Railroad concern for crossing safety

[Anonymous]

Apparently, Mike has not read Ed's or anyone else's posts--contact the local government whose roadway crosses our tracks!! They decide what kind of protection for that crossing. Also, personal responsibility for one's actions at grade crossings is not an issue. It's always the railroads fault--except for one time we hit a pizza delivery guy--he didn't want to give a pizza away so he tried to beat us--bad move. He wasn't injured but his pickup was. It was our fault until the cop behind him when he ran the signals cited him. Pizza anyone?

[Anonymous]

"thank god for right to work laws"? What? I dare you to come say that at one of our union meetings! See what happens.

[Anonymous]

Yep, Jack. I would go to angelsontrack.com....They outline how to pick a good attorney. You should also consider suing the RR. After all they are the evil empire that delivered the coal to the power plant that generated the power that shocked you and brought you to within an inch of your death. LOL
Ken

[Anonymous]

Jesus did endure a horrible death to cleanse us of our sins. Did he blame everybody and sue them?

[Anonymous]

I found a website of a mother who's son was killed by lightening. Her quote was "lightening kills good people," she goes on to outline how to sue the national weather service for not protecting her son from such an avoidable tragedy. Please do me the honor of visiting the web site imableedingheart.misinformed

[Anonymous]

Wabash, you are old school. I like that! Thats why I get along with old heads so well. Life was simpler back in the day. You were responsible for yourself and your actions. Thank God my Dad, Grandfather, and old head friends have passed some of that on to me. To quote my Dad, "Be a Man son and be responsible for what you do."

[Anonymous]

Somebody get a toilet and a toothbrush. As much crap that flows from his mouth, he definitely needs a place to put it and probably will need to bru***o get rid of that horrible odor eminating from his pie hole.

[wabash1]

believe it or not i dont think i am that old. but ask my daughters they tell ya i am old head. i believe in common sense, something this industry lacks. but i also get in more trouble becouse i will tell it like it is noo beating around the bush (most times). but i can see trying to get this guy unbrainwashed is a waste of time becouse he dont want to be confused with the facts becouse his mind is made up. I get up and make it my goal evey day to try and kill somebody at a crossing. i live for this and wouldnt change anything. now if you believe this ill sell you some slightly used lottery tickets....

[wabash1]

No he did not sue. that was only becouse lawyers was not invented yet. then when they was he was sad becouse he didnt think they be like rabbits and multiply that fast. that is why they always got the fastest transportation to be at the accedent site first . I am wondering why they have not patitioned the goverment to allow them on engines so they wont waste time gathering facts later at crossing accedents they will already be there. saves time and money. just a thought.

i do know this for a fact there has been several times a trooper rode on the engine with chase cars of city county and state following us, everytime somebody come around the gates or a near miss happened he would radio a discription to the other cars. lots of money was made those days.

[mccannt]

Paul, thank you for that honest, reasoned, practical reply. I have served as an Operation Lifesaver representative for almost seven years, and I take great pride in our organization's ability to educate the public about being safe around grade crossings and rights-of-way.

Operation Lifesaver IS NOT some mindless tool of the railroad industry. It is true that it has a rail-oriented focus and that it was created by railroaders, but it has expanded to include non-railroad volunteers, including schoolteachers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, business owners, railfans and many others who understand the need to provide this important safety message.

One of the biggest challenges to speading the OL safety message is trying to convince people that rail and transit rights-of-way are NOT, except in rare circumstances, public pathways for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, ATVs, snowmobiles or any other conveyance.

Railroaders know the size and the speed of their trains; they are intimately aware of what they can do. When OL presenters compare a 3,000 pound automobile to a 12,000,000 pound train, it is not some idle exercise designed simply to shock the audience -- these figures are REAL!

In a perfect world, we would not need Operation Lifesaver because we would have grade separations and people would not trespass. But it is an imperfect world, and there are more than 200,000 grade crossings out there and more than 200,000 miles of railroad or transit lines where trains and vehicles and people meet every day -- and not always under the best of circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Schmidt:
Irefused to read these posts beyond the first one, and the one to which I am responding, but obviously the original writer is filled with vitriolic intent. At the beginning of this forum page, Trains says it will not allow posting of rude remarks, profanity and attacks on others. During my 35 years on NS, I was involved with 5 incidents, two of which resulted in fatalities, one of them was multiple (4). These remarks fall into those categories. It is a personal attack on me both from behind the throttle and as a member of administration. Certainly Trains would not allow racial or ethnic slurs. Well, the comments by this person amount to that level of insult. Let's hope Trains will stand behind what it says and delete this person.
Incidently, if someone wants to start a serious and constructive discussion about this topic, I'll be glad to join in. My firt incident occurred nearly 39 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday. A lot of people helped me through some difficult times.
Thank you for your time. gdc

