FRA Trots Out New Reflector Rule

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by theNomad

LC- I definitly hear ya about "well lit" yards. Just to clarify, I never said I was against reflective tape, only against the government mandating it. The points that have been made about accident prevention ( you'll never know how many you prevented ) are exactly right. I would also agree that the saving of only one life makes the whole effort worthwhile. No question. I guess I'm probably a little too cynical, but it seems to me that the more we do to protect people, the less they do to protect themselves. So many people these days expect Big Brother to look out for them, but even Big Brother can't be everywhere at once. Take the idiot on the bicycle the other day. If we had hit that fool, somehow it would have been our fault. Maybe we should have had a sign that said "Caution, instant death ahead"! I guess what I'm trying to get across here is this: When the government steps in with new rules, there's a perception on the public's part that the railroad industry has to be forced to be safe. Certainly there have been times when that's been true, but those times , thankfully, are gone. Just as certainly, we're not the only ones that are looked at that way. For me, at least , it all comes back to personal responsibility. I'm very much aware of the fact that I'm a long way from being perfect. So are we all. I go out each day and do my level best to do my job safely, but I'm human. I make mistakes. Thank God, I've never made a mistake that hurt anyone, but I've come close. Point is, when I do get my head "where the sun don't shine", I don't blame anyone else for it. It's on me. The problem these days is that with government regulation, public perception, and hungry lawyers, the other guy's mistakes are on me too! That's my real point here. Where is the personal responsibility on the part of the person who drives into the side of the train? Or the guy that drives around the gates? And how, pray tell, are these actions someone else's fault? Oh well, I've been banging this drum long enough now. I'm not trying to say that I'm right, just that this is my perception of things. Everybody that thinks I'm full of beans, by all means, bring it on. I promise to read every comment. --JD

Yeah JD, I hear what you're saying. I don't care much for Gubmint intervention either...

LC

[Anonymous]

Don-- Thanks, good info! I didn't know about the installation issues with this stuff. All the more reason the railroads have fought against it. Obviously, it's more expensive than I thought, even if only in time spent. As you point out, though, the issue is maintainability. That's always been my point. I won't re-ha***he previous discussion, except to agree with you that "If you put it on, you HAVE to maintain it." Failure to do so creates liability, and we certainly don't need more of that. --JD

[oltmannd]

Speaking from my experience at Conrail, we did look at reflective material for locomotives and freight cars in late 1980s. The one issue that kept popping up was the maintainability of the tape. If you put it on, you HAVE to maintain it. You can't rest on the arguement "well, it was better than nothing at all". Maintaining it was part of the whole deal.

There is more to applying this stuff than just rolling on some reflective tape.

In order to keep the material from peeling off and/or delaminating, you have to edge seal it. The best way to do this is to apply it when painting. An alternative is to apply some clear along the edges after you apply it.

Locomotives tend to get repainted every 5 to 10 years and washed several times a month. Freight cars tend to get painted every 20-40 years and never get washed.

Conrail believed that they could apply the reflective material as part of the repainting process and would be able to maintain it in reasonable condition until the next repainting. They did not believe the same to be true for freight cars and therefore chose only to apply it to locomotives - voluntarily.

[Anonymous]

dharmon-- Some excellent points. I think the best among them is the idea that the railroads should have done this themselves a long time ago. I can only speak about our front office, and admittedly it's mostly guesswork, but it seems that the attitude is "We're going to get sued no matter what we do, so don't make any extra effort". I can't say I blame them. I asked my conductor, a guy I've known for ten years or so, what he thought about this. ( This was just a few hours ago.) I knew I could count on him to be an even bigger cynic than me, and he didn't let me down. His response? " Yeah, go ahead and put tape all over everything. Know what'll happen? The first dumb s--t that runs into a train after that will say that he was confused by the reflection!" Worst part of it is, the dumb s--t will sue the railroad, not the FRA. And win. I don't think this kind of attitude is confined to the railroads, and maybe that's the real problem. Certainly, the railroads should have done something like reflector tape on their own. Had they done so, as you said, it wouldn't be an issue now. For all we know, some such thing may have been discussed, but then shot down on the basis of "Why spend the money? It won't keep us from getting sued!" And if, in fact, such discussions have occurred in railroad boardrooms, then how many other industries have had similar ones? OK, I know I'm reaching here, but I'm not reaching all that far. It goes a long way toward explaining why the railroads are willing to be seen as fighting against safety regulations. Again, I can't say I blame them, but I think I'd have approached it a little differently. We're now back where we started. The railroads should have beaten the FRA to the punch, especially since they knew this was coming anyway. By doing so, they would have taken away just a little of the bureaucracy's power over them, and at the same time appeared to be the good guys. How can you lose on that? As for the lawyers, no one wins there. The only good lawyer is one that's working for you, at least until you get his bill. You said it best: "The lawyers will find something. That's what they do." Too true. --JD

