Sight Distance and preventable deaths at grade cro

[Mookie]

I have read all this you so nicely printed out, before, and I still don't agree with it. Coffee is hot - or should be - trains run on tracks. These are two constants. You are talking variables. Apples and Oranges. If she would have had the sense given an acorn, she would not have put HOT coffee between her legs. Just like I wouldn't dream of grabbing a hot dish out of a hot oven. But people do silly things and I have also. But I didn't blame the entire universe because I had a stupid moment.

If I come to a crossing and can't see clearly, I will get out of the car and look up and down the track, not just blindly go across and hope for the best. And if the sight is blocked, use my cell phone and call someone who can do something about it. Not rant and rave on a forum.

We are never going to agree on this one, so why don't you go to another forum and make their day happy. I am going home!

Jen

[Anonymous]

Oh, I see where you are coming from the group of which I was included in prior to being on a jury. They would be the ones that can't imagine someone getting RICH off of someone dying or injuring themselves. Although that is the ONLY way to hold a company responsible for neglect. Kind of difficult to put a company in jail isn't it. I had a hard time with this UNTIL I saw some obvious neglect(SIGHT DISTANCE,HORN BLOWING) and heard from a mother who lost a daughter describe this to me. I never really understood this until then. THAT is why I am here because that needs to be understood. Just like you going to jail for neglect causing someones death, the ONLY way to hold a company responsible is to award the victims family a monetary amount. If you can come up with a better way, please let us know. I feel jail time for those who propagate the "profit before safety" attitude would be a wonderful start, don't you?
Mike

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
The Actual Facts About
The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

[Mookie]

I subscribe to the "I am responsible for my own actions" theory. Why do I have to have the railroads look out for me? If I can't take responsibility for looking for a train - coming down an immoveable track, then I need a keeper. Like I said, I am more worried about you getting drunk or high on drugs and getting behind the wheel of a car, crossing the center lane (which I have never seen a train do) and killing me! I can drive safely and take responsibility for my driving - I can't do a thing about you.

I live in tornado alley - when a tornado comes, we go underground. Your theory is that when a tornado comes, I should stand outside and take my chances and if it kills me, my survivors can sue God.

I still go back to the fact that the train coming down any track, doesn't drive off the tracks to get me, doesn't leave the track to go and hunt me down and even if it is silent, I know there will be a train on those tracks at any time. I don't need you or the railroads or the government to stand by the side of the road and give me one more warning about - there may be a train and don't put hot coffee between your legs!

[Anonymous]

You do a wonderful job of demonstrating the mindset that Operation Lifesaver has given you and others. "Its always the drivers fault". I just would ask that you consider the "other" part of the equation. So you would think that the railroad has no "personal" responsibility to provide safe passage across grade crossings. You subsribe to the "your on your own" method of safety?

[edblysard]

Not flip at all, you may be closer to the truth than we know.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Mookie]

Since you are so literate on this subject, what about guns and cars? These are also deep pocket companies. Do they have forum sites you can hassle? Maybe the drug companies? All of these things kill when misused by humans. I am far more afraid of a gun in someone's hands than a train. I know what a train is going to do - I don't know what a person with a gun is going to do. I know a train isn't going to come off the track and "get" me. I can't say the same for a drunk driver. Someone high on drugs is a bigger fear for me than a locomotive that I can see and hear if...IF... I take responsibility for myself and always check for one. It is like electricity in your house. You don't poke your finger in the outlet to see if it really is there. I don't race onto the tracks to see if the train is really there. I was taught they are always there!

Jen

[Mookie]

Ed: I hated being so flip, because this really is very good information, but considering the headache I get trying to keep up with all this...what can I say.

Sorry

Jen

[Mookie]

Ed: Very interesting!

So.... he must be both - Psychotic off his meds and Psychopath cuz he was hit by a train as a child! Got it!