[Anonymous]

GDC, are you directing this respones at me? I am tired of misinformed persons (see Mike's posts) taking shots at the industry that I have chosen as a career. I directed the rude remarks at Mike for his misinformed, highly emotionally backed (not fact based) rhetoric. I was just curious.

[Anonymous]

I was trying to get to Paul Schmidt who has signed himself as a contributing editor to Trains.com. The intent was to inform Trains of the offensive nature of the original post and implore them to edit or delete these posts. If I've reached the wrong person, I apologize. gdc

[edblysard]

Hey, gdc,
Ed here, all you have to do is to go to the sites this guy list, and you see what happened to him. He appeares to be one of those people who think, "if its written in a newspaper,it has to be true" two of the sites are sponsored by a settlement attorney, the other by a distraught and angry mother. All three use incomplete data and edited statements to present a very skewed point of view. This guy cant see the attorney is making claims and statements designed to further his business, I doubt he even knows the attorney is paid a percentage of the award, therefor will say anything to win. I noted where all three sites omitted the remainder of the FRA reports and statistics to futher misinform the reader into beliving the FRA had taken their point of view on this issue. This guy has buried his head in the sand, and will refuse to pull it out , due in part to his not wanting facts to interfere with his "cause". I have several times asked him to give specifics, and only got the same retoric worded a little diffrent, all hidden behind what he claims is his new calling in life. Give him time, and he will find a new cause to promote, like stonehenge, crop circles and area 51. We all know the truth, the goverment has the saucer hidden in that hanger, and atlantis was really sunk by a atomic bomb....As for wasting time replying to him, after several attempts to elicit details and facts from him, and getting no reply, I have determined that A: he works for that attorney or B: His tunnel vision has gotten as bad as his grammer.
I belive I will start that serious post you mentioned, just to see if it draws him out!
Stay frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

After the A&E program aired, a discussion about this topic came up at the A&E board. I was not a visitor there, but was alerted to it by someone who is, and who is a railroader by blood.

At that board there were a couple of individuals making posts, one under the SN "Anglemom", much to the tune of the thread starter here, i.e. Operation Lifesaver is evil and the railroads would like to eat your children for breakfast. I wonder is this person here is not one of those people from the A&E board, as the arguments are boilerplate, as is the blindness to deductive reasoning.

Replies pointing out factual errors made by myself, and by another friend who was alerted to the site, were met by incessant b*ll*** like I have been reading here. Aparently, that state law in most parts of the US is still "stop look & listen", cuts no ice. My friend was attacked as being a profit-monger, because his railfanish SN was BNSFxxxx! (Actual roadnumber withheld.)

My belief is that this person is a polemic, no longer open to discussion, and that this thread is meant to spread their malicious slander about Operation Lifesaver, or is simply posted because they enjoy provoking people. If you want to keep arguing with them, you might want to have some blood presure medicine handy. It's an endless loop.

In the end, I made the briefest, most logical, (and somewhat sarcastic -- okay, extremely sarcastic,) reply that I could make, and then deleted the link from my browser, lest I be tempted to let my emotions get the better of me, or worse, have a premature heart attack of my own.

Alexander Craghead
Portland, Oregon, USA

[Anonymous]

Ok Mike the question of "lack of safety" seems to holding no water. You seem to be the only one that does not see this. I visited the "angles" site and got really annoyed. If this person is so PO'd, then why dont they go out and push X-ing saftey? "My Son, where would you be if you stoped,looked and listened? Would you still be alive? Duh yes!" This is a little more realistic. Harsh, Sad, but realistic!!

My girl & I drove over 500 miles In N. Illinois & SE. Wisconsin looking for "Ultra Hazardous" X-ings. If it was that dangerous it was plastered with signs EVERYWHERE. The most dangerous on was on a blind turn deep in the woods with crossbuck signs. WOW A STOP SIGN!! Gee...how hard was that to fix the problem? It worked for me!! I had to stop, I dident see anything so I shut down my thundering car stereo........OK nothing here time to proceed enjoy the drive. Yea that was a hard way to fix a bad problem after all.

