From: tgttgv@tb3.chem.tue.nl (Jan Vaessen)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Deaths on Railroad Property: common sense or am I an Idiot?
Date: 24 Dec 92 10:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: tgttgv@chem.tue.nl

b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman) writes:

>(Not contradicting anything previously said:)

>I think the sense that "these people must be dumb" to climb on
>the tracks and get killed derives from the fact that the behavior
>people engage in on rail_roads_ is not what they would probably
>do on any other road.  That is, if they treated railroads like
>car roads (like freeways, given the speeds involved), they
>wouldn't be in the situations that got them killed.
>(This just to explain, not justify or excuse anything).

I think you're hitting a very crucial point stating that people have a
different attitude towards car roads than towards rail roads. Since the
majority of the population in the US is no longer using the railroad as
a means of transport, rail roads are no longer considered as
infrastructure that is there for public benefit (like car roads, power
lines, airports) but as infrastructure belonging to a certain company
that they use to make profit (just like for instance a chemical plant).
I think you will find different attitudes with people living close to a
frequently used freight line than with people living close to a commuter
railroad which they use regularly.

As far as liability concerns: I think railroads have full responsibility
towards people that come close to rail roads for the railroad's sake; in
other words: customers. This mainly involves safety in train stations:
proper underpasses so that people won't cross the tracks, elevated
platforms will help also. As for as other people-rail encounters are
concerned: both are using the same space, and it is the responsability
of both that they can live together safely. The safest way of railroad
operation is to fence off all railroads and have no more grade
crossings. However, railroads do have a responsibility not cutting the
country into isolated parts. Main roads must be respected by the
railroads. But when it comes to residential areas close to tracks the
situation is different: the local authorities have planned a residential
area right there near an existing railroad, so it is also their 
responsibility to ensure that people and railroads can operate safely in 
the same space.

To speak for the Netherlands: the Dutch railroad company (NS) is
responsible for maintaining safety at grade crossings and fencing off
the tracks in residential areas. But of course, they are subsidized by
our government. In the US, where most railroad companies recieve hardly
any or no financial support from the authorities, it is not right to
demand from them to pay for all the safety measurements. 

If people are using the tracks as a shortcut, it is a sign of bad
planning and it is a shared responsibility of railroads and local
authorities to solve this safety problem.


>I think a lot of people have seen trains moving slowly and so
>expect that all trains move slowly.  I have the same problem
>on my bicycle a lot, where people assume that since some bikes
>move slowly, they all do.

True: I was brought up with the idea that trains move fast and you are
allways in danger when you are on the track, even at a protected
crossing. As a little boy I went to summercamp near an abandoned
railroad, which we used to walk to town. I was allways very scared and
kept looking around if there was no trains coming. Also, when I visited
Canada some time ago, people looked very strange seeing me looking
carefully three times before crossing tracks at an unprotected crossing.
I think education is the keyword here !


Jan Vaessen
Eindhoven University of Technology
Eindhoven, the Netherlands