Xing crashes

Don H · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 104

Well, it seems you can crash your truck into a train at a level crossing,
and get away with it.
The Trawalla crash on 28/4/06, in which two train passengers died, and 18
others were injured, resulted in the truck driver being tried on 22 counts -
and getting off entirely free. Seems there was insufficient evidence! Or,
that it was all the govt's fault, due to the criminally deficient state of
the crossing's warning system.
As we know, legal decisions create a precedent, and this juicy one will be
seized on to exonerate the trucking industry in future. After all, lack of
adequate warning can be extended, ad infinitum; and, in any case, the onus
is on govt to protect truck drivers from themselves.
Individual responsibility may remind us of Mr.Bumble, in "Oliver Twist",
being held responsible for the actions of his wife, and his claim that the
law might need to rethink the matter. Does "coverture" still apply in
British law?
So, where's the joke? If you haven't got it by now, then that's too bad.
(Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories) 12 Feb '08

Archived from group: aus>jokes

Don H · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 104

"Don H" wrote in message$421.12452@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Well, it seems you can crash your truck into a train at a level crossing,
> and get away with it.
> The Trawalla crash on 28/4/06, in which two train passengers died, and
18
> others were injured, resulted in the truck driver being tried on 22
counts -
> and getting off entirely free. Seems there was insufficient evidence!
Or,
> that it was all the govt's fault, due to the criminally deficient state of
> the crossing's warning system.
> As we know, legal decisions create a precedent, and this juicy one will
be
> seized on to exonerate the trucking industry in future. After all, lack
of
> adequate warning can be extended, ad infinitum; and, in any case, the onus
> is on govt to protect truck drivers from themselves.
> Individual responsibility may remind us of Mr.Bumble, in "Oliver Twist",
> being held responsible for the actions of his wife, and his claim that the
> law might need to rethink the matter. Does "coverture" still apply in
> British law?
> So, where's the joke? If you haven't got it by now, then that's too
bad.
> (Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories) 12 Feb '08
>
>

# A recent report recommends train carriages be strengthened to better
withstand side collisions.
Perhaps removing bull-bars from the front of semi-trailers might also
contribute.
But, overall, deciding -
(1) who has right-of-way at level crossings, and,
(2) that crossing signs should not be the exception re compliance, as
compared with other road signs
- seems basic.

David · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 243

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:03 GMT, "Don H"
typed furiously:

>"Don H" wrote in message
>$421.12452@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Well, it seems you can crash your truck into a train at a level crossing,
>> and get away with it.
>> The Trawalla crash on 28/4/06, in which two train passengers died, and
>18
>> others were injured, resulted in the truck driver being tried on 22
>counts -
>> and getting off entirely free. Seems there was insufficient evidence!
>Or,
>> that it was all the govt's fault, due to the criminally deficient state of
>> the crossing's warning system.
>> As we know, legal decisions create a precedent, and this juicy one will
>be
>> seized on to exonerate the trucking industry in future. After all, lack
>of
>> adequate warning can be extended, ad infinitum; and, in any case, the onus
>> is on govt to protect truck drivers from themselves.
>> Individual responsibility may remind us of Mr.Bumble, in "Oliver Twist",
>> being held responsible for the actions of his wife, and his claim that the
>> law might need to rethink the matter. Does "coverture" still apply in
>> British law?
>> So, where's the joke? If you haven't got it by now, then that's too
>bad.
>> (Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories) 12 Feb '08
>>
>>
>
># A recent report recommends train carriages be strengthened to better
>withstand side collisions.
> Perhaps removing bull-bars from the front of semi-trailers might also
>contribute.

That would also contribute to more deaths of truck and bus drivers and
more damage to vehicles involved in a collision with any form of
natural phenomenon, tree, cliff, animal.

> But, overall, deciding -
>(1) who has right-of-way at level crossings, and,

Trains, trams and horse drawn vehicles have right of way at all times.

>(2) that crossing signs should not be the exception re compliance, as
>compared with other road signs
> - seems basic.
>
I drove tour buses for many years. It was a company rule that at all
country rail crossings you had to stop before crossing. It did not
matter whether there were wig-wag signals or not. In the suburbs this
rule did not apply even though the Boss would have preferred that it
did. It did apply if the suburban crossing was unprotected.

