• Another stupid I mean impatient truck driver vs train

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  by amtrakhogger
 
Aside from the clarification to my statement, one thing I do know is
as a locomotive engineer you do not have to present your driver's
license in a railroad accident investigation. You must produce identification
such as your company ID or your certification card.
As for points on your driver's license that is completely bogus for any
so-called motor vehicle violation caused with a locomotive!

  by cougar3676
 
It's amazing....anyone with half a brain knows that a train crew cannot do a damn thing to prevent grade crossing accidents or fatalities due to trespassing 99% of the time, and the crew gets treated like criminals by the police and their own railroad. Yeah, I think I will stick to HO scale railroading, thanks.

  by 3rdrail
 
The issue as regards to producing a drivers license does not relate to the right to be operating a locomotive - none is legally required by the state (Mass), as railway equipment is not considered a "motor vehicle" - it has to do with proving who you are. Rarely in the outside world is a company ID acceptable for anything except minimal ID backup. The license establishes who actually was operating, on-scene, a witness, etc. for the investigation, subsequent reports, and, should there be a question down the road. As local police are often first on the scene, they are often privy to gaining this information first.

As far as police giving "speeding tickets" to freight trains in Ashland - There is no provision in state law to cite a railway vehicle for "speeding". And as regards the arrest, also in Ashland, for "hampering an investigation and not cooperating" - where did that law come from ? I wish that it did exist.

As regards to RR crossings being private property, they are deemed to be a "public right of way" according to Massachusetts law, whereby any way that is used customarily and routinely by the public, is so classified. It's the same as a shopping mall parking lot. There is no "expectation of privacy" on such a way as would be offered, say, in a railway yard. Railway equipment has the "right-of-way" through the crossing when appropriate signals indicate. A warning, sign, or signal civil violation doesn't amount to a criminal "trespassing" violation - it wouldn't on private property either.

As regards to railway personnel being subject to merit rating surcharges as a result of "showing their licenses", I think that I can put this myth to bed also, and allow all you engineers out there to get a good nights sleep. In accordance with Massachusetts General Law c6, s183 - a standard by which an operator may be applied a surcharge after being found more than 50% at fault in a collision, is that such operator must have been operating a motor vehicle, and that such vehicle operated must be subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan. Railroad, Railway vehicles, trolleys, trackless trolleys are not considered motor vehicles, thus they are not subject to the Safe Driver Insurance Plan which authorizes the dissemination of information to insurance companies from the Merit Rating Board regarding operators of motor vehicles. Therefore, any operator of such a railway vehicle would not be subject to surcharge following information recieved by an insurance company from the Motor Vehicle Insurance Merit Rating Board. Do screw-ups happen ? Yes. But, in the unlikely event that a RMV accident report generated a surcharge, I'm quite sure that a letter to the Board and/or respective insurance company with a copy of the engine's registration would make it go away. That's what you pay union dues for.

And lastly, an investigation, as so correctly and eloquently explained by TPR37777 to be lawful and appropriate by local police, does not in itself indicate being treated inappropriately or with suspicion by the police, in spite of the fact that it is an emotional time for all concerned. In cases of train/motor vehicle or pedestrian collisions, it is almost always required by law that such an investigation be conducted and reports filed by responding police. If a crime has been committed by railway personnel, they have no immunity from prosecution by local or state authorities by virtue of the fact that they were operating railway equipment at the time.

It has been suggested that sometimes railroad companies internally try to shift blame on their own employee when the company is actually at fault. If that were the case, or otherwise, I would give the police as much information as they wanted - and then some. As an outside agency with jurisdiction, I would welcome an objective police investigation if I didn't do anything wrong. The police most likely are going to be in the best investigative position to uncover and document conditions such as working signals, faulty driver behavior, witnesses and human factor at the time of, and immediately prior to the accident/homicide/or suicide.