In sales I was always told to be SSS..Sweet Simple Stupid. I guess It realy is true. I just wonder if we stick these people in a circle room and tell them to p in a corner...what would happen
Icemanmike-Milwaukee
Dont get to dizzy!! Ha ha:)

[edblysard]

Amazing how their circlular logic seem to exclude anything thats dosnt agree with their cause. At times, it almost seems as if your argueing with a religous fanatic, someone who refuses to allow facts to corrupt their fiction. Amd like most fanatics, their ability to hear others seems to dissipate as the volume of their retoric increases. I'm with you, just like the TV, if nothing worth watching is on, just turn it off...
Stay frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

Yes denial is so much easier than actually being objective and considering both sides. I'm sure the pain you experienced in your accidents is beyond imagination. You are helpless in the ability to stop in time, I realize that and am sorry you had to experience it firsthand. As an interesting point of interest, what do you think your company would have done if you suggested that the speed in certain areas be reduced because of some crossings that don't facilitate adequate abililty to judge speed, distance of the train? I find your reference to a racial or ethnic slur is absurd. This is about a company that puts dollars before safety. Give it a try to test it. I'm sure there are some safety issues that you would like to be addressed. Well start pushing them and see what happens. Of course your powerful Union will back you although because of governmental protection which says you can't go on strike, that kinds of limits the power. These comments by the way are the result of freedom of speech, if the truth to you is that painful turn off the computer, close your eyes and pretend that your company is doing everything they can to ensure that both you and some family don't have to experience the pain of an avoidable collision.
Mike

[Anonymous]

Hi Paul,
To think that my comments are in any way a racial or ethnic slur is absolutely absurd and that offends me greatly to because considered in that light. I would challenge your magazine to write an honest to goodness nuts and bolts article about all the hazards of crossings and what all the parties involved(drivers, railroads, government) can do to minimize the risks. In the case I was on the fact that a double fatality occured at the crossing previously should have prompted gates to be put up. The state dropped the ball and the railroad with there hands off approach didn't follow up and even failed to report that double fatality to the FRA. Also about $1500 worth of brush cutting on an a 70ft. right of way would of been enough to give ~500ft of sight distance and possibly save the life of an individual. Your politically correct approach to the viewpoint of railroading is one of the reasons I stopped reading it. Railroads do have the need to bear some of the responsibilty to ensure safety at crossings, contrary to the opinion of the railroad employees and 'Operation Lifesaver'. I believe MUTCD talks about the 'joint' effort between local government and the railroad. Thank you for allowing me the free speech right to voice the little known facts about the other side of the rail industry.
Mike

[wabash1]

Mike i realy dont care if you get this or not see the problem is simple dont confuse you with the fact when your mind is made up. but look at your own statement. I work for a company that puts dollars ahead of human life. that they could easily fix a crossing that dont provide the ability to judge the speed for distance of the train.

ok everyone on this board has determined except for you that if you come to a crossing that has no lights or gates you stop look listen. if we see something like i head light we dont go, we wait. there is no need to judge speed and distance to the crossing if the horn is blowing then he is real close. the problem is that even if there is lights and gates you dont go anyways means train is close. eveyone has come to the conclusion that if you see a head light you dont go. Now what you are doing is just the opposite if you look at what you are saying is give the public the ability to see how many more of them can beat the train. I see your statement as judging speed distance as another way of saying that if i can i will beat the train. and most others on this site do also. so why would i fight and give the others false security of beating me at a crossing. i wont that is the way i will help your couse.

IN closing let me say this if you want to get under my skin you haft to do better than this. I dont care for your couse and neither does anyone else here. If there was facts to this fine there isnt just extra double talk. and for you to ask me to tell my super to make it easier for you to beat me at a crossing is a joke and it is on you. have a good day .

[Anonymous]

Mike, you say that if the railroad would have cutback the brush, then the visibility would have been improved. This is the only thing that you have said that actualy makes sense! Now what did the Engineer say about this collision? Did these drivers come to a complete stop? If they were not sure if it was safe to cross did they shut up, roll down the windows & listen? If this accident did not happen, I'd say yes the did. Obviously they did not and yes payed for there mistakes.

