Second:
If you carefully read the article, the man was killed in 1997. The signal devises were switched in 2001. IE; the signal worked just fine for 4 years. Not quite the impression the NYT journalist was trying to create, was it.

Yes, I will acknowledge that grey lady has had some dirty laundry in her closet. But she will wash it. I think that to label the most quoted and influential newspaper on this planet as a non credible source is a bit of an irresponsible comment.

But if you believe the article has factual inaccuracies, communicate those thoughts to Bill Keller, Executive Editor.

Further, I do not exactly respect, Mr. Smith, your reporting of some perceoved way to obviate The New York Times registration system. Yes, they spam, but be assured theirs is hardly lewd. It is simply "the price' to be paid for reading their copyrighted material at the web.

If you do not wish to be spammed, do as I do; pay $600 a year for Daily home delivery.

From a New York Times reader of 55 years standing - GBN.

I read the article. It seemed intentionally deceptive to me.

Regarding the nag screen at the NYT; use my suggestion, or not... Your decision.

And O'Reilly is way too middle of the road for me (milque-toast).

Mr. Norman,
I have been registered with the NYT site for many years, and I've never gotten any spam, unless you mean pop-ups. AOL has a very effective pop-up killer, so I never see those, if they have them.

As for the article in general, I think they may have a point. To be sure there are cases where stupid people run around crossing gates, but I've seen at least one crossing in my own couinty that is a disaster waiting to happen. It is at a park entrance near Elkhorn Slough. Vegetation on a curve in the track partially blocks views for drivers leaving the park. There are no crossing signals, much less gates. There is a stop sign at the tracks for people entering the park, but not for people exiting the park.

I know the county transportation agency was concerned about this. I haven't been out there for several months, so it may have been fixed, I don't know.

I've now had a chance to review the long article. The Times assumes its readers have greater attention spans than gnats - something I think papers such as USAToday presume.

Two points come to light. First, the railroad CAN be at fault in a grade X-ing incident, and second, did English Common Law really better our contemporary society formulating the Tort system ("you injured my property or person, you pay"). Lest we forget, Common Law could just as easily been built around a No-Fault pholosophy ("you got injured. sorry 'bout that"). But even Hammurabi, who lived where present day Iraq is located and thought to be the first developer of a code of law, even proceeding the Roman Empire, held in favor of Torts.

When I was in the industry 25 years ago, one point I learned from Engineering Dept contacts was that failure to properly clear brush - the railroad's responsibility - is a point in favor of a plaintiff and that a railroad could be held liable for damages.

Further, while rare, X-ing signals do not always work. But most of the incidents reported, at least those that stuck with me, were at unsignaled X-ings. Unfortunately, "Stop Look Listen" really is only law for vehicles carrying persons for hire, and for those carrying Red HAZMAT. It's common sense for others, but that is often quite the uncommon virtue.

As for incidents regarding possible suppresion of evidental matter, this is a sorry byproduct of our adverserial judicial system. Further is points out the competitive nature of our society where "the only sin is not to win'.

Mr. Toy:
I have a problem investing my time in an article that starts out trying to be deceptive. The writing style of WALT BOGDANICH is deceptive. In fact I had to read the caption to find out the accident happened 4 years before the parts were switched.

CEO Davidson to Employees: http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/davidson_letter.shtml
Response to the Media: http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/media_response.shtml