The hubby and I had an argument. He says if a train hits a car it does NOT have to stop. I say it's common sense, the train MUST stop if involved in any accident. Who's right, and where can I direct him to prove it?
2006-09-24 17:53:25 · 18 answers · asked by silque1964 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Rail
The train will be required to stop. This is not only dictated by the operating rules of the railroad, but also common sense.
We're required to stop whenever a pedestrian and/or vehicle strikes our train. We will provide first aid where possible, but consider that a collision that severe would produce injuries far beyond anything our standard first aid could help. Some train crews elect to stay inside the cab and wait for the paramedics and police to arrive, to avoid psychological trauma.
Your husband's lack of common sense in this area is worrisome. I bear witness to the stupidity of drivers and pedestrians on a daily basis, and most probably don't even realize the terrible danger they're putting themselves and others in.
I think your husband could benefit from some serious education on rail safety. Look up Operation Lifesaver in any search engine, and visit them for some eye-opening (and potential life-saving) material.
2006-09-25 02:24:27 · answer #1 · answered by Engineer Budgie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hubby is wrong, but there is a problem with semantics in the question as well.
Trains don't hit cars. Car drivers put the car in the train's way. Never has there been a documented case of a train looking for a car, lurking in the shadows.
Yes, you stop. As a matter of fact you will put the train in emergency, putting many, many people at risk. But it never makes any difference. Usually multiple dead people are the results of the engineer's best efforts. But the attempt to stop is genuine, though always ineffective. It rarely helps a head end crew sleep at night.
The sad thing is cars do get hit and it is almost always 99.99% avoidable. Even with the efforts of Operation Lifesaver and other volunteer educational programs, deaths at grade crossings continue to rise. With the current trend, grade crossing fatalities will surpass the numbers of those killed in drunk driving accidents.
2006-09-25 03:50:31 · answer #2 · answered by Samurai Hoghead 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes a train must stop if involved in an accident. Any one of the major carriers websites will have contact information under pages such as "Public Safety"
2006-09-25 01:04:31 · answer #3 · answered by ' 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The train has to stop, but it takes about 1 mile from impact before the train comes to a complete stop.
2006-09-25 08:57:07 · answer #4 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not just common sense, it's the law. A colision with another vehicle requires that both vehicles stop - regardless of the damage. Unless a train hits Bullwinkle or Yogi then it must stop.
2006-09-25 01:04:55 · answer #5 · answered by brian s 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think in any kind of accident, whether it's a train or a car, you must stop. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. It really is common sense.
2006-09-25 01:04:38 · answer #6 · answered by Kendra 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Train has to stop but it takes longer for a train to stop
2006-09-25 01:32:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes they will stop... unless they are unaware that it happened. Also... if it is a busy track they may wait to stop until they are clear of the busy track depending on the damage of the train.
2006-09-25 01:02:22 · answer #8 · answered by Kelli H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it must stop! But no one can tell where that will be.
Trains are hard to stop. I suspect that the Transportation Safety Administration would like to look at the event.
2006-09-25 01:01:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The train must stop but it might take a mile or so to do....
2006-09-25 01:01:14 · answer #10 · answered by hmmm... 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