Thanx

Jen

[edblysard]

Hi Jenny,
Those few who truly are psychotic, or suffer a neurological disorder often have no concept of real time. Psychotic, and social psychopathic dis functions are often characterized by antisocial behavior, indifference to enviroment, and abnormal changes in mood and activity.
Both the psychotic and the psychopath live in a dream world where they, and they alone are the only "real" people. Everyone else is lumped indifferently together as "them". Thus isolated,
the psychopath and the psychotic often develope an attitude of persecution, a "they are all after me" attitude if you will, which they play over and over in a mental movie.
Psychotics respond well to medications that alter their mood swings, a case in point would be someone with ADA, who takes retilan, or topamax to maintain the dopeimine levels in their brain.
With out mood altering medication, the psychotic can often go days at a time with little sleep or food, then crash into a deep depression accompained by periods of around the clock sleep, recharging their bodies so to speak.
Psychopaths, on the other hand, often blend in with their enviroment, showing no outward affects of their illness. They appear "normal".
An example most would reconize would be Ted Bundy, a social psychopath. The Florida judge who sentenced him to death stated from the bench that he found Bundy a "Charming and very likeable fellow", and wished he(bundy) "had taken a different path, it would have been a pleasure to have you pratice the law before my bench".
The current theory is that psychopaths are born this way, that they lack a certain genetic code which inhibits their antisocial impluses.
Psychotics, on the other hand, are felt to be created, wether through an abrupt change in their enviroment, or through an injury or illness. Shock, trama and personal injury are often the leading cause in creating the correct set of events to cause a "normal" person to retreat into a psychosis.
Currently, there is no real effective treatment for the psychopath, beyond heavy sedation and incarcaration in a institutional setting, but those suffering a psychosis do respond to therapy and medication, but it is often a lifelong requirement.
Both the psychopath, and the psychotic adopt an
advoidance response when confronted.
In the case of the psychotic, it often manifest itself as a conspiratorial concept, the "they are after me, so I had to do this" response which results in what is often seen as odd, or strange behavior and beliefs such as obsessive hand washing, or the belief that wearing the same article of clothing daily will protect the psychotic from "them".
Almost all "normal" people suffer, in varying degrees, some form of psychosis, the irrational belife in a routine that often affects no one else. We all know someone who carries a lucky charm, or puts their change on the dresser in certain stacks, or complusively neatens up their desk. Alter their routine, knock the change over, or move their ashtray, and they often become upset, angry or fearful. They lack the ability to adapt to a change in their personal enviroment.
The psychopath's choice for avoiding responsibility is the rational of "I wouldnt have had to do this if they hadn't done that",
excuseing their antisocial behavior by classifying their actions as a reaction to other peoples actions or events. They often justify their crimes by claiming that the other person "was asking for it".
The underlying theme in both illnesses is the advoidance of responsibility or the assigning of responsibility to others in a pathlogical attempt to protect themselves from their own actions.
In other words, these people have blamed others for all of their misfortunes for so long, that it has become "normal" for them to do so, regardless of the actual events or action that take place, they are incapable of ever accepting responsibility for themselves or their actions, untill they receive treatment, and even then, success isn't a guaranteed outcome.
Odly enough, the psychopath often knows there is something "wrong" with them, and becomes very adept at blending in with their enviroment, to the point that their most intimate friends never suspect anything is amiss.
The psychotic, lost in their illness, are incapable of ever believing anything is wrong with them, in fact, when confronted, are often quite adament that everyone else must be ill, because they are unable to step outside of their illness long enough to view things from any other perspective.
While most are passive the majority of the time, if you pu***he issue hard enough, the psychotic often becomes quite strident in their defense of what ever postion or obbession they have adopted, up to and including acts of violence.
The psychopath is geneticaly designed to be what they are, and can never be helped, and the psychotic's illness prohibits them from ever admitting something is wrong, therefore precluding them ever seeking treatment on a voluntary basis, completing the sad circle of the illness that reinforces the belief that everyone else is nuts, except them. Its a no win situation in either case.

[Anonymous]

This is not about hate but about LOVE for your family and mine. We ALL deserve the safest crossings possible. I find it hard to believe that all of the ~400 folks that died last year were trying to beat the train. The railroad and operation lifesaver would have you believe that though. My grip is the same as it was before
Mike

[Anonymous]

Once again, you have hit the nail on the head. Thank you.
Doesn't a company have equal responsibility to protect people? I would think so too. Its not about fault its about opportunity to prevent deaths. I believe a company NETTING 400 million can do there share of contributing to this cause as well. Once again, thank you. Please consider looking into this further by bugging the legislature that is for some reason(ie. lobbyist) more interested in protecting them then our families.
Mike

[Anonymous]

Jen Your response on this entire string is one of the better comebacks of all time. Great thinking.

