If a conductor of a train hits a car? ?

Verwah

No way. It would be the driver of the car at fault. It takes over two miles for a fully loaded freight train to stop from 50 miles/hour. And if the driver tried to get around the gates at the intersection, They have already vilolated a traffic law.

Dexter

Driver of the car shouldn't be an idiot and be on the tracks...

L3thality

Well the car should not be on the track anyway because trains are not able to stop fast enough. There are plenty of warnings to prevent this from happening, so it is the driver of the cars fault.

HMUSN

The train has the right away at all times ( even a 30-45 second warning AND mechanical road blocks, so No.

Friendly Stranger..

Most likely it would be the driver of the car at fault. Why would a car be on the train tracks? Unless the train de-rails because of the conductor not handling the train properly or no paying attention, it is the driver of the car's fault. The car should not be near the train. That is why track signals are there which is to let the driver of the car know when a train is approaching. If the driver is that dense to keep going and they are killed then the driver of the car is at fault.

Although I like your train of thought there...the answer is no. They may be charged with manslaughter or something like that if they were negligent, like the conductor that was checking text messages instead of watching the tracks. But if the conductor is doing all he is supposed to and still hits the car- he will likely not get charged. It takes a long time to stop a train. That's why cars usually stop for them!

mustanger

I don't think so. The train has the right of way on a track. The car is encroaching on the trains right of way and is therefore at fault. Trains are heavy and typically take a mile or more to stop. They also can't maneuver to miss an obstacle like a car can. I've never heard of "locomotive homicide", but I've heard of a lot of dumb bunnies trying to out race a train to a crossing and losing. One famous one here in Austin was a couple who had just been married. Evidently they were in too big a hurry to get to the motel.

wildbill05733

No, they don't. It takes a lot of distance to stop a train. Here in Vermont all rail ways are considered 'private property'... It is illegal to walk on the tracks or park your car on the tracks.

Vince M

In the first place, the conductor doesn't drive the train.

In the second place, the train ALWAYS has the right of way on the tracks. Trains have no way of stopping for cars on the tracks. The engineer or driver will, of course, TRY to stop, if the hazard is seen in time, but this RARELY happens. It takes several hundred yards to stop a fully loaded train traveling at speed. I read of a lady who complained to a local commuter train service because the train wouldn't stop for her and her children when they were trying to cross the tracks. The rail company turned her name over to the police who warned her that she had no business on the train's right of way and could have been subject to arrest.

Also consider that a train cannot turn in ANY direction to avoid a collision so, the only control a train operator HAS is in the speed. The only way the train operator could get in any kind of legal trouble is if he didn't , at least, TRY to slow down.

Also, not everyone who drives a car and kills someone in a collision is going to be charged with a homicide. Imagine a scenario (which happens all too often) where someone runs a red light and is run into by another car. If the guy that runs the red light is killed, it isn't the other driver's fault if there was no avoiding the collision.

And finally, there is no crime on the books called "locomotive homicide." There are other crimes, such as criminal negligence, which may apply, but names for new crimes are not just pulled out of a hat.

Hmm...

My guess would be no. Drivers are to be aware of train crossings, obeying the laws to 'stop, look, and listen'. Tough noogies if they don't.

whats the answer

No , unless the conductor, was drinking or on drugs, or was doing something other than doing his job correctly. Most train intersections are clearly posted with lites, gates and signs. I t is hard to get a conviction if a person dies ,

Zerotosixtyin5.2

i think not. if the train conductor was hitting the horn trying to get attention. tired to stop but couldn't or couldn't stop soon enough. it wouldn't be the conductor's fault. it could be whoever owns the rail system if the bars to not cross and lights didn't go. but if everything was working it's not the conductor's fault someone stopped on the track.

Adacadus

1. The conductor doesn't drive the train, the driver does that.

2. The car stopped on the lines is committing trespass.

3. An express train takes miles to stop, all the driver can do is hit the brakes and call the emergency services.

The only person involved who could be prosecuted is the person who put the car on the tracks.

Jail Warden

i wouldnt think so. you can stop a car much easier than a train.

Fred C

You don't know what the conductor's job is, do you? The train is run by an engineer, or, if it is being moved in the maintenance yards, by a hostler. The conductor takes your tickets and is in charge of passenger seating and safety on a passenger train, and signals the train is loaded, cars closed up, etc, ready to move (both passenger and freight). It is a very responsible position, but he is not the "driver" of the train.

Assuming you meant engineer, not conductor, a driver in a car is at fault. A long loaded train takes a long time to stop, and cannot be steered around a collision.

UCANTCME

It would depend on the situation as to why the car was there in the first place and if the train conductor was at 100 percent or not.

LeighAnn

Im not sure, but I bet the laws are different regarding trains.
(You can control and steer a car. You can't really steer a train, can you?)

Joelle T

...i suppose so...

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: