STUPID CAR !

  I'm well aware of what was implied - that was entire point of the cited examples. In other words, from the standpoint of pure text there is no difference between the cited examples and the quote in the original post.

  It looks like what we have here is a case of violent agreement.  In the meantime I think we have driven well away from the reason for being of the OGR forum so I'm going to step out of the car, join Gunrunnerjohn,  and walk back over to the grade crossing to see if there is a train coming that might be worth photographing.

Just don't leave the car on the tracks!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

WOW, I took a wrong turn and ended up in English 101!

Another example why this forum is so highly regarded as an erudite community.

@lpb007 posted:

Another example why this forum is so highly regarded as an erudite community.

I've heard other adjectives to describe it.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

WOW, I took a wrong turn and ended up in English 101!

  You're right, John.  That's what this all comes down to.  Obviously, clarity suffers when some journalists are hastily preparing a print piece or a broadcast.  The ability to be a good proofreader -- and to do it quickly -- is an advantage whenever writing something for publication.

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

I would think so, that wouldn't be any different than colliding with another car or truck I would imagine when it comes to liability.

@Dominic Mazoch posted:

If the auto driver is at fault, can the railroad sue/go after said driver for damages.

Rarely worth it:  they would spend far more than they could recoup.

@palallin posted:

Rarely worth it:  they would spend far more than they could recoup.

Equipment loss.  Equipment repair.  Cost for late trains.  Medical bills for crew......?  More loss than you think.

Of course it's more loss:  that's the point.  Very, very few people have a fraction of the money necessary to make that good.  The RR may get a judgment, but it won't get any $$$$ because too few people have that kind of money.

@palallin posted:

Of course it's more loss:  that's the point.  Very, very few people have a fraction of the money necessary to make that good.  The RR may get a judgment, but it won't get any $$$$ because too few people have that kind of money.

What about the driver's insurance company?

Exactly, everyone is required to carry at liability insurance.

Here’s a wonderful example of television “journalists” demonstrating their wide knowledge of the subject at hand…

Now that is amazing! When an aircraft runs out of fuel, it will “…struggle to maintain altitude…” Gee…ya think? Of course, it was CNN, so what else could we expect.

Journalism is dead…everywhere. 👍

@Rich Melvin posted:

Journalism is dead…everywhere. 👍

Right along with common sense.

Rich, as a pilot also, I get lots of chuckles out of reporting on aviation matters, the errors and total misconceptions could fill a bookshelf!

I do not choose to die on this particular hill, but, I propose that, if the RRs *could* get $$$$ by suing the folks who hit or get in front of trains, they *would* sue them.  I am pretty sure they have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it won't pay.  I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by someone who knows the business.

Well, it's more than just getting the money, it's also perhaps sending a message to the folks that drive around the crossing gates!  Even if it wasn't profitable, it might make sense to file the suit to put the motoring public on notice that RR's are not willing to keep taking it in the shorts for gross negligence of the motoring public.

@palallin posted:

I do not choose to die on this particular hill, but, I propose that, if the RRs *could* get $$$$ by suing the folks who hit or get in front of trains, they *would* sue them.  I am pretty sure they have done a cost-benefit analysis and decided it won't pay.  I am willing to be persuaded otherwise by someone who knows the business.

What @palallin said. The minimum auto liability insurance in most states is well less than $100k, mostly for bodily injury. The railroads can make a case, but won't win anything compensable from individuals beyond their insurance. The minimum auto policy property damage insurance required in most states is less than $25k (think damage to locomotives, cars, signals, track). It might be productive to sue commercial carriers.

https://www.bankrate.com/insur...verage-requirements/

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Rich, as a pilot also, I get lots of chuckles out of reporting on aviation matters, the errors and total misconceptions could fill a bookshelf!

Oh yes…just ask a “journalist” to explain a stall and you will always get a story about how the engine stalled. Hilarious.

@lpb007 posted:

What @palallin said. The minimum auto liability insurance in most states is well less than $100k, mostly for bodily injury. The railroads can make a case, but won't win anything compensable from individuals beyond their insurance. The minimum auto policy property damage insurance required in most states is less than $25k (think damage to locomotives, cars, signals, track). It might be productive to sue commercial carriers.

https://www.bankrate.com/insur...verage-requirements/

But suppose the driver has deep pockets?  Could the railroad go after that?