[Anonymous]

OKAY.
EVERYONE JUST LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROTECTED OR "UNSAFE" CROSSINGS; THIS HAS BECOME A HATE SITE.
MIKE AND MISSOURI, PLEASE JUST GIVE IT A REST. IF YOU ARE OUT TO ISSULT EVERYONE, YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED THAT MUCH. HOWEVER I DON'T SEE ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENTS CHANGING ANY MINDS. LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE FINNALLY. YOU'VE LOST YOUR WHOLE GRIP AND IT'S REALLY JUST SAD NOW.

[Anonymous]

Wow!

As I read the postings to this issue, I am reminded of a JFK saying, "They enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought". There sure are a lot of opinions here, but very little logic and facts. There seems to be a little paranoia as well.

My thoughts:
It's not about who's at fault. I can't recall reading of a single grade crossing accident that was the fault of the train crew. However, most of the victims aren't crazy drivers who tried to cut under the gates. Many are inexperienced drivers who panicked. Many had their stereos cranked up and didn't hear the train. Some were stuck on the tracks due to traffic or mechanical problems. Many were simply passengers and had no control over their fate. Most fatalities happen at unguarded crossings. The fact is that many crossings are inherently dangerous, at least 100's perhaps 1000's. If an intersection of two roads is inherently dangerous wouldn't we expect an improvement? What make grade crossings different?

I lived in Memphis for 10 years where one of the major east/west roads parallels Norfolk and Southern tracks for nearly 25 miles. In that time more that 10 people were killed at grade crossings within 5 miles of my house. Norfolk and Southern never spent a dime to alter any one of those crossings. I often wondered what NS did to deserve a ransom of one life per year from the community. Perhaps we should just explain to their parents/spouses/children just how stupid they were to get hit by a train.

Class 1 railroads kill approximately 1000 people a year, about 1/2 of that at grade crossings. Check out the statistics at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website. Railroad crews and passengers account for only about 1-2% of these fatalities. Perhaps that accounts for the lack of compassion from this group of posters.

Most of the other fatalities were "trespassers" which is what the railroads call people who crossed their tracks without a car. Ever cross a railroad track on foot? - you were a trespasser.

A train traveling one mile is many times more likely to produce a fatality than a truck traveling one mile. But truckers have to face many more intersections, competing traffic, stops and starts and many more crazy drivers. Trains are inherently dangerous. Could they be made safer?

Bottom line - Society has a responsibility to prevent needless deaths. Don't the railroads share in this responsibility? Doesn't matter who came first (although it is a good bet that the first RR crossed a road, rather than vice-versa), people have to cross the tracks to live and work. Railroads wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for the intervention of government to create the initial right of way. In many cases, they were just given the ROR. Surely there is some "public trust" issue here. I'm sure that's all this initial post was about.

[Anonymous]

oops!! forgot the little tidbit from the Brotherhood site. Wow! Saving $250 million, that would buy alot of crossing protection OR a couple of new houses for the stockholders.

Remote control use expands at CSX
(The Florida Times-Union posted the following story by Christopher Calnan on its website on April 13.)

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- It was a Thursday morning and train conductor Wayne Caruthers spent it pushing tons of steel around Baldwin.

Using a bright-green remote control device attached to a vest, called a belt pack, he moved railroad cars around CSX Transportation's switching yard.

It was a job that Caruthers used to do with the help of a locomotive engineer and a switchman. The engineer's locomotive would provide the power. Caruthers and a switchman would be on the ground throwing track switches and coupling cars.

The men communicated with hand signals or over the radio. But that was before remote-controlled locomotives were introduced at the Baldwin yard last year.

Now, it's just Caruthers and a switchman, both with belt packs.

The change isn't only at CSXT. It's happened at most railroads and sent shock waves through such a tradition-filled, old-economy industry. It also pitted railroading's two dominant labor unions against each other by assigning jobs previously done exclusively by higher-paid engineers to less experienced trainmen.

Some union officials say the devices are dangerous and threaten the jobs of the industry's most skilled workers. Others say the devices are part of railroading's future.

