cost, so they should receive a very large net gain in the deal.
Somehow the real point of the proposal seems lost. Tort reform is an essential means (elimination of liability for the railroads or governments for crossing accidents) along with better technology that is less costly. The objective is improved crossing safety, primarily by better protection for what are currently passive crossings.
Since this thread is mentioning grade crossing liability, I do have ta question. If a railroad is sued do to train injuring/killing a motorist who run through/ignored crossing warnings, can/does the railroad counter sue for costs such as countsoling for train crew/damage to equipment?
Ungern
Bucyrus But aside from that, the railroads will be liberated from liability cost, so they should receive a very large net gain in the deal.
If there was a magic wand that *poof* could eliminate RR crossing liability, I'd be first in line to wave it.
But we have government comprised mostly of lawyers.
There will be no magic wand.
Oh, I don’t think there is a magic wand. The only question I see is whether it is possible. I do not conclude that the fact that congress is made up of lawyers would preclude this from happening. They may have the interests of lawyers, but they also have larger callings that could be served by a national grade crossing program.
Bucyrus Oh, I don’t think there is a magic wand. The only question I see is whether it is possible. I do not conclude that the fact that congress is made up of lawyers would preclude this from happening. They may have the interests of lawyers, but they also have larger callings that could be served by a national grade crossing program.
Nobody is going to willingly accept liability. So long as liability is in question it becomes a tort question and no lawyer is going to refuse to go for the gold. When pigs (other than GEICO's) fly is when road crossing liability will change.
No one is saying anybody would willingly accept liability. What was said was that the specific liability for grade crossings would be banned, as it has been in many nations. Observing the tortured rationales to dismiss this idea, I wonder if there is some largely unspoken agenda, perhaps the transfer of construction and maintenance to outside contractors?
If all it takes is to ban the specific liability for grade crossings, why not just pass that that ban tomorrow, and POOF! problem solved. In a similar vein, why don't we make the driver liable for damages caused by the vehicle he or she is driving? Wouldn't that put some responsibility on the driver to learn how to be safe around crossings?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I am not qualified to provide an answer as to whether or not the acceptance of liability can be changed. But I would be amazed if it is just a simple matter of doing it or not doing it. Not being able to say what is possible, I am also unable to say what is not possible. However, it does strike me as unreasonable to believe that the assumption of liability cannot be changed. Man made it, so man can change it.
From the report:
“For instance, Italian federal law holds that a grade crossing accident — any grade crossing accident between a roadway vehicle and a train — is the fault of the motorist. There is no room under this system for the case to be made that, while the motorist ignored the posted warning signs, there were good reasons he did so and the railroad is responsible for contributing to the conditions under which the accident occurred.”
If they can do this in Italy, I would not be surprised if we can do it too. I certainly don’t think it would be easy to get done. There would be a lot resistance.
But I would be amazed if the railroad industry would all jump on the bandwagon of “it can’t be done, so we are against it.”
BucyrusBut I would be amazed if the railroad industry would all jump on the bandwagon of “it can’t be done, so we are against it.”
Call me cynical, Bucyrus, but IMO there is some other unspoken reason for the objections besides just that (or the supposed technical deficiencies of newer technologies).
As has been alluded to in some of the above posts, the grade crossing liability issue is closely tied to tort reform. Several attempts at tort reform in various states have been passed by state legislatures, with the usual outcome being that such reform acts have been stricken as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Courts.
schlimm BucyrusBut I would be amazed if the railroad industry would all jump on the bandwagon of “it can’t be done, so we are against it.” Call me cynical, Bucyrus, but IMO there is some other unspoken reason for the objections besides just that (or the supposed technical deficiencies of newer technologies).
I would opine that with regard to tort reform, most folks have a lot of cynicism that such a measure could be successfully passed in this country, even though the same folks feel it's necessary. "When pigs fly."
Regarding the replacement technologies, even the report noted that a number of the suggested solutions were less than optimal, or, if made as reliable as existing technologies represented no cost savings.
I would further opine that without tort reform (or a law like that cited in Italy), there would be no change from the status quo possible.
If tort reform were enacted which limited or eliminated the liability of the railroad (and maybe the municipalities as well) then lesser forms of warning could easily be implemented, since they would be seen as an adjunct rather than the main form of crossing protection. As it stands now, the public expects to be "protected" from those big bad trains with little responsibility on themselves to take the appropriate action.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
When the report speaks making alternate components that are less reliable, it sounds like the public will be less protected. However, the premise of the report is that components are more reliable than they need to be. They clearly say that; and they give the reason why it is true.
So I assume that when they talk about reducing reliability, they are only talking about trimming fat so to speak; and not suggesting a system that will have more incidents of failure-to-activate, or leave the public less protected than before the cost reduction.
Reducing reliability isn't a factor until you're the victim of a failure.
At what point does that become acceptable?
I just explained that there will not be any victims of failure due to the cost reduction because it is not intended to reduce the needed reliability. It only reduces the extra, un-needed reliability.
The "extra, un-needed reliability" (!?!) Is there because of a fear of lawsuits. Who in their right mind would come out and say that they are removing some of the perceived "extra" reliability in the name of cost cutting?
Bucyrus When the report speaks making alternate components that are less reliable, it sounds like the public will be less protected. However, the premise of the report is that components are more reliable than they need to be. They clearly say that; and they give the reason why it is true. So I assume that when they talk about reducing reliability, they are only talking about trimming fat so to speak; and not suggesting a system that will have more incidents of failure-to-activate, or leave the public less protected than before the cost reduction.
ANY safety product that is KNOWINGLY made less reliable is by definition less safe. I am sure you would jump at the chance to buy a vehicle whose air bags would operate 98% of the times they were needed 'on average', along with seat belts that only failed 2% of the time 'on average', and I am sure you would accept the liability claims that would result from all the savings from making the product less safe and reliable.
Ask Ford how all those savings from Pinto fuel tanks worked for them.
When it comes to safety, trimmed 'fat' is viewed as being making the product less safe. PERIOD
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.