Sight Distance and preventable deaths at grade cro

[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]

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!

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[edblysard]

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

[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?

[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]

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 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]

Jen,
No, just a little,gutless man who was reduced to tears after seeing a family destroyed by a company who took the life of thier daughter because the $1000 worth of vegetation removal was a "non-issue" because they weren't cited for it. This would be one of those 400 deaths that Operation Lifesaver tells everyone is there own fault.
Mike

[Anonymous]

Just one more thing. Maybe you should contact Operation Lifesaver, they would love your new motto; "Getting killed at a grade crossing is a stupid moment". I would hate to reduce the loss of someones son or daughter to a "stupid moment", but Operation Lifesaver would love to reduce it to that.
Mike

[Anonymous]

Let me see if I understand this. We should do nothing about railroad crossings because guns are more risky.

I can't help but wonder if 1000 class 1 railroad employees died each year, on the job, whether this forum would feel differently. I mean all industrial accidents are mostly the fault of the employee aren't they?

The principle is simple - eliminate needless deaths if you can. Whether through guns, drugs, rr crossings or whatever.

By the way, I think this forum is the property of Kalmbach who makes money selling magazines to people who love trains, like myself. If it were owned by CSX I wouldn't be here. Grade crossing safety (or simply RR safety) seems like a good topic to me.

[Jackflash]

Jen. I know of no case where you would have to
get out of your automobile to "go look down the
tracks" NO crossing is that sight impared, even
on slow speed tracks the engineer will start
blowing the horn 900 feet away from the crossing,
and, if it is a private crossing, (you own the
crossing) you know the tracks are there, heck
you LIVE there, just look before you go across.
If you get hit by a train you were trying to beat
it or there is driver inattention involved.
jackflash

[wabash1]

I dont need to lie. I tell the truth and you hate it. the problem is you dont have all the answer and the railroad uses it in there favor. this is the reason you are here is try and make us look bad. oh even though i threw a good trump on your hand and stunded you i am still saving the best for last when i am ready to play it. and what you cant stand is its the truth if you research before opening your mouth. you can find it on ns web site and the utu and ble web sites. the union has a problem with it becouse of privacy but just look its there. have a good day..

[wabash1]

ed csx engineer and the rest i am tired of this post. the just of the matter is that missouri didnt get enough money for some kid that got killed at a crossing that the kid was at fault. it is never the railroads fault but you cant see that call me a killer a muderer or anything you want i will keep doing my job. and if you are standing on the tracks ill do like i always do i wont brake til i hit you. the just of the matter what ever you say it wont change my mind and if in court with you ill make you look like a fool. your lawyer to. its funny when they ask you was your horn blowing, yes it was they ask how do you know, duh i could hear it...... just stupid stuff like this. and why didnt you avoid hitting them. duh the steering wheel sliped out of my hand. It should be a happy day for americans to get idiots out of the genee pool that way they cant reproduce. have a fun day i haft to go to work soon. maybe ill get luck and see a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

I think they should have to weld like volkswagons on the front of the trains and the crews run the trains out of those. Wouldn't be long before they were going "CAN YOU SEE ME NOW?"

[sooblue]

You replied to ME but your talking to ED.
You need to focus.
Have you ever heard of the Darwin Awards?
Each year the list comes out of the top winners.
Each of the winners won the award by doing their best to off themselves.
One example; In Iowa a few years back a man fried himself when he cut into a highline wire and his insulated gloves had gotten a small hole in them.
He was stealing the Aluminum wire. He ended up burned black and was so brittle that he broke appart.
Over the years the darwin awards have had many winners.
Each time someone is killed by a train there is another potential winner.
If it wasn't for the trauma that the head end crew endures I'd say give the engineer a rubber stamp and each time they off someone they could stamp under their window.
At the end of the year awards are given to the engineer who offed the most morrons.
One less notthead to have to deal with on the road.
Sooblue

[Anonymous]

I believe Iowa electrics settlement check to me was around $80,000. You see they forgot to check their switch arm ground wires on the 7,200 KV poles. Had a terrible attorney then also.

This year well the award it is going to the idiots who try to cover the railroads negligient butts.

[Anonymous]

Let's see if I've got this right. You said,"I take responsibility for myself and always check for one". 99 percent of the motoring public do the same.

"I don't race onto the tracks to see if the train is really there". 99 percent of the motoring public do the same.

Problems arise when the engineer does NOT sound the horn - whether you want to admit it or not that does happen. Problems arise when the lights and or gates malfunction - assuming there are lights and gates. That too does happen.

Problems arise when visibility is obscured by trees, bushes AND the railroads little silver building. Those things happen too.

All the motoring public asks is for the train to let us know you are coming. We will gladly stay out of the way. Yes, there are those who go around the gates, but don't label all of us just because there are some who do. Too many times I've SEEN and heard from others how the railroad comes in AFTER a fatality accident and cuts down all the trees and bushes AND moves the little building across the tracks to the other side because it was obscuring the sight distance down the track. You obviously don't know what it feels like to live with the knowledge every day for the rest of your life that your loved one would most likely still be alive IF the crossing had had gates before the accident instead of after, and IF all the sight obstructions had been removed before the accident rather than after.

I truly pray that you never have to join the ranks of us that do.