"It's a traditional fight over job security vs. progress," Maryland-based railroad historian Rush Loving said.

Guys like Caruthers, who has worked for the railroad 32 years, 25 of those at the Baldwin yard, got caught in the middle.

Fellow CSXT workers, whether they are engineers or trainmen working out on the tracks, are more than just fellow employees to Caruthers. They're his fishing and hunting buddies, and they're all being affected by the remote controls.

He knows that new technology is a sign of progress. But Caruthers also realizes that the new devices forced some engineers to relocate, probably to CSXT's cross-town Moncrief switching yard.

He kept his job, but the displacement of co-workers left a bad taste in his mouth.

"That's the only thing I don't like about it," he said. "We're out one of our guys." Safety concerns

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has been raising questions about the safety of remote-controlled locomotives since it lost out to the United Transportation Union for the right to operate the devices.

Remote control was used in at least 28 serious train accidents in the United States last year, said David Lavery, chairman of the BLE's Florida legislative board. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. railroads reported 2,652 train accidents last year.

In February, a 36-year-old trainman was killed in a CSXT yard outside Syracuse, N.Y., when a boxcar struck him. The man's partner was operating a locomotive with a remote control while the two were coupling together boxcars, The Associated Press reported.

The Federal Railroad Administration is investigating the accident, spokesman Warren Flatau said.

The BLE says it's dangerous for two switching yard workers to control a locomotive when the two could be separated by 50 to 100 cars.

Remote control operators need 80 hours of training to be qualify for their jobs; locomotive engineers take eight to 12 months.

Engineers receive more training and are better paid than trainmen such as switchmen and conductors, so railroads stand to save plenty of money by reducing the number of engineers.

Jim Valentine, a railroad analyst for Morgan Stanley Dean Whitter, projected in 2001 the railroads would save $250 million a year by using remote control.

CSXT spokesman Gary Sease said the training for remote control operators is different because the jobs are different. Remote control operators move trains over shorter distances at slower speeds and consistent terrain in confined areas.

Engineers need the skill to make the adjustments to a train while operating at faster speeds on constantly changing terrain on routes that run over thousands of miles.

Also, despite claims of job losses, the CSXT is hiring more engineers, Sease said. The railroad plans to hire 880 conductors or trainmen this year and qualify 230 as locomotive engineers, he said.

Remote-controlled locomotives operators have far less experience than engineers. Inexperience combined with 80 hours of training increases the risk of accidents, BLE officials said.

"It comes down to the training of the people who use these devices," BLE spokesman John Bentley said. "We think it puts people and communities at risk."

Last month, the Township of Woodbridge, N.J., became the 11th U.S. city to ban remote-controlled locomotives because of what they view as elevated accident risks.

But the bans are largely symbolic because federal law supercedes local ordinances, and railroads aren't required to honor them, White said.

Barton Jennings, a professor of transportation and logistics at the University of Tennessee, said the local bans are acts of desperation by the BLE.

"It's a last-ditch effort by a group that blew it," he said. "They're basically playing the last card in their hand."

About 25 percent of all the yard locomotives operated by the nation's seven Class-I railroads are equipped with remote control, said Tom White, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads.

CSXT is using remote-controlled locomotives in 60 of its 120 rail yards across its 23,000 network.

In February, the railroad said the number of accidents dropped by 60 percent in operations using remote control during 2002.

But the statistics aren't credible because the railroads have reduced the size of crews working in yards, Bentley said.

"There are fewer people working, so of course there are fewer injuries," he said. "When you get down to it, it's a money issue. They're trying to do the work with fewer people."

White said belt packs eliminate the need for hand signals and reduce accidents by minimizing the chance for miscommunication between engineers and trainmen in switching yards.

"More than half of all train accidents happen in yards," he said. "That's why this is such an important advance from a safety standpoint."

St. Augustine-based Florida East Coast Railway began using remote-controlled locomotives in early 2002, said Charlie Lynch, the railroad's vice president of transportation. No FEC engineers lost their jobs because some took comparable positions with the company, he said.

Belt packs have allowed two employees to do the work of three, effectively increasing productivity by more than 30 percent, Lynch said.

"We're always looking for increased productivity," he said. "This is a great technological advance that allows us to do that."