Ok J bring the hedge clipper, I got the hammer & shovel. We will start from Pen state & go west. Ed you bring the baseball bat. This way after we fix all the X-ing's you can beat the sense into the ones that don't stop, and all the neer misses!! Mike you just sit back and watch how much people STILL dont get it, and still say it's the RR fault; Even If its a near miss, Im sure Ed will set them straight. I hope to God that people learn from this. Only you can save yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!
Icemanmike-Milwaukee
P.S. Im not attacking anyone but the morons that run a train, get hit, and then sues a RR for their own stupidity!!

[edblysard]

Yes, you can and should excerise your right to free speech. So heres a little free explaination as to why a railroad wouldnt cut back the brush. And I noticed one of the sites you promotes mentioned buildings in the way? Who owns the building? If its not railroad property, how can they alter it?
If the brush is on public property, and the railroad takes it upon itself to clear it away, then, in following lawsuits, the railroad would be held accountable for all the public property it didnt clear, at every crossing. By doing so, the railroad would be setting a legally arguably precedent that it has a moral duty to clear any obstruction, regardless of who owns it or whos property its on. If its private property, then the landowner sues the railroad for destruction of private property, the railroad has to argue the point that it acted in the public interest, and in the end, they would still lose. If they didnt, then again, it sets a percedent that would require the railroad to invade private property to protect the public at every crossing. Which means it, the railroad, will have assumed not only the responsibility morally, but also legaly to protect the citizens from their own foolishness.
If a traffic accident kept happening at a intersection, say the business across the street trucks kept hitting cars there, and you lived on the corner, what would you do if the business across the street tore down your front porch because it felt that contributed to the accidents? What if your pourch blocked sight in one direction? Whos responsability is it to fix the problem? Yours because its your pourch, or the business across the street because it their trucks that keeps getting hit? By altering any grade crossing, without the approval or legal instruction of the controling enity, the railroads open themselves up to even more litigation by assuming legal responsibility for every individule who crosses there, reguardless of the individules actions, or lack there of.
And you still seem to miss the fact that, unless the driver suffers a mental impairment, every peoson on this planet should be able to take on look at a locomotive, moving at any speed, and realize that if it hits them, they will get hurt. So the burden of not getting hit rest upon them. Do you allow your kids to play on the freeway, and then sue the city because the city didnt keep your kids off the road? And any prudent person dosnt allow themselve or their children to do such silly things, and to assume that just because the railroads make money, lots of it, the should somehow be held accountable for the lack of common sense citizens show is absurd. Yes, railroads will help in a joint effort, but they would be fools themselves to take on the legal responsibility soly by themselves..
Ed

[Anonymous]

I recall somewhere that I saw a sign once that said "Caution Dangerous Crossing" and then had a stop sign. I love the stop sign idea because it makes incredible sense, but the law does not require stop, look and listen. I think in the interim stop signs should be at all crossing as well. The law states that if the lights are on,you hear or see a train then you are to stop look and listen. In this accident there was almost zero visibility because of the sun in regards to seeing the lights and also some cars in front crossed the tracks. It was a very bad situation because of the age of the driver(inexperienced) and the conditions of the crossing the assumption has to be made for self-preservation. That is every possible means for attempting to cross the track was made. I talk about the sight distance because if it would have been cleared ($1500) this person would of had that avenue as well to assess the situation for safe crossing. What I'm trying to say in my rambling on is that with all parties interested in safe crossings that brush would have been cleared and this person would of been able to determine more easily at a minimal cost that a train is close to the crossing. Please consider this when you travel your area as well.
Mike

[Anonymous]

When will the railroad help in a joint effort Ed? There was an incredible 70Ft. of right of way in this case that would of given a driver over 500ft. of sight distance. I'm not talking about private property. They also refused to acknowledge that the sight distance was a problem, even though they have known about sight distance problems since the 70's. The average driver has no idea about sight distance (although through education they should). Why don't you take your obviously high amount of industry knowledge and ask the railroad if you can become a member of "operation lifesaver" and talk about these issues in an open forum in which people can learn from your experiences. I have challenged Paul to have an article about this, I think he should include people like yourself who have seen first hand some of the problems. If you would of sat in the jury box as a railfan and listened to the arrogance about it not being there problem you may be able to understand a little about my serious reservations of the way the industry is run.
Mike

[Anonymous]

First I'd like to mention that I'm not a railroad
employee, just a fan. And I'm not American, an ex-brit now a Canadian (or as Jesse Helms likes to say, I live in Soviet Canuckistan). So I also happen to be socialist. This is relevent because the fact that railroads are 'evil capitalist corporations' has no bearing on this discussion. Do you think that state run railways don't hit people on grade crossings?, I ways deeply affected as a 6 year old child when a classmate lost his legs to a train. Who was to blame?, his parents, not the state run railway. Even if a railroad ran for the public good and nothing else, it there to fulfill a purpose, to get goods and people from point A to B. We have police, firemen, nurses and the military to protect the people, we don't (or shouldn't need) the railroads to do this too.

