Train V.S. Car Snake Hollow Road Bridgehampton

You know it is funny that you should mention this as while I am doing the draft motion for the revitalization of the GC Secondary, I am also proposing in a second draft motion for the LIRR to ask for volunteers to help educate both pedistrations and motorist about track dangers and safety.

Just at Mineola alone I count on average about 15 people who go around the gates between 0915hrs and 1030hrs.

The thing that gets me is that there are about 3 work crews that I am guessing is dispatch either to or from Mineola who sees this and says nothing.

About 2 weeks ago there was a lady with her baby in a stroller where the stoller was on the tracks and the lady was not, so I jumped out the car and warned her, not a minute too soon as the NYA RS-30 came barreling through..

Somebody mention Operation Lifesaver either in this thread or the other one, but the FRA has set aside funds for RRs who want to participate in it.

I'm curious, how much do you think it would cost to take out the gates and addthe pop-up blockcades, or add the blockages in along with the gates. That would defintely stop cars atleast from going around and harder for pedistrations.

One of One-Sixty wrote:I'm curious, how much do you think it would cost to take out the gates and addthe pop-up blockcades, or add the blockages in along with the gates. That would defintely stop cars atleast from going around and harder for pedistrations.

Who cares how much it costs? Any amount is too much IMHO. Survival of the fittest: if you're moronic enough to walk/drive around the gates, you deserve whatever happens. I am so sick of everyone trying to protect these people, no one is forcing them to walk/drive around the gates! If something absolutely must be done, then make a law imposing a huge fine on anyone caught going around the gates, then we'll see how many people do it.

Lirr168 wrote:

One of One-Sixty wrote:I'm curious, how much do you think it would cost to take out the gates and addthe pop-up blockcades, or add the blockages in along with the gates. That would defintely stop cars atleast from going around and harder for pedistrations.

Who cares how much it costs? Any amount is too much IMHO. Survival of the fittest: if you're moronic enough to walk/drive around the gates, you deserve whatever happens. I am so sick of everyone trying to protect these people, no one is forcing them to walk/drive around the gates! If something absolutely must be done, then make a law imposing a huge fine on anyone caught going around the gates, then we'll see how many people do it.

And these huge fines still do not stop people from driving while talking on a non-hands free cellphone.

All of these accidents in the end cost us the riders money as the RR has to pay to either repair or completely replace a c(s), not to mention any lawsuits that arise and are actually won with million dollar verdicts.

So I am not looking at it as protecting them, but protecting my money and wallet and the future of the RR.

One of One-Sixty wrote:So I am not looking at it as protecting them, but protecting my money and wallet and the future of the RR.

Fair enough, I can't argue with that logic. In fact, I think I have a sure-fire way to both reduce grade crossing accidents AND fund their replacement with the system One of One-Sixty proposes: anyone hit by a train (or their next of kin) who, after an investigation by the proper authorities, is found to have willfully maneuvered around the gates should be fined, let's for the sake of argument say $5000. Money collected from said fines will go to funding grade crossing equipment replacement.

i mentiond this once and i will say it again

if one does the american public a favor and rounds lowered gates and gets killed or survives, the indivisual involved shall and should be forced by the fullest extent of the lay to PAY the railoroad for the damages and pay for re imbursment to the passengers and crews involved. this will easilly spik into the millions.

now you get one or 2 people to set the example and do the world a favor, then the rest will give it atleast 2 thoughts leaving us with pondering how to make them think 3 or 4 thimes before they F-up again.


simply they do it they pay for it weather they live or die.

Long Island 7285 wrote:i mentiond this once and i will say it again

if one does the american public a favor and rounds lowered gates and gets killed or survives, the indivisual involved shall and should be forced by the fullest extent of the lay to PAY the railoroad for the damages and pay for re imbursment to the passengers and crews involved. this will easilly spik into the millions.

now you get one or 2 people to set the example and do the world a favor, then the rest will give it atleast 2 thoughts leaving us with pondering how to make them think 3 or 4 thimes before they F-up again.


simply they do it they pay for it weather they live or die.

Actually the funny thing is, in cases involing people and trains or cars and trains at grade crossing, even though the plantiff wins let say a 7 million dollar verdict they generally have to pay the railroad for any damages that has occured.

An example,

MARTINEZ, Calif. -- A railroad company acted with malice when it failed to close a crossing where a train later struck a truck driver, leaving him brain-damaged, a jury decided in awarding the man nearly $7 million, according to the Contra Costa Times.
BNSF, formerly Burlington Northern Santa Fe, had acknowledged in fall 2001 that the Pinole crossing posed a risk but did not close it as intended, the Contra Costa Superior Court jury said in its verdict handed down Monday.

The jury awarded Robert Pietrowski $6.9 million in damages for pain and economic loss. The same panel will hear further testimony before deciding on punitive damages.

Pietrowski, 40, was a PG&E employee working on a private train crossing on the border of Pinole and Hercules on Dec. 19, 2001. As he drove over the tracks, where neither gates nor lights warned passing vehicles, a train struck his company truck and sent it flying into the air. Gertler said Pietrowski suffered severe head injuries and back fractures, leaving him unable to ever work again.

During the trial, a railroad safety director testified that when a train hits a motorist, the company considers the motorist at fault 100 percent of the time. He also testified that gates and lights have no effect on safety.

However, the company had intended to close the crossing because it was unsafe. The railroad acknowledged the planned closing in a late-October letter to a ranch owner adjacent to the tracks.

The letter stated the crossing would close in 30 days, attorneys said. The train struck Pietrowski's truck 50 days after the letter was dated.

The jury based its decision on a portion of the civil code that defines malice as "despicable conduct which is carried out by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others."

A BNSF spokeswoman and the company's attorney declined to comment.

The jury will hear testimony in the second phase of the trial next week to decide whether to award punitive damages to Pietrowski -- attaching a dollar amount to the train company's degree of malice.

The jury also decided that BNSF must pay PG&E $575,000 to cover Pietrowski's medical bills and the cost of the truck. Pietrowski must pay about $13,000 to the railroad to cover damage to the train.

The $6.9 million includes $2 million for pain and suffering, and the rest for past and future economic loss. The jury found that BNSF was 70 percent responsible, with Pietrowski responsible for 17 percent and PG&E for 13 percent.

(This item appeared in the Contra Costa Times June 15, 2005.)

June 15, 2005

This is typicall of cases against the RR, and in some cases the person sueing the RR can not start recieving their money until they pay the RR for the damages that thye caused.