The time has come for remote-controlled locomotives, but only under certain conditions, said Robert Gallamore, director of Northwestern University's Transportation Center in Chicago.

"Should it be used everywhere? No," he said. "It's a technology with a specific purpose. If it's a good engineer, well trained and experienced and ready for work, the engineer can make the best judgment."

Monday, April 14, 2003







© 2003 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

[Anonymous]

Thank you missouri,
Here is some more wonderful news a little off the subject but of interest in there "OBSESSION" with safety. Maybe the Brotherhood really isn't interested in "their" livelyhood and safety either. What are the engineers doing about safety? Maybe a nice little work slowdown would wake them up. Probably all get arrested or fired though by the Feds. We really are all on they same side believe it or not. Just like I want those kids on a school bus to make it home at night, I honestly feel the same way about the employees working for the railroad.
little man behind the computer,
Mike

[Anonymous]

Did you vote for Reagan in 80' PATCO did
Solidarity Brother!!!
What is your Union doing about safety?
Can't do too much with the Federal protection the railroad has from the Union.

[Anonymous]

Hey Brother,
Just so you know I have nothing but respect for the hardworking union folks out there. My Dad was a member of PATCO, who lost the battle for safety in the hardest way. If you are concerned then start making waves like we are. Surely your not saying that CSX isn't safety oriented? See below from CXS website. There OBSESSED with safety!!!
Good one huh!!!
Wimpy Man behind computer
Mike

You are here: CSX > CSX Corporation > Railroad Safety & Environment > Safety Policy : Our Guide to Safety



Our Guide to Safety



Safety Is A Way Of Life

CSX's Safety Vision:
CSX will be widely seen as the industry leader.
We want to be known as being "obsessed" with safety.

We want to be viewed as "world class" in safety.

We want our employees to go home the same way they came to work.

We want to "convince," not "confront" our employees.

We will live by our human and moral commitment to our employees and customers to reduce pain and suffering in the workplace.

We will have the lowest personal injury and train accident rates.
CSX's Safety Policy:
We are committed to provide transportation services in a manner that will ensure the safety of our employees, our customers and the communities we serve.

CSX's Safety Principles:
All injuries and accidents are preventable.

Safety is a way of life and part of everything we do, both on and off the job.

Each individual is responsible and accountable for their own safety and the safety of others.

We must always lead by example.

A strong, visible, felt leadership commitment to safety is imperative.

Teamwork across departments and involvement by all is critical to safety success.

To eliminate injuries and accidents, we must recognize professionalism in safety and address unsafe work habits.

Everyone has the responsibility to ensure a safe work environment.

No job is so important, no service so urgent that we cannot take time to perform all work safely.

[Anonymous]

What delusional world do you live in!
I can only assume that someone you love was hit by a train and you cannot come to terms with the fact that THEY ended it. Are you out to try and vilonize the pour people working in the head end watching all of this happen. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE SITTING IN THE CAB! You can't know what it is like to watch a young person walk in front of you and lay down their heads as if to go to sleep. You don't knowwhat it is like when those peoples faces look back at you when you go to sleep. YOU have never sat in the cab and held your breath as you are whistling the horn at a level crossing with a gate down and some IDIOT in a pick up truck with his music blaring so loud that he can't even hear a train coming and hasn't got the good sense enough to look before crossing, never minde that the gates have gone down for a DMNED good reason! You need to deal with your emotional s*@t somewhere else, because trying to victomize those who have no control over it, who woke up one morning to go to work, and ended the day being interogated by the police for killing someone who was stupid enough to jump in front of a train.....
As for crossing that are not protected, ya, it's sad. There are an awful lot of grivers who don't realize that you are to slow down at ALL railroad crossings and look both ways. And there are some innocent victems, who really were in the wronge place (because they didn't know enough to slow down and look - or that tracks are not safe places to play) at the rong time, who really didn't set out that day with a death wish......but PLEASE.....those who drive the engins are not to blame.
I'm not sur if there is an easy cheap solution. The only ones that I can think of is the bridge all crossings. Never the less, some fool eventually would find a way to find their way into the nightmares of the engineers.
Find your vindication else where please. I think we all know this is getting old and nowhere fast!

[Mookie]

Timothy: I have gotten lost in all the traffic on this Missouri - but one thing I have noticed is his time stamp. He is on around the clock.