[jeaton]

Dan

My sentiments exactly!!

Thanks.

Jay

[dharmon]

JD

Your points are taken and I agree with most. There is almost no way, barring the locomotive falling from a bridge on top of you, to be hit by a train without being on the tracks. And unless you were tied to the tracks by some dastardly fiend with a curly moustache and black hat or some similiar act completely beyond your control..then you are at fault. Period. And I am a huge supporter of personal responsibility, constitutionality and limited regulation.....So do I think the government should have to regulate reflective tape...no, not at all. Because that is something the RRs should have done themselves along time ago, and had they, it wouldn't have become an issue. I would want everyone to see my train, so there is no mistaking what it is and when it's around...public and employees. The object is not to protect people from themselves...a freaking piece of tape isn't going to achieve that..it's to make it more visible, more prominent, stand out against the darkness, particularly in places that don't have gates. Unfortunately it comes to this because industries, not just RRs will do the letter of the law. If the FRA said 8 square feet have to be covered and that's it, then they'd cover eight square feet in the easiest way possible...an 8 sf reflective square on the roof. It requires the gov't to specifically spell out the requirements or the intent will never get met.

Lawyers are going to find something. That's what they do. But the one accident that it does prevent.....the one that will never get any press ...because there was no accident.....will cover the cost of putting the damn tape on the cars. But that is a savings that cannot be shown. I find it remarkable that that RRs would have to be mandated to do this and with things like the NYT articles and "Danger on the Tracks" they'd want to go on record fighting it. And it's not like this is a surprise, either. It's been five years in the making.

As far as interchange goes, I was under the impression that RRs do not have to accept cars that do not meet standards or are damaged, and only bear responsibility for repairs once they do.

[Anonymous]

I have tried very hard not to squeak out a opinion about reflective tape on trains. Here goes.

1- Crossings are marked. Most people especially locals understand how to live and avoid the train at the crossing. The few people who drive around gates that are already down put thier own lives at risk.

2- A train that is blocking the crossing is usually in a area during switching, the truckers who go into these areas are off the beaten path and they understand the danger. Not the commuter who is trying to get to work with other commuters in the morning.

3- Reflective tape on trucks have saved my live as bad weather occured. Once a truck equippted with reflective tape moved across my road and I was able to see the tape and execute the speed reduction prior to seeing the truck itself. If that tape was not on the truck I would be dead today.

Trains dont need reflective tape any more than they need crossings to be well marked and well equippted. I would prefer this:

The money to be spent to replace crossings that allow vehicles to overhang onto tracks like that school bus did some time ago....

And to equipt all crossings with gates and proper markings and signage so EVERYONE traveling towards it will know that there is potential for train activity.l

and finally it is my humble opinion that a TRAIN has the right of way regardless of it's travels versus a car or truck on the road trying to cross against it. The number of accidents prevented by reflective tape is not enough to be justified by the cost.

If they MUST tape those trains then do it along the bottom of every rail car. The grafitti artists will eventaully reduce the effectiveness of the tape and cause further headaches by requiring the tape to be replaced.

There are far more urgent needed things requireing railroadmen's attention and time than stripping off and replacing a 10 dollar roll of tape on a box car that is not at the customer being loaded and rolling.

