Kedzie Brown Line - Cop Car runs gates, bad news

3rdrail wrote:For all you armchair generals out there, if your brother or sister, mother or father were crying for help on the other side of a crossing and you thought that you could make the crossing, would you go for it or would you sit there and wait for the crossing to clear ?

I'd wait. My brother, sister, mother, or father would not appreciate me getting killed by a train.

Tadman wrote:http://gapersblock.com/merge/archives/2 ... not-cross/

"An unmarked police car went around the gates at the Kedzie Brown Line crossing after a Loop-bound train passed -- and was hit by a northbound train."

this cop must be dumb.when you see the railroad crossing gates down stop.

Recently the local radio station released police gang maps. Although the area is gentrifying, this is definitely in the middle of "la familia stone" gang territory. Although not all gangs or territories are outwardly violent warzones, it may lead to derivative lawlessness and criminal activity.

Tadman wrote:it may lead to derivative lawlessness and criminal activity.

Like going around lowered crossing gates? That is illegal.

justalurker66 wrote:
Like going around lowered crossing gates? That is illegal.

I can only speak for Massachusetts and not for Illinois, but it wouldn't be in Massachusetts. I supect the same is true in Illinois.(but then again, novices always know their facts.)

It's a $250-500 fine in Illinois.

F40CFan wrote:It's a $250-500 fine in Illinois.

I was correct in my assumption that IL is the same as MA. Copied from Illinois 625 ILCS 5/11-205 of Chapter 625 Vehicles:
I urge you to pay particular attention to paragraph b and c2.
No Violation

State of Illinois Chapter 625 ILCS Vehicles Section 11-205 wrote:(625 ILCS 5/11-205) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-205)
Sec. 11-205. Public officers and employees to obey Act-Exceptions.
(a) The provisions of this Chapter applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways shall apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this State or any county, city, town, district or any other political subdivision of the State, except as provided in this Section and subject to such specific exceptions as set forth in this Chapter with reference to authorized emergency vehicles.
(b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this Section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.
(c) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may:
1. Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of
this Chapter;

2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,
but only after slowing down as may be required and necessary for safe operation;

3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does
not endanger life or property;

4. Disregard regulations governing direction of
movement or turning in specified directions.

Well she blew #2 and possibly #3.

F40CFan wrote:Well she blew #2 and possibly #3.

Listen, F40CFan - I went to the trouble of researching your post which was in error. I don't expect that you would necessarily know about an emergency vehicle exception that is part of most, if not all, state's motor vehicle section of their state law. I have more than enough experience to speak on this which you will see if you go to my profile. There it is. There is no violation. If you want to doubt me or if it makes you feel good to trash the officer, so be it. By the way, you're welcome.

3rdrail wrote:Listen, F40CFan - I went to the trouble of researching your post which was in error. I don't expect that you would necessarily know about an emergency vehicle exception that is part of most, if not all, state's motor vehicle section of their state law. I have more than enough experience to speak on this which you will see if you go to my profile. There it is. There is no violation. If you want to doubt me or if it makes you feel good to trash the officer, so be it. By the way, you're welcome.

Take it down a notch ... lower your weapon. There is no need to be abusive.

It seems that your bias is evident. The "blue wall" where you have jumped to the defense of an officer WITHOUT knowing the law. Your previous post on the issue - emphasis added:

3rdrail wrote:I can only speak for Massachusetts and not for Illinois, but it wouldn't be in Massachusetts. I supect the same is true in Illinois.(but then again, novices always know their facts.)

And yet you did speak ... without explicitly KNOWING the law for the state you were speaking about. You looked later (and got it wrong). You have trimmed the law quoted down and omitted important text:
(e) The foregoing provisions do not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty of driving with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor do such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others.
source

She caused an accident and should (under Illinois state law) suffer the consequences. But put up the "blue wall". The public is accustomed to officers not enforcing laws against other officers.

(A relevant memory: A few years ago I drove to Washington DC the week of the Police Officer's Memorial. I left town the same day as most of the officers. On the interstate I was passed by dozens of police cars from jurisdictions across the midwest as they exceeded the speed limit to get back home. Completely illegal but what are you going to do? "Professional courtesy" seems to be more important than enforcing the laws.)

Yikes. Must have hit a nerve ! You don't know what you're talking about. (e) does not apply as far as this discussion is concerned, nor do I believe that it concerns the collision as it goes to reflect what was in the mind of an operator immediately prior to the event. The only way to determine that is by interviewing the officer involved or by crash reconstruction. Had she been drag racing or trying to make a take-out place before they closed, I would agree with you. I believe that she was attempting to come to the aid of a fellow officer, may have had "tunnel vision", and most likely believed that she could make it accross the crossing safely. The alternative would be that she thought that there was a good possibility that the train was going to strike her. I do not believe that to be the case as police officers are not trained that way. We are trained that the most important response is to assist a fellow officer. Therefore, the sections which I included are all-inclusive and without evidence as I have mentioned, leave (e) as not applicable.

3rdrail wrote:(e) does not apply as far as this discussion is concerned, nor do I believe that it concerns the collision as it goes to reflect what was in the mind of an operator immediately prior to the event.

I would not expect your opinion to be any different. She was not operating the vehicle in a safe manner. Going around gates and colliding with a train is evidence that her driving was unsafe. She needed to keep her mind on the task at hand ... driving safely.

3rdrail wrote:I believe that she was attempting to come to the aid of a fellow officer, may have had "tunnel vision", and most likely believed that she could make it accross the crossing safely.

That may be a good explanation of her actions but it does not excuse her from operating her vehicle in a safe manner and does not make her immune to the consequences of not operating her vehicle in a safe manner (as specified by Illinois State Law).

3rdrail wrote:The alternative would be that she thought that there was a good possibility that the train was going to strike her. I do not believe that to be the case as police officers are not trained that way. We are trained that the most important response is to assist a fellow officer. Therefore, the sections which I included are all-inclusive and without evidence as I have mentioned, leave (e) as not applicable.

So ignore the parts of the law that you don't like? I believe you are proving my point.

I agree that an officer is not trained to drive their vehicle into a train or any other vehicle intending to cause an accident. It is a silly statement for you to make to suggest that anyone would be trained to collide with a train. But they are trained to drive in a manner that does not do more harm than good (at least in good departments they receive good training). It didn't do her partner any good to cause a serious accident.

I understand that officers risk their lives daily to protect the public as well as other officers. Too many have ended up losing that gamble. Their names end up on our memorials, including the one in Washington DC. Killed in a traffic accident en route to a call is not a good outcome. The officer in this case was fortunate not to put her name on a memorial.

justalurker66 wrote:I understand that officers risk their lives daily to protect the public as well as other officers. Too many have ended up losing that gamble. Their names end up on our memorials, including the one in Washington DC. Killed in a traffic accident en route to a call is not a good outcome. The officer in this case was fortunate not to put her name on a memorial.

AMEN!

Lurker, you go right on in whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time in trying to convince you otherwise as I can see that this is a personal issue. Good luck !

Lets just say that this officer was lucky they were not killed.

Moderator's Note:
I think this topic has ran it's course, so it will be locked.