Wonder how he can stay "Up" that long?

Jen

[Anonymous]

Ed did I ever tell you I repaired drivers education simulators. Yep, sure did. The $5,000 dollar simulation tape that was made for the trial, which the railroad drug the grandfather out of the bar and settled for $375,000 so it was never used, had .25 thats 1/4 of a second react/stop time. Will work out to a crash every time Ed no matter how you stir the pot. Guess what ED? The same engineer had killed another girl at the same crossing ED, and the girl had the same .25 second reaction stop time. You know what the qualified traffic engineer who the government had paid to help make the FHWA sight manual said Ed? Well he said with the sight triangles given the driver with all the sight obstructions and the Mickey Mouse cross-buck (yield) sign that the train needed to going between 8 and 11 mph to give the driver time to see it and stop (private crossing no whistles) and that a stop sign was needed. Well Ed the train was supposedly going in the mid-40s mph both times and who really knows it could have been going 80 mph and STILL no stop signs.

Did the stupid BNSF track foreman Cotton Smith Cuba, Mo. yard install stop signs ED? No way because he knows diddly about traffic engineering. Oh I forgot that was the first killing. Now since the second killing still no Stop signs Ed? The idiots have paid out over half a million dollars and refuse to put in $50,000 gates if the true priceing was known or even $100 dollars worth of Stop signs. And every other Private crossing on the line has stop signs. It's like he's seeing how many people he can get killed and how much he can cost BNSF by not putting the right sign for the traffic situation!!!!

The railroad could have went to Court and won according to you ED with NO problem. You think they forked out $375,000 out of the goodness of their heart or you think they thought they were screwed? Still by saveing millions on maintenance at all the crossings it still comes out its "CHEAPER TO KILL 'EM" than properally maintain the crossings. You know like the explodeing gas tank on the pinto or the bad tires covered up. Well bad crossings are going to be exposed as the same cover-up here most scosh.

The god awful Attorney we had Terry Brown, Belleview, Ill. who had another Missouri case which the jury had awarded $160 million Alcorn vs. Up/Amtrak to work with says "take this out of settlement or I'm walking" during jury selection. Then he lied to the Federal judge and said he was fired. He had no intention on going to court which was his "sworn" duty when he took the case if his clients wanted to go to court which they did.

So Ed BNSF had every opportunity to go to court but they insisted on weaseling out.And this guy Brasher thier attorney well he's down below the whale dung slimeing around I think.

Brasher William A Attorney
211 North Broadway, Saint Louis, MO 63102
[phone]

[Anonymous]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--brf-train-truckcr0520may20,0,2279019.story?coll=dp%2Dheadlines%2Dvirginia

Dang I hate when I do that. So I'll fine myself a 65 day trail of 20% of the CSX crashes in 65 days. Why do the railroads not report to the NRC like is required by law. 39 reports for collisions, spills, etc... last week for over 600 railroads. Cooked books or what?


http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=640878
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=640218
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639429
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=643144
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642482
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642222
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639588
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642208
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641068
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=643906
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=643975
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=643970
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641079
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641107
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641421
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641465
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=641755
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642052
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642097
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642465
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=642642
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=638267
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=638529
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639379
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639630
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639647
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=639964
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=640069
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/reports_cgi/rwcgi60.exe?foia_bmp+inc_seq=640604

[Anonymous]

The railroad that cared about their employees would. You know the railroad that is required to have a SAFE working inviroment for their employees. A jungled out crossing is not safe now is it Jackflash? Like this Norfolk Southern crew messing their pants when they were about to hit this propane truck at a jungled out "PRIVATE" crossing. Notice how the story says ONE train whistle. That "says" private crossing every time.

Like Operation Life saver says you have to LOOK--Well look at the jungled out crossing with not even a sign. Listen to the story as you read it and it will tell you the train was hitting the truck while the ONE whistle was being sounded.

[edblysard]

Oh,and just in case you didn't know, it stands for,
L(ight) A(mplification by) S(timulated) E(mission of) R(adiation) or laser.