[Anonymous]

LC- I definitly hear ya about "well lit" yards. Just to clarify, I never said I was against reflective tape, only against the government mandating it. The points that have been made about accident prevention ( you'll never know how many you prevented ) are exactly right. I would also agree that the saving of only one life makes the whole effort worthwhile. No question. I guess I'm probably a little too cynical, but it seems to me that the more we do to protect people, the less they do to protect themselves. So many people these days expect Big Brother to look out for them, but even Big Brother can't be everywhere at once. Take the idiot on the bicycle the other day. If we had hit that fool, somehow it would have been our fault. Maybe we should have had a sign that said "Caution, instant death ahead"! I guess what I'm trying to get across here is this: When the government steps in with new rules, there's a perception on the public's part that the railroad industry has to be forced to be safe. Certainly there have been times when that's been true, but those times , thankfully, are gone. Just as certainly, we're not the only ones that are looked at that way. For me, at least , it all comes back to personal responsibility. I'm very much aware of the fact that I'm a long way from being perfect. So are we all. I go out each day and do my level best to do my job safely, but I'm human. I make mistakes. Thank God, I've never made a mistake that hurt anyone, but I've come close. Point is, when I do get my head "where the sun don't shine", I don't blame anyone else for it. It's on me. The problem these days is that with government regulation, public perception, and hungry lawyers, the other guy's mistakes are on me too! That's my real point here. Where is the personal responsibility on the part of the person who drives into the side of the train? Or the guy that drives around the gates? And how, pray tell, are these actions someone else's fault? Oh well, I've been banging this drum long enough now. I'm not trying to say that I'm right, just that this is my perception of things. Everybody that thinks I'm full of beans, by all means, bring it on. I promise to read every comment. --JD

[Anonymous]

The new Amtrak Superliner Cars have the relective stuff on the bottum of it, I really don't like the look of the new Superliner, I think that It ruins the nice clean look the rest of the Superliner cars show. Also, the new cars don't have the words Superliner on them. And now the words coach class is stencilled where the big black Amtrak used to be. Give me the old paint job any day!
Brad

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

QUOTE:
If I am a railroad that owns few cars yet I receive many in interchange owned by others, and reflective tape is considered a safety appliance I will be on the hook for replacing a lot of reflective tape at my expense over time. I will need additional personnel, inventory of tape and tools (powerwasher at least) and track space on my R.I.P. track for these cars. All of this is at my cost. If I need to pass this through to my customers I will have to raise rates and won't see anything at ther bottom line.

Wouldn't the owner of the equipment be on the hook for the up-grades or repairs?

I know if a sill step or safety appliance is broken, then another railway will fix the item (for a price that is fixed by the AAR) then bill the owner of the equipment, wouldn't it be the same for reflectors?

--It's not like host railways don't have a lot of time to get the tape on there either, all new locmotives and equipment seemed to be equiped with the tape now anyway.

Mac-

I think you may have missed my point.

As I understand the AAR Rules (and I am no mechanical/AAR Billing Expert) if the repairs are to safety appliances you may NOT bill the car owner for them. The railroad making the repairs must absorb the cost of the repairs, in this case replacing failed reflective tape.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by theNomad

LC- Good point about the "invisible" tank car. I know of a lawsuit in California where some dang fool drove around the gates and got clobbered, fortunately by a slow moving train, and STILL won his case. I don't remember all the particulars now ( it was a number of years ago ) but at the time I actually thought about finding a new career. The engineer was named in the suit as a liable party! The way these stinkin' lawyers are now, I'm surprised the dispatcher wasn't named too. Point is, any one of us can be sued by anyone. The hoghead in that case wasn't held liable, but a different jury might well have done otherwise. Forgive me for being a cynic, but close calls are almost a daily occurrence these days, so I dread any new government so-called safety rule. As I said before, I know these things are well intentioned, but I wonder how many of these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young government weenies have even been in a rail yard, let alone in the cab of a locomotive. Such is the nature of bureaucracy, I suppose, but gee, guys, don't you drive a car? If you don't, then I guess I have to cut you some slack, but if you do, then you darn well ought to be aware of how stupid people can be behind the wheel! And that's not even taking pedestrians and bicyclists into account. I had an example of bicycle idiocy no more than a week ago at a suburban grade crossing. Damn fool went around a pedestrian gate so close in front of us that I was just SURE we got him. Thankfully, he made it, but my heart rate probably didn't get back to normal for two days. Worst part of it was, he had stopped at the gate like he was going to wait. Then, at the last possible second, he changed his mind and went for it. We were at track speed ( 38 MPH at that point ) with only 33 cars. Now, how many seconds of time did he risk his life for? Anyway, people, you see where I'm coming from. The bureaucrats can make all the rules they want, but they'll never succede in outlawing stupidity, and no safety device ( other than maybe a straightjacket ) will save a moron from himself. I rest my case. J.D. Nomad

JD-

Gotta agree, especially with that last part. Personally I have no problem with having the reflective tape, makes it a bit easier for me to see trains in the dark, especially when working in one of those "well lit" yards, you know the kind. Five bright lights on the lead and two or three for the rest of it...

