STUPID CAR !

  I'm well aware of what was implied - that was entire point of the cited examples. In other words, from the standpoint of pure text there is no difference between the cited examples and the quote in the original post.

  It looks like what we have here is a case of violent agreement.  In the meantime I think we have driven well away from the reason for being of the OGR forum so I'm going to step out of the car, join Gunrunnerjohn,  and walk back over to the grade crossing to see if there is a train coming that might be worth photographing.

Just don't leave the car on the tracks!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

WOW, I took a wrong turn and ended up in English 101!

Another example why this forum is so highly regarded as an erudite community.

@lpb007 posted:

Another example why this forum is so highly regarded as an erudite community.

I've heard other adjectives to describe it.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

WOW, I took a wrong turn and ended up in English 101!

  You're right, John.  That's what this all comes down to.  Obviously, clarity suffers when some journalists are hastily preparing a print piece or a broadcast.  The ability to be a good proofreader -- and to do it quickly -- is an advantage whenever writing something for publication.

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

I would think so, that wouldn't be any different than colliding with another car or truck I would imagine when it comes to liability.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

Rarely worth it:  they would spend far more than they could recoup.

@palallin posted:

Rarely worth it:  they would spend far more than they could recoup.

Equipment loss.  Equipment repair.  Cost for late trains.  Medical bills for crew......?  More loss than you think.

Of course it's more loss:  that's the point.  Very, very few people have a fraction of the money necessary to make that good.  The RR may get a judgment, but it won't get any $$$$ because too few people have that kind of money.

@palallin posted:

Of course it's more loss:  that's the point.  Very, very few people have a fraction of the money necessary to make that good.  The RR may get a judgment, but it won't get any $$$$ because too few people have that kind of money.

What about the driver's insurance company?

Exactly, everyone is required to carry at liability insurance.

Here’s a wonderful example of television “journalists” demonstrating their wide knowledge of the subject at hand…

Now that is amazing! When an aircraft runs out of fuel, it will “…struggle to maintain altitude…” Gee…ya think? Of course, it was CNN, so what else could we expect.

Journalism is dead…everywhere. 👍

@Rich Melvin posted:

Journalism is dead…everywhere. 👍

Right along with common sense.

Rich, as a pilot also, I get lots of chuckles out of reporting on aviation matters, the errors and total misconceptions could fill a bookshelf!

I do not choose to die on this particular hill, but, I propose that, if the RRs *could* get $$$$ by suing the folks who hit or get in front of trains, they *would* sue them.  I am pretty sure they have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it won't pay.  I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by someone who knows the business.

Well, it's more than just getting the money, it's also perhaps sending a message to the folks that drive around the crossing gates!  Even if it wasn't profitable, it might make sense to file the suit to put the motoring public on notice that RR's are not willing to keep taking it in the shorts for gross negligence of the motoring public.

@palallin posted:

I do not choose to die on this particular hill, but, I propose that, if the RRs *could* get $$$$ by suing the folks who hit or get in front of trains, they *would* sue them.  I am pretty sure they have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it won't pay.  I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by someone who knows the business.

What @palallin said. The minimum auto liability insurance in most states is well less than $100k, mostly for bodily injury. The railroads can make a case, but won't win anything compensable from individuals beyond their insurance. The minimum auto policy property damage insurance required in most states is less than $25k (think damage to locomotives, cars, signals, track). It might be productive to sue commercial carriers.

https://www.bankrate.com/insur...verage-requirements/

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Rich, as a pilot also, I get lots of chuckles out of reporting on aviation matters, the errors and total misconceptions could fill a bookshelf!

Oh yes…just ask a “journalist” to explain a stall and you will always get a story about how the engine stalled. Hilarious.

@lpb007 posted:

What @palallin said. The minimum auto liability insurance in most states is well less than $100k, mostly for bodily injury. The railroads can make a case, but won't win anything compensable from individuals beyond their insurance. The minimum auto policy property damage insurance required in most states is less than $25k (think damage to locomotives, cars, signals, track). It might be productive to sue commercial carriers.

https://www.bankrate.com/insur...verage-requirements/

But suppose the driver has deep pockets?  Could the railroad go after that?

Sure.  Whatever the railroad is willing to sue for.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

But suppose the driver has deep pockets?  Could the railroad go after that?

Haven't heard of any of the 1%ers getting in grade crossing collisions...   Seems like most of the people are regular impatient or inattentive schmoes.

Rusty

@Rich Melvin posted:

Oh yes…just ask a “journalist” to explain a stall and you will always get a story about how the engine stalled. Hilarious.

