"Trouble On The Tracks" -Discovery Times Channel

Long Island 7285 wrote:
JT, I aint argue'n your point there your are dam right about it, but i gota say i love stopping at crossings when i know a trains comeing for spite. and it even more a thrill to get out and grab a pic of it

Reason why why we have operation life saver. .

Well said David

Bingo . . . . dead-on!

Give that man a cigar!!

Dave

I dont know about you, but most of the time I do slow down and listen. Seen too many wrecks to fully trust the crossing gates!

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled decades ago that trains have the right of way at a highway grade crossing.

I saw the show on the Discovery Times Channel, and as with anything else associated with the New York Times, I took it with a grain of salt. The show was purely one-sided, picking a couple of instances where railroads were fully or partially liable. In most cases, however, grade crossing accidents involve pure stupidity on the motorists (or pedestrians) part.

Discovery Times could have run a balanced piece and just filmed any LIRR rush hour train which stops at a station, and countless droves will walk right around the gates in front of the very train they were on, sometimes in double track territory not even thinking that something could be on the other track.

Instead, they chose to bash the big railroads.

Jay

Well, it looks like you guys are correct. I researched the matter of driver compliance at railroad crossings in the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. Section 1170 lists several different situations in which a motorist is required to stop at the crossing. They include, activated crossing protection devices and the presence of a flagman too. AND anytime a train approaching is within 1500 ft, sounding its horn, or by reason of speed or nearness to the crossing is an immediate hazard. The law did not address the question of failure of the crossing protection equipment.

So if I'm reading the law right, it seems to mean that you legally have to stop any time a train is close enough to be a hazard. So I assume if the warning equipment failed and a car gets hit by the train, technically the driver might still have violated the law for not stopping when the train approached.

BUT, I have a hard time believing that the police would ticket a driver for going across the tracks if the crossing protection failed to operate. And if an accident occurred, I seriously doubt that a railroad would have the audacity to claim legal right-of-way when its own signal equipment had failed to work properly, in effect causing the accident.

But, in this "Catch-22" world that we live in, maybe that's exactly what would happen..................

Liability wise, the railroad would lose in court for the failure of the crossing protection. The driver is still responsible for failing to yield.

Jay

You would be amazed at the liability of the RR. A few years ago, a woman ran down the stairs at hunterspoint ave, and tried to jump onto a moving train leaving the station.She jumped between the cars and missed.She had both her legs cut off below the knees. The railroad was held partially responsible due to "poor lighting" at the station. The woman got awarded 10 million dollars, and the decision stood on appeal!