LC

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I'd think this would be a no-brainer. If the cost of some reflective tape prevents one litigation, then it's money and better yet one less PR damaging injury well spent.

You'd think....
But what could happen is that you'd lose several that you would have won because of claims that dirty/missing/worn out reflective material contributed.

Or the coffee was too hot...

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

The reflective tape will work only until it is covered by grafitti[:(!]!

Over on Railpictures.net a while back, there was a "responsible" graffitti artist who claimed he only painted over the "unimportant" stuff![:D]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

I'd think this would be a no-brainer. If the cost of some reflective tape prevents one litigation, then it's money and better yet one less PR damaging injury well spent.

You'd think....

But what could happen is that you'd lose several that you would have won because of claims that dirty/missing/worn out reflective material contributed.

[dharmon]

Well, after doing some research on the ruling and reading more here, I've been convinced ....convinced that maybe ole' Robert T Pines was on to something ...it is apparently all about money (BTW 18 of 120 comments on file were from him). Reflective tape works. It's something I use in my line of work EVERY day. It does have a life span, but so does everything else except spam, twinkies and trainfinder22's list of names.

So what is the level of acceptable losses to transport a container of rubber dog poop from the docks of LA to Chicago? One life, two maybe? You'll never see a headline about reflective tape saving a life. And yes, like anything else it will be used as a litigation point. And no it won't stop all or even many accidents. But if it prevents one tired dude driving out in the stcks at night from running into the side of a train, it's a worthwhile investment. I've never had to use the parachute in my plane to date, but I know that it's saved lives. Big deal it's tape. It's cheap and it works. Talk about PR...RRS fighting the use of reflective tape...boy talk about playing right into the NYT and trucker's hands...since they've had to do it for years.

So for those of us who don't apparently work or live in the real world....it's a good thing we have those government pencil necks out there to protect us from ourselves....I guess it's kind of moot now....nothing to debate..It's a rule.

So I ask again, what is the level of acceptable loss?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It is amazing how far the tape will reflect light. While on a Delta Air Lines flight taking off from Salt Lake City, I noticed a UP local freight from an altitude of about 2000 feet. Sunlight reflected off of the lettering on the locomotive to the plane was still quite bright and almost blinding.

[dehusman]

Both BNSF and UP use reflective lettering on their engines already.

While this will prevent some crossing s, There still are those people who drive into the side of a train on a clear day with no obstructions.

Dave H.

[MP173]

Larry:

Your comments regarding the product are pretty accurate. I sell the product to both the truckers and the rails.

It is a great product and a needed regulation. The trucking industry began putting the product on in the early 90's and by about 1993 it was mandated. Now all trailers have it on from the factory. I believe the straight trucks will soon be covered also.

The retrofitting of the cars will be a major project, but they are given 10 years. One of my railcar manufactureres has been voluntarily placing it on their new builds for a couple of years.

There are two major suppliers...3M and Reflexite. Both are very good. The product (white) has a candlepower of about 1000. With dirt and road grime that will be reduced somewhat. It still will provide excellent visual protection.

When it became regulated the trucking companies pretty much accepted it, knowing if it kept them out of one accident, it would be well worth it.

The accident which pretty much pushed this into law was a case where a driver for a well know orange fleet attempted to make a directional U turn and his trailer was out in the lanes. A pregnant woman came over a hill and she was killed, with the fetus surviving.

Safety is a necessary part of any work environment. I am amazed by how "dark" these cars are at rural crossings. Even in urban environments it is easy not to see these cars.

Data shows that by the time a person reaches 50 years old their light gathering ability for their eyes is about 50% of when they were 20.

BTW...I really have no financial interests in this product. The margins are low and I sell it as a service to my customers. Most companies purchase it direct from the manufacturers.

ed

[tree68]

Let's face it. You could put bright flashing lights every two feet down every car, and some moron would still hit the train, and win his lawsuit.

