HI once again I saw something really dumb this morning. Once we all got word that the schools were closed due to weather this morning. I was taking one of my co-workers home and we got stopped by a train on 50th and lincoln this morning which was fine cause it was fast moving road railer train. I saw it fro the beginning to end but once the train ended. The gates got stuck in the down position and would you believe this people were going around the lowered gates luckily there was no other trains coming from either direction which was a good thing. But any who I was only one of the smarter people that turned around and took a detour around the gates. Now what would have happened if another train was coming toward the crossing and would have hit the a car or cars while going around lowered gates the families would have sued the railroad for killing or hurting there family members. From doing something so stupid.
Remember, lots of locos are being equiped with camras these days [;)]
Unfortunately, lawyers love to pack juries with people who will ignore that fact so they can award big money. (and everyone knows RR’s have big [deep] pockets).[soapbox]
It is not legal to pass lowered gates under any circumstances.
However, in some states such as Minnesota, at crossings equipped with flashing lights, but no gates, it is legal to pass the lights after stopping if no train is approaching. Besides being legal, it is common sense, readily apparent to everyone. So even though it is illegal to pass lowered gates, it is not surprising that drivers would extend the common sense principle of proceeding through flashing lights if no train is present, and apply it to a gated crossing.
I see no good reason why the law would treat the two types of crossings differently under the same circumstances of falsely activated signals. The common sense test applies equally to both types of crossings.
It’s not possible to pack a jury, since lawyers for both sides have a say in who goes on. It’s called vor dire examination.
And I’ve said this before, but railroads have deep pockets allright, but they also are tight-fisted with their money and know how to hold on to it. I’ve worked on railroad cases that dragged on for years, only to be thrown out by an appelate court.
Here in Ohio when I was in driver’s ed, we were told that if the crossing gates are down, you are only allowed to go around if flagged around by a railroad employee or law enforcement. If the crossing only has flashing lights that are on, you are to stop and only proceed if there is no train or if the train is stopped and not blowing its horn for the crossing.
Kevin
I’ve seen this happen many times and people always get impatient and go around the gates. Not the smartest thing. I have also seen the local police in the past help guide people through. I remember helping out by lifting a large gate at the local crossing up while supervised by an officer across the road. I was young then and it was quite a task, he simply lifted the other one and leaned on it to keep it up til a train came. Fun stuff.
And the most moronic post in this thread goes to rrnut282.
Jury consultants cost money. If anyone has the wherewithal to hire them to get a leg up, it’s going to be the railroad.
[:O]
[#ditto] I used to watch alot of trains at teh station in my town and the Police station is right next to the crossing on the other side of the tracks from the station and that happened a few times.
One time I saw a gate come down on the hood of a pickup and break off, fall across the tracks and get run over by the train (just the gate) that was kinda interesting
i’d have pulled over and waited for a train or the gates to go back up. i’m weird like that.
even then, what if this was a quiet zone? then driving around the gates would be VERY VERY dangerous and reckless. otherwise, i was under the impression that in addition to gates, bells, and flashing lights at crossings, we forget that the train provides a warning too by blasting its horn. wouldnt you hear the horn and not proceed?
Isn’t one of the requirements of quiet zones that the barriers are not passable when in the down position (example, there is a center barrier wall and the gate goes down over it so drivers can not detour around the gate). Of course, I relize that someone can always drive half a block down the wrong direction, but their are limits to how “failsafe” these things can be.
But when the gates are down, it is illegal to go around them, even if there is no train. When the gates are down, the road is closed. Although, there may be a legal provision for a cop to flag traffic through as someone mentioned above.
And the award for most juvenile post that offers more insults than insight goes to yours truly.
Have you ever served on a jury? It’s possible to see the accused at some point in the jury selection process, make a spot judgement on guilt or innocence and answer the lawyer’s questions accordingly to get on the jury.
In many locations it’s simply against the law to go around gates, period. The only point of a trial is to extort money. When my wife drove a school bus, she would lose her job instantly, whether the bus was full or not.
Unfortunately, far too many juries only consider the fact that someone was hurt and so they should be taken care of, even if the defendent was hurt. When the defendent is a large company, too many juriors seem to think they should be held accountable even if the defendent really isn’t negligent. Remember the Fed Court verdict in Philly about 2-3 months ago that gave one teenager, who only lost much use of one arm, about $50 million for when he climbed up on top of a boxcar and got zapped by the overhead electric wires? (The 2nd teenager recovered enough to go into the Army so he only got about $350,000.)
For those who aren’t familiar with civil juries, they often are much smaller than criminal juries (varies from state to state but normally ranges from 6 to 12), they don’t have to be unanimous in their verdict, and the lawyers for an individual plaintiff almost always try to get the least educated people they can on the jury. Nowadays, you have the big law firms (the ones you see on TV advertising they will make you rich and you don’t have to pay them unless you win) representing the plaintiff. Their legal expertise and resources often matches the companies.
The lawyers you see on TV advertising they will make you rich are the least competent. Why do you think they advertise? They make their money in bulk on the plaintiffs’ fender benders, not the defendants. Spend about 40 years in trial courts and then consider yourself competent to make such a statement.
As to the big verdicts, they are appealed. Always. And reduced or thrown out on appeal. You only hear the verdict on the 5 O’clock news.
According to one of our dispatchers { I work for DART. No, not that one, the other one}, I can drive the bus around crossing gates only if directed to by a police officer or a railroad employee.
This has happened a few times as NS has had problems with gates coming down with no train anywhere around. Once they pulled some cars out of a team track and the lead car derailed just as it entered the crossing. Fortunately, there was a crewman handy to hold up the gates.
Usually, I can detour or turn around before I reach the crossing. But one time I waited at the head of the line for the gates to come up and the lights to cut off. Just as I stepped on the accelerator, the lights came back on and the gate dropped inches in front of the bus. With traffic immediately behind me, I was totally stuck.
Ishmael,
I was involved with civil court cases during the last 16 years of my career (now retired). Yes, many law firms you see advertising on TV aren’t worth much (you can often tell by the length and quality of the ad), but some of the larger firms that now advertise have become very adept at winning over juries in trials where the stakes are high. Of course, the huge jury awards do get settled for less–but they still tend to cost a bundle, including legal expenses.
We normally had a decent chance in the more rural counties and the cases we lost in them were usually somewhat reasonable when it came to the award. The most extreme was always Philadelphia County where the sky was the limit and the judges usually accepted anything the juries decided upon. That’s why I wasn’t totally surprised at that unbelievable award in the case I mentioned, even though it was Federal court. Will Amtrak and NS have to pay the entire $50million? No, but I’ll be very surprised if they don’t end up paying some millions to the more injured juvenile trespasser (and probably the full $350k awarded to the other one).
When you use the phrase 'Yours Truly," you mean “the award for most juvenile post that offers more insults than insight” goes to YOU, rrnut.
Just like if you sign a letter, “Yours Truly,” you put YOUR name under it, not someone else’s.
My apologies, Alphas, for assuming that you didn’t know the business. The worst error for any investigator in the legal profession is to assume something. I was misled by the comment on the advertising lawyers. I’m sure that you do have some reputable lawyers advertising in Philadelphia, but here in my smaller hometown, personal reference and word-of-mouth are good enough for the good ones.
We are very conservative out here and it wasn’t until 1972 that we had a jury verdict in excess of one million. ($1.3mil) That wa