[edblysard]

Ok, One more time.
When you were a little kid(pup, spawn?) and you ran out into the street, I bet your mom and dad got all over you. They made you sit down and listen to the same lecture every person has heard about crossing streets. You dont cross the street until you stop, and look both ways to make sure no cars are coming.
Not a hard lesson to teach, nor a hard lesson to learn. I practice it every time I cross a street.
Simple lesson number two, taught to me by my dad, and my drivers ed teacher.
When you come to a set of railroad tracks, you dont just blindly drive across. You exercise a small amount of caution, you slow down, look both ways, and listen for a train.
Now, I have never, in 30 years of driving here in America and abroad, had a railroad crossing sneak up on me. Then darn things seem to want to stay still, in the same place all the time.
And every single one within my city is marked in some manner, with either crossbucks, or the full monty of arms, bells lights and such. It takes zero skill to reconize a railroad crossing.
If I ever drive across a railroad crossing, the next time I drive there, I expect the same crossing at the same place. So I exercise the same amount of caution I was taught as a child, I slow down and look. Now, if that is such a hard concept for you to grasp, then I pity any offspring you have, for you must have taught them that it surely is everybody elses fault if they get hit in the middle of the street when crossing, or that the train is suppost to stop when they are on the tracks. You strike me as one of those clowns who flip on your turn signal, and change lanes, without ever looking over your shoulder, and then act all surprised when you get clobbered.
Now, I am not too surprised you didnt take the settlement BNSF offered, and you went for the big bucks in court and lost. Greed usually begats misery. Bought a Federal Judge? Ha ha ha, man, the carriers hate the Feds more than you do.
Besides, it dosnt take much to convince any sane and rational person that trains are suppost to go fast, after all, thats what they were made to do. It also shouldn't come as any surprise to any thinking mammal that if you get in the trains way, you will get hurt or killed. Even dogs get off the tracks when we blow the horn.
If you can add past ten with your shoes on, the next logical step is to assume if you drive in front of enough trains, at some point in time one will hit you. The odds are NOT in your favor.
I dont know what you expect there to be on railroad tracks, but I would suspect a train should be your best bet.
The person you "lost" at the "blind", "private" crossing, was that the very first time they ever drove down that road, or used that crossing? I doubt it, which means they were aware of the crossing, and most likley knew trains went through there.
Your entire series of postings seem to indicate your belief that, given enough clear sight, people can jugde if they can beat the train or not, and should be given the opportunity to try. How dense can you be? Did your parents teach you to judge how fast the car was going, and try to beat it by running across the street? Of course not, they taught you if there is a car coming, dont cross. Well how do you like that? The same simple common application of self preservation applies at railroad crossings. Dont you get it yet? You never, ever try to beat a train. Period.
How someone so lacking in simple shoe lace technology even learned to type is beyond me. And thank god a dictionary is a book your not to familiar with, your posting wouldnt be half as funny if you could spell. Lasor pointers on a train? Try laser.
Lucky for the rest of the sentient species, Darwins theory of natural selection seem to be proven right and working as often as you claim. By the time my youngest daughter graduates college, most of your neo neanderthal, knuckle draging, slope headed sub-species should have wiped yourselves off the face of the planet. Anyone who thinks that a train, for gods sake, should tippy toe through a crossing, just because you decided to drive there, well, that foolish mentality cant survive to long. Did it ever occure to you that you have a option? If you think a crossing is dangerous, then dont use it. Drive to one you think is safe. Why take a risk you dont have to? But that goes right back to the "its everyones elses fault, I have a right to blindly drive across train tracks when I want to." type of logic my nine year old pointed out in your postings. Jesus Christ, its a train, its big, its heavy, its fast,it cant stop quickly, and it isnt ever going to change. But you will never learn that you have a choice, either drive in front of it, or dont drive in front of it. Slow down, look and listen, or trust fate. One of the very first safety rules I was taught when I went railroading applies to everyone, reguardless of who they are.
Expect a train, on any track, moving in any direction, at any time.
Not a real hard concept. But all I have heard you do is complain. I need a little cheese and crackers to go with all your whine.
What I havent heard from you is a sensible, accurate statement. Yes, there are really dangerous crossings. There is also some really dangerous street intersections and really dangerous people, in fact, there are a lot of dangerous things in the real world. Theres guns, there Aids, theres a lot of drunk drivers out there, I know, my cousin was killed by one last easter. But you dont see me sueing Budwiser for making beer.
Grow up, face the plain truth. You, and only you, are responsible for your own safety.
You are trying to make the world over into some warm, fuzzy perfect place where no one is responsible for their own actions or safety, and anything bad that happens is someone elses fault, but never yours.
You and the dinosaurs have a lot in common. Both of you are heard anminals, and neither one of you ever evolved beyound the eat, sleep and sex cycle of life.
Jenny was right, your nothing but a mule. I would get a two by four and get your attention, but it would just be a waste of time and of good lumber.
Do us all a favor, keep your eyes closed. That way, you can claim you never saw it coming.