One thing about the fire prevention business. We spend many hours teaching people how not to have fires - but we have no way of knowing exactly how successful we are.

We'll never know how many accidents this will prevent.

[Anonymous]

m1ashooter- I don't disagree that reflective tape is a good idea. My point is simply that when the government mandates it, it becomes a tool for the lawyers. Sort of makes the case for railroads to do these things voluntarily, doesn't it? Also, you couldn't be more right about the silence of a rolling car. Stand in any yard where they're kicking cars and watch. Then, in a safe spot, please, close your eyes and just TRY to tell when a car is getting close to you. Good luck. If you were standing between the rails, the car might very well hit you before you heard it. I think you know this as well as I do, but it's well worth repeating for all those folks out there who haven't had any real experience in railroading. Anyway, sorry to hear that you had a career-changing incident. In my experience, it's usually not the guy that screwed up that gets hurt, it's someone else. I suspect that you were the "someone else". My best to you. J.D. Nomad

[Anonymous]

Saftey devices an never outlaw the Gene Pool anamolies...

I am a happily employed Electronic Technician for the USPS, thanks to an incident on the "Utterly Pathetic RR"...

Every piece of rolling stock ought to have tape on it. Never know when that tape might help. A car is almost quiet if it rolls by, then again, the other guy ought to be paying atention....

[Anonymous]

LC- Good point about the "invisible" tank car. I know of a lawsuit in California where some dang fool drove around the gates and got clobbered, fortunately by a slow moving train, and STILL won his case. I don't remember all the particulars now ( it was a number of years ago ) but at the time I actually thought about finding a new career. The engineer was named in the suit as a liable party! The way these stinkin' lawyers are now, I'm surprised the dispatcher wasn't named too. Point is, any one of us can be sued by anyone. The hoghead in that case wasn't held liable, but a different jury might well have done otherwise. Forgive me for being a cynic, but close calls are almost a daily occurrence these days, so I dread any new government so-called safety rule. As I said before, I know these things are well intentioned, but I wonder how many of these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young government weenies have even been in a rail yard, let alone in the cab of a locomotive. Such is the nature of bureaucracy, I suppose, but gee, guys, don't you drive a car? If you don't, then I guess I have to cut you some slack, but if you do, then you darn well ought to be aware of how stupid people can be behind the wheel! And that's not even taking pedestrians and bicyclists into account. I had an example of bicycle idiocy no more than a week ago at a suburban grade crossing. Damn fool went around a pedestrian gate so close in front of us that I was just SURE we got him. Thankfully, he made it, but my heart rate probably didn't get back to normal for two days. Worst part of it was, he had stopped at the gate like he was going to wait. Then, at the last possible second, he changed his mind and went for it. We were at track speed ( 38 MPH at that point ) with only 33 cars. Now, how many seconds of time did he risk his life for? Anyway, people, you see where I'm coming from. The bureaucrats can make all the rules they want, but they'll never succede in outlawing stupidity, and no safety device ( other than maybe a straightjacket ) will save a moron from himself. I rest my case. J.D. Nomad

[mudchicken]

Not addressed yet - I have yet to see reflective tape of any guaranteed duration. Scotchlite (Background material on most roadway signs) lasts only a few years and less in extreme temperature or flying dirt/ grit conditions.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
If I am a railroad that owns few cars yet I receive many in interchange owned by others, and reflective tape is considered a safety appliance I will be on the hook for replacing a lot of reflective tape at my expense over time. I will need additional personnel, inventory of tape and tools (powerwasher at least) and track space on my R.I.P. track for these cars. All of this is at my cost. If I need to pass this through to my customers I will have to raise rates and won't see anything at ther bottom line.

Wouldn't the owner of the equipment be on the hook for the up-grades or repairs?

I know if a sill step or safety appliance is broken, then another railway will fix the item (for a price that is fixed by the AAR) then bill the owner of the equipment, wouldn't it be the same for reflectors?

--It's not like host railways don't have a lot of time to get the tape on there either, all new locmotives and equipment seemed to be equiped with the tape now anyway.