Once all heavy vehicles were required to stop at all rail crossings
but sometime prior to the seventies that requirement was removed.
Perhaps it should be reintroduced.
--
Regards
David
fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness

Don H · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 104

"David" wrote in message@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:03 GMT, "Don H"
> typed furiously:
>
> >"Don H" wrote in message
> >$421.12452@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Well, it seems you can crash your truck into a train at a level
crossing,
> >> and get away with it.
> >> The Trawalla crash on 28/4/06, in which two train passengers died,
and
> >18
> >> others were injured, resulted in the truck driver being tried on 22
> >counts -
> >> and getting off entirely free. Seems there was insufficient evidence!
> >Or,
> >> that it was all the govt's fault, due to the criminally deficient state
of
> >> the crossing's warning system.
> >> As we know, legal decisions create a precedent, and this juicy one
will
> >be
> >> seized on to exonerate the trucking industry in future. After all,
lack
> >of
> >> adequate warning can be extended, ad infinitum; and, in any case, the
onus
> >> is on govt to protect truck drivers from themselves.
> >> Individual responsibility may remind us of Mr.Bumble, in "Oliver
Twist",
> >> being held responsible for the actions of his wife, and his claim that
the
> >> law might need to rethink the matter. Does "coverture" still apply in
> >> British law?
> >> So, where's the joke? If you haven't got it by now, then that's too
> >bad.
> >> (Refer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories) 12 Feb '08
> >>
> >>
> >
> ># A recent report recommends train carriages be strengthened to better
> >withstand side collisions.
> > Perhaps removing bull-bars from the front of semi-trailers might also
> >contribute.
>
> That would also contribute to more deaths of truck and bus drivers and
> more damage to vehicles involved in a collision with any form of
> natural phenomenon, tree, cliff, animal.
>
> > But, overall, deciding -
> >(1) who has right-of-way at level crossings, and,
>
> Trains, trams and horse drawn vehicles have right of way at all times.
>
> >(2) that crossing signs should not be the exception re compliance, as
> >compared with other road signs
> > - seems basic.
> >
> I drove tour buses for many years. It was a company rule that at all
> country rail crossings you had to stop before crossing. It did not
> matter whether there were wig-wag signals or not. In the suburbs this
> rule did not apply even though the Boss would have preferred that it
> did. It did apply if the suburban crossing was unprotected.
>
> Once all heavy vehicles were required to stop at all rail crossings
> but sometime prior to the seventies that requirement was removed.
> Perhaps it should be reintroduced.
> --
> Regards
> David
> fundamentalism (n.): fund = give cash to; amentalism = brainlessness

# I'd be interested to learn of any government legislation which ever
permitted a road vehicle to cross a rail level crossing without first -
"stop, look, and listen".
Trains have "right of way" in all cases, and, again, I'd be interested in
any legal exceptions.
Ideally, in an age of heavy road transport, ALL crossings should NOT be
"level", but either underpass or overpass - but that would be much too
expensive to implement in all cases, though it might be worth installing in
a few.
Most of the manually-operated gates have gone. There used to be a man
who'd come out of his shelter-shed to physically move the gates, open or
closed, but such leisurely procedure is too slow for the modern age.
Maybe boom gates could be extended right across the opening (not
half-way) so vehicles can't weave between them? Or, metal spikes rise from
the ground....?
On TV, I saw a recent police blitz on motorists at one Melbourne rail
intersection - imposing $100+ fines, plus three de-merit points, etc, on the
numerous "VIP"s to whom a 30 second delay is just too much to tolerate.
Still, better fined than dead, as the cops explained to these thickheads.
=====================
I tried to beat a train today,
Where road and rail do cross.
But I tried this once too often;
Hence family's life-time loss.
=======================

is there a word for the gawking-at-car-crashes thing? you know what i mean, you jackals - the sometimes irrepressible urge to stop and stare at car crashes or (usually online) pictures of terrible accidents and injuries. the "you don't want to look but you can't look away" thing. someone on 4chan suggested s

Automobile acronyms Automobile acronyms AUDI Accelerates Under Demonic Influence Always Unsafe Designs Implemented Asshole Under Delusional Influence BMW Beautiful Mechanical Wonder Big Money Works Bought My Wife Brutal Money Waster Black Man's Weiner (extension) BUICK Big U

February 15 Puns nemo wrote: > "Tim Bruening" wrote in message > > > > > Then "Mos" says: > > >Larry Krzewinski wrote: > > >> On 3 Nov 2004 00:36:15 -0600, "Milton J. Smuthworthy, I" > > >>
Men in Heaven

It's time M.I.5 did their job! I'm going to join M.I.5 So that bastard will not survive. I know that he's sad But he's driving me mad. How can they still leave him alive?