[Anonymous]

The statement should be 70% of the 15% of crossings that have crossing gates have real time gate activation and 30% of the 15% of the gates have constant time gate activation. Depending on the crossing width and if the cross traffic lights are interconnected with the crossing lights where vehicles can be trapped by traffic the 20 seconds time down should be extended up to 60 seconds if need be.

This circuitry upgrade the tax-payers pay $100,000 dollars for and I've seen them do it on 20 mph tracks. A railroad favorite way to delete crossing safety funds so no NEW crossings ever go from passive to active. They save like $2,500 a year at every crossing that isn't active and do everything in their power to make sure no new crossings are added on to the maintenance lists.

[Anonymous]

The statement should be 70% of the 15% of crossings have real time gate activation and 30% of the 15% of the gates have constant time gate activation. Depending on the crossing width and if the cross traffic lights are interconnected with the crossing lights where vehicles can be trapped by traffic the 20 seconds time down should be extended up to 60 seconds if need be.

This circuitry upgrade the tax-payers pay $100,000 dollars for and I've seen them do it on 20 mph tracks. A railroad favorite way to delete crossing safety funds so no NEW crossings ever go from passive to active. They save like $2,500 a year at every crossing that isn't active and do everything in their power to make sure no new crossings are added on to the maintenance lists.

[Anonymous]

3,052 collisions last year Ed. Think the railroads might have a hint yet? Signed petition is the best way with all kinds of signatures. Of course Minnessotta doesn't have any funds for gates because they spend the years budget closeing one crossing down and building a road down to another gated crossing and spending 10 times of what it would have cost to put gates at the crossing they closed. The odds are exactly the same of being hit at either gate. Whoop I just let out one of the RRs secrets for wasteing safety funds. Now the complete joke is the Idaho Shields. Like $800 bucks per crossing to put reflector signs in and they don't even put lasor pointers shooting from the train.

[edblysard]

Blue,
Whenever we find a damaged crossing, we call it in to our MOW, and they fix it right away. On a main line like UP, first I would contact their 1-800 number, it on just about every crossing signal closet they have. Then contact your DOT, or who ever designs you streets. Follow up your phone call with e-mail and a written letter. Most of the time, if its a private crossing, all you have to do is ask the railroad to blow the horn(whistle) for the crossing. They will be happy to. If its a public crossing, the carrier will refer you to the local street dept. If they dont seem to respond in a resaonable time frame, complain to their boss, your mayor. If that dosnt get results, go to the TV stations, Fox network loves stories like that. In some instances, if the obstruction is on private property, a building or tree, you may have to deal with the land owner in court. For the most part, in a suburban setting, the railroad will respond. As for a rural area, depends on who owns the crossing.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[sooblue]

Hi Ed,
Sooblue here.
I haven't taken the time to read each post in this list. Judging by what I have read it's probably not worth the effort. I do have a question though. I have seen more than a few real nasty crossings. All of them unguarded and some of them are so ubstructed that unless your right on the tracks you couldn't see a train comming. For several weeks during a road construction detour I had to cross the mainline UP at an unguarded crossing that you couldn't even see the tracks that you were going to cross untill you started accross them. JOKINGLY I thought that this was the perfect crossing to park on and let insurence pay for a new truck. No one would ever be the wiser cause even the train engineer was blind.
My question (finally)
How does one go about getting a bad crossing changed?

I've read a lot of ranting on this list but I have yet to come accross a common sense solution.

I don't believe that the RRs could ever guard each and every crossing and I don't think that (joe blow) has any buisness correcting a bad crossing on his own.

I would think that the RRs would fix a bad situation if they were tiped off that one existed. Is that the usual way you go about getting it done?

Thanks Ed
stay toasty!