[miniwyo]

Mookie had a comment that made me think.(Happens rarley, Thanks Mookie!) With the cleaning of the coal car reflectors. This would probably work for all cars. If all the reflectors are put at the same height off the rail they could build some sort of apparattus that could clean the reflectors as the train passes by. Some sort of brush on a flexible post that maybe hangs in a bit so there is pressure to keep the brush on the car, also allowing for the small variations in width(if any) of the cars. Useing a brush ro somthing that could remove anything but graffitti. Just a suggestion.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The RRs have been fighting this one for at least 20 years that I can remember. The arguement against was the fear that there would be an expectation (at least in a court of law) that reflectors would have to be cleaned if they got dirty. Wonder how that will work out? Will car inspectors be responsible for wiping them clean each trip?

True, this was and is one of the big points of contention. I understand that the railroads managed to keep any cleaning requirements out of the final regulation. That won't stop people from bringing lawsuits on the issue, of course.

The other thing that no one has brought up in this conversation is that when tracing interests it is useful to "follow the money". In any safety regulation requiring alteration to freight cars, locomotives or other rail equipment one has to consider how such alterations will be paid for and maintained. Keep in mind that the railroads are one national (OK, North American) system.

How do railroads maintain their equipment. They have car and locomotive shops, on their property. Off property, other railroads repair the cars for the owner (RR or private) and bill the owner pursuant to the AAR Car Service Rules. Owners must accept and pay the railroad's AAR car repair bills. Locomotive repairs are handled by agreements between the railroads involved. Under the AAR Car Service Rules repairs to safety appliances are not covered by the provisions permitting railroads to bill the owner. Thus, railroads must bear the costs of repairs to safety appliances (such as ladders, grabs, end platforms, etc).

So, why is this important in the great reflective tape debate?

If I am a railroad that owns few cars yet I receive many in interchange owned by others, and reflective tape is considered a safety appliance I will be on the hook for replacing a lot of reflective tape at my expense over time. I will need additional personnel, inventory of tape and tools (powerwasher at least) and track space on my R.I.P. track for these cars. All of this is at my cost. If I need to pass this through to my customers I will have to raise rates and won't see anything at ther bottom line.

So, the railroads oppose reflectorization both for liability and cost considerations. Also, did I mention it may not work after all of this?

LC

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

On the one hand, people will still run into trains. It is a given.

On the other - sitting reasonably close to them in broad daylight, I have commented more than once about how quiet those rail cars are when moving. Even the engines (SD70's only) are pretty quiet when they are just moving by themselves.

And since most of the coal cars that come through here, at least, look reasonably clean, maybe the cleaning of reflectors won't be that big of a problem. And don't some cars already have a reflecting type strip around an old reader or something in that area?

Mook

Interesting concept... EPA demands "quiet" trains, so now the FRA needs "more visible" trains...

QUOTE: Originally posted by DTIDave

Of course, nobody has bothered to mention that it's a LAW to at LEAST slow down for a railroad crossing. That's why they put the big round yellow signs out- to warn motorists of a crossing ahead, so they can slow down and be prepared to stop if there is a train nearby. Some places have stop signs at crossings, and people STILL don't stop! ...

<snip>

Message here folks, is when you approach the tracks, just slow down and look, even with gates and lights! Just doing THAT would cut down the number of crashes dramatically!

I always slow down for RR crossings, but that's 'cuz I want to see a train! Maybe a law should be made requiring everybody to be a railfan... [swg][banghead]

LOL!
-Mark
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[Anonymous]

See today's Minneapolis Star Tribune article on grade crossings.

[Anonymous]

Of course, nobody has bothered to mention that it's a LAW to at LEAST slow down for a railroad crossing. That's why they put the big round yellow signs out- to warn motorists of a crossing ahead, so they can slow down and be prepared to stop if there is a train nearby. Some places have stop signs at crossings, and people STILL don't stop! One teenager died here a few years back when he obviously ignored a stop sign and hit a parked CN train! What a brewhaha followed after the mother complained that the crossing should have had gates and flashers and air bags and armed guards... well, that's what she pretty much wanted! [banghead] The general public has no knowledge of the cost of grade crossing protection, but refuses to acknowledge the fact that they still have to be alert when approaching the tracks! ESPECIALLY the people who live near those tracks! Insanity runs rampant, that's why those lawyers make out like they do!

Message here folks, is when you approach the tracks, just slow down and look, even with gates and lights! Just doing THAT would cut down the number of crashes dramatically!