Many of the posts I've seen refer to incidents where the victims were aware of the train and this didn't seem to disuade them from thier suicidal course of action, so what improved warnings do to protect these people?.

The whole arguement boils down very simply. Trains don't have a choice about changing velocity (direction or speed). People do. ergo the responsibility is thiers and thiers alone. How can we fix this problem, more education such as operation lifesaver. Will this work?, partially, some people can be taught better habits, but the issue is far larger than the scope of OL. More and more people are refusing to accept personal responsibility for thier actions, this is what must change. There will always be people who are too selfi***o think of the consequence of their actions and the Railroads and Governments will never be able to do anything about it.
Graham

[Jackflash]

Can I go too??? jackflash

[Anonymous]

To everyone,

Perhaps you can never say enough about a truly life or death issue, and it's not surprising that this one raised such emotional responses. Most of the responses were reasoned and heartfelt, and some, particulary from the engineers, achingly eloquent. Even when anger showed through, the postings shared opinions worth noting. It is clear we all feel dearly for innocent victims not behind the wheel, and anger over what is overwhelmingly an avoidable tragedy.

I thank those of you who took part in this thread who kept a reasoned approach, and others who took an opportunity to learn from it. But where this debate has turned from finding solutions to angry restatements of hardened positions, it is perhaps time to move on. I am certain we will, tragically, have many opportunities to revisit this issue.

Tom Chmielewski
Editor, Trains.com
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

To everyone,

Perhaps you can never say enough about a truly life or death issue, and it's not surprising that this one raised such emotional responses. If you are just coming to this threat, you will find that most of the responses that follow are reasoned and heartfelt, and some, particulary from the engineers, achingly eloquent. Even when anger showed through, the postings shared opinions worth noting. It is clear we all feel dearly for innocent victims not behind the wheel, and anger over what is overwhelmingly an avoidable tragedy.

I thank those of you who took part in this thread who kept a reasoned approach, and others who took an opportunity to learn from it. But where this debate has turned from finding solutions to angry restatements of hardened positions, it is perhaps time to move on. I am certain we will, tragically, have many opportunities to revisit this issue.

Tom Chmielewski
Editor, Trains.com
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

First of all let me be the first to say Thank you for your comments. I was curious about the socialism aspect of this because Europe doesn't have near the problem we do in this country with crossings. They appear to take the design aspect a lot more seriously than we do. Of course when the "bottom line" is at stake, cost become's a large factor in the equation. I used to work for a "profit" company and now work for a governemt agency. Let me tell you I will never work for a "profit" company again if I can help it. The difference in mentality is truly amazing. I was concerned though by your comment about the presumption that everybody sees the trains. That is a large assumption that I feel is weighed a little to heavy. What about the presumption of self-preservation? Do you honestly think all these people are suicidal? Probably not. In the case I was on a large factor that was overlooked was that very issue. You can't assume that someone was trying to kill themselves. I am curious about the situation in Canada, could you relate some of what you are familiar with in regards to crossings up there. Such as the types of gates, are most protected?,etc. I look forward to finding out about this as best you can relate it to us down here in the states. Take care and thank you for the info.. By the way was up in Collingwood in November, Beautiful Country!!!
Mike

[Anonymous]

Tom,
I too feel that this issue has brought up many valid points and insights. What exactly do you mean by time to move on? So we have a chance to really address what is a serious problem in this country with hundreds of people dying due a variety of issues ranging from education of the average driver, railroad taking some pro-active action along with the governmental agencies, etc.. You feel its time to move on. I think we can carry on an active discussion without the name calling and maybe make some progress on some of the issues that are behind this. It most definitely a problem not just related to any particular issue. What are the odds of your magazine doing an article covering all of the issues so that they can be addressed even further? From the sounds of your attitude not very good. Has your magazine ever done an article of that nature? We can just continue to read about all these avoidable deaths and say well at least it wasn't anybody I know, right? I knew I had a valid reason to stop reading your magazine aside from the rapidly increasing price.

Mike