Yep, I always worried a lot about my engine stalling...

Road closed for over 25 years.

This is a Google Earth Image. That now shows a road that has been closed by the CSX Railroad & The Oakland County Road Commission. In Highland Twp. Michigan. For over 25 years.

On a Friday afternoon three high school girls were killed by car train collision as they were driving home from school. The road leading up to the crossing was on a gravel downgrade. They put on their brakes and the car slides onto the track killing all three students.

This was a devastating event for this community. A lengthy investigation by the CSX RR & The Oakland County Road Commission came to the conclusion that this crossing was unsafe and closed the road permanently.

Gary

Gary, when did that  accident happen?

As to a RR suing the driver, the RR's attorney might decide to counterclaim in a suit by the driver's survivors to get the jury to realize the RR also had loss.  If I were the RR's atty, I'd love to have available video from a cab camera, with sound, to show what happened and that the engineer sounded the proper signals.

@RJR posted:

Gary, when did that  accident happen?

@trainroomgary posted:

Road closed for over 25 years.

This is a Google Earth Image. That now shows a road that has been closed by the CSX Railroad & The Oakland County Road Commission. In Highland Twp. Michigan. For over 25 years.

I think he made that pretty clear, 25 years ago!

GRJ, I read it somewhat differently:  that the road had been closed 25 years ago and somehow the kids now got on it (crossing gates are not the only barriers that can be driven around) and went barreling downhill.

@RJR posted:

GRJ, I read it somewhat differently:  that the road had been closed 25 years ago and somehow the kids now got on it (crossing gates are not the only barriers that can be driven around) and went barreling downhill.

I don't get that out of it.  However, it may be just the way he's writing it.  What I'm reading is this incident happened 25 years ago and resulted in the permanent closure of the road.

@trainroomgary posted:

This was a devastating event for this community. A lengthy investigation by the CSX RR & The Oakland County Road Commission came to the conclusion that this crossing was unsafe and closed the road permanently.

Would adding a traffic light at mainline and high incident crossings help? For some reason people don't take crossing lights as seriously as they do a traffic light. Heck, the poles and electric are all ready there. We've all seen traffic lights replace stop signs because people don't seem to take stop signs seriously either. Highway departments should also play part in keeping people safe at crossings too. Not just the railroad. It is their road.

Dave Z:  You do have a sense of humor.  Around here, we've learned to stop at a green light to let the red-running traffic through the intersection.  Of course, here in the Washington DC area we have many very important people.

@RJR posted:

Of course, here in the Washington DC area we have many very important people.

A legend in their own minds.

A map of the closed road.

Stupid Driver is Not a Legal Term.

I have never seen the term “Stupid Driver” on a Accident Report Form. Issued by a law-enforcement agency.

The correct legal terms are, “Careless Driver” or “Reckless Driver” -There are detail legal definitions for both of these in the “National & Michigan Vehicle Code”.

Gary

The stupidity goes on...

Rusty

@Dave Zucal posted:

Would adding a traffic light at mainline and high incident crossings help?

I think that's a good idea. On Frelinghuysen Avenue in Newark a combination of traffic lights and flashing RR lights are used. I think people are more "programmed" to stop for a red traffic light than for flashing crossbucks.

Stupid Motorist may not be the legal term, but in Arizona's monsoon season, flooded washes and roadways are common threats for drivers. Often times, when a motorist attempts to cross a flooded area they get stuck and need rescue. This occurs so commonly that the state passed a law in 1995 to try and relive the financial burden upon taxpayers for the costly rescues and which also pose safety risks to the public safety and law enforcement agencies who perform them.

New headline:

"A Kansas couple died Thursday when a train crashed into their car."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ARb7W0?ocid=msedgntp

@Arthur P. Bloom posted:

New headline:

"A Kansas couple died Thursday when a train crashed into their car."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ARb7W0?ocid=msedgntp

Once again a misleading headline!  It should have read more like...

"A Kansas couple died Thursday when they drove around lowered crossing barricades and in front of a speeding train."

If anyone had any doubt that journalism is dead...

I shan't defend journalists or other low lifes, but technically they were correct:  the train did crash into the car.

@RJR posted:

I shan't defend journalists or other low lifes, but technically they were correct:  the train did crash into the car.

Except,,,,,,,,,,,,that headline makes it sound like the "poor elderly couple" was simply driving down the road, and the darned train DELIBERATELY ran into their car and killed them!

@RJR posted:

I shan't defend journalists or other low lifes, but technically they were correct:  the train did crash into the car.

You can make almost any stupid action sound OK and be "technically correct" by just leaving out important details.