The driver of this vehicle either failed to see the flashing lights at the crossing (this was not a crossing with gates-nonetheless one should heed the warnings of a signal), or thought he could out-race a train going over 70mph.

The families of those killed are blaming Amtrak saying that the crew failed to stop the train fast enough to avert what would have been an inevitable collision anyway.
By the way, would anybody like to take a guess on how long it would take to stop a Southbound Amtrak San Joaquin train going about 79mph on a dark, damp winter evening caring about 95 people-and to come to a safe and complete stop? California Highway Patrol Inspected the locomotive and questioned the engineer. Well documented is the fact that the engineer did apply the emergency brake-something that they don't customarily do-UNLESS THE TRAIN NEEDS TO COME TO AN IMMEDIATE STOP. Even with the emergency brake application, it took the train almost 1/2 mile to come to a safe and complete stop-what else could the engineer do? .

I know I shouldn't be laughing at the families-I don't wish to make light of their grief. What I don't understand is how Amtrak can be found liable for another persons lack of good judgement(to put it kindly). Maybe Amtrak has just become just an easy target because of their recent problems.>

But Mr. Norman is right. It's mainly the "deep pockets" syndrome. After all, if you ran a red light and smashed into somebody proceeding on green at the posted speed, you wouldn't normally even consider trying to sue; for one thing, the police would have written you up for failing to yield the ROW.

This happens with grade crossing accidents too, but plaintiffs usually request a jury trial, admit their guilt, but convince the jury that they still deserve "something" for their pain and suffering. Under the doctrine of "comparative negligence", the jury will find the bonehead driver of the auto 49% liable, and the railroad 51%; the bonehead therefore gets to collect 51% of the damages awarded.

Railroads have taken to appealing this sort of nonsense, and in fact on appeal (to a judge, not a jury) the awards are frequently vacated.

One explanation I saw regarding why people drive through grade crossings is that
(1) They've been across it regularly in their daily lives and never see a train, and
(2) When the lights are on/gates are down they assume it is a malfunction of the signals

Another explanation is that people are engaged in other things...talking (cell phone or their kids or other passengers), putzing with the radio/tape/CD player etc and just aren't focused on driving. At least that is the theory they mention at some car/train collision sites, especially those where there are no skid marks from the car.

Regardless, the rail folks should not be held at fault in those cases where it was clearly auto driver error...

M Palmer

Regarding 1), the first order of business at the scene is for the railroad to test the signals. Ideally, this is being done concurrently with interviewing the train crew and administering the required alcohol/drug tests.

When I was in the industry, I did learn that there was at least one incident at a rural crossing with no signals where the brush has not been sufficiently cut back to allow the "LOOK" in order for the "STOP", the railroad reportedly paid damages.