Rolling over railroad tracks.

Especially given the above circumstances -- all EXCELLENT suggestions -- & commentary!!!


-- L

 

Federal Register :: Request Access

The prohibition on changing gears while crossing the tracks implies that the CMV shall not stop moving until it has exited the grade crossing.

I think @Eram92324 is clearly in the right, and the idiot who fired him is arrogant and is so anal about enforcing company policy that he ignored the spirit and the intent of the relevant federal regulation.

 

Get it in writing , specifically why, you were terminated .

And go find a better company.

 

I agree that it's important to follow the spirit of the laws in question.

That said, there are a lot of contradictory laws that if an entity follows one law they are breaking a different law. The Safety Critter understands that, but it is immaterial to him. The Safety Critter is most concerned about 1) keeping his job and 2) getting promoted. After that comes protecting the Company (please see points 1 and 2), following the law, and finally comes safety.

From a legal perspective in this scenario, the biggest risk to the Company comes from the rolling stop UNLESS a train is imminent - ie you can hear the train horn. From a legal perspective, if a truck blows a stop sign and 'causes' a car to swerve into the ditch the truck can be held liable for a 'miss and run' regardless of the rules/regulations regarding CMVs and train tracks. I certainly don't agree with this gestalt, but agree or not it's reality.

 

Your comment about landing gear made me realize that I notice tons of trailers rolling with landing gear only part way up. Sometimes only up a few inches. For gosh sakes man, don’t be so lazy. It will bite you at the worst time.

 

Oh, it has and continues to be. SEC v Silver and EPA v Colorado Mining come to mind as controlling cases, but it's been many years since I've spelunked those waters. Even then I was looking at conflicting federal rules, entering state territory is a kumquat of an entirely different color. From the very little I've looked into it, "phantom driver"/"miss and run" case law makes the Wild West look like a seven year old's tea party. It seems to come down to "better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6" - you have to PROVE that you took the path of least damage.

Say instead of a train track it was a vehicle about to rear end the truck. Should the truck proceed through the intersection if clear or let themselves be hit? What about if they're 'sorta clear'? Or if it results in two other vehicles having a collision? At a certain point it becomes a judgement call.

Like it or not, the Safety Critter is going to err on the side of "you shouldn't have done that" and fire a driver BEFORE the driver does something that ends up in court.

 

.

 

And the no shifting thing really does not apply to auto trans trucks.

 

Landing gear fully up and tandem’s all the way forward. It still can happen.