 |
Re: Mr. Bruce: Re: Metrolink Safety Panel report
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 01-11-2009 - 19:19
John Bruce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So let's walk back the cat:
OK. Let's.
> 1. Connex, a company with a bad safety reputation,
> hires Sanchez, who has a record of a shoplifting
> felony arrest that was plea bargained to a
> misdemeanor specifically so he could continue to
> pursue a rail career.
Please give us some examples of Connex's "bad safety reputation," to support your claim.
I am not familiar with Connex's hiring procedures. UP only requires potential employees to indicate any felony convictions, not misdemeanor convictions. I'd be surprised if Connex's requirements were any different. It's also not something that would be prohibited under FRA licensing procedures.
> (Wow. Sounds like the kind
> of employee you'd want, huh?)
I don't think a reasonable person would consider a misdemeanor conviction for shoplifting to mean he would not be fit to operate a locomotive.
> 2. Sanchez is the engineer in a head-on which is
> 99.999% certain caused by Sanchez texting. It
> appears that this is a habit he's picked up over
> time. Common sense (aka armchair expertise)
> suggests this is conduct so bizarre that it had to
> have attracted notice.
Why so? The cell records the NTSB released indicated he made a habit of text messaging long before the Chatsworth incident, yet he had no previous problems. With only one person in the cab, who do you think would "notice"?
> 3. A lawyer for some of the victims says he has a
> witness who in fact had noticed Sanchez's texting
> and had complained about it. (Some news accounts
> say twice, by the way.) Connex, accourding to
> this account, blew it off. The allegation also
> asserts a supervisor found a personal cell phone
> switched on in Sanchez's grip, but this also came
> to nothing. Again, assuming Sanchez had a habit
> of texting while at the throttle, it sounds
> completely credible that someone would notice this
> and report it.
See my answer to Question #2.
> It seems to me that there are two interesting
> points of view on this forum. One, represented by
> Dr. Zarkoff, seems based on a primitive sense of
> job entitlement, and says nobody should be
> penalized for rule violations, and anyone who says
> otherwise is just an armchair expert. After all,
> Dr. Z wasn't one of the killed and injured at CP
> Topanga.
>
> Another, represented by OPRRMS, who it seems to me
> should know better, seems to be that by a series
> of logical hail-Mary plays, you can argue that
> nothing happened here that was anybody's fault.
You've come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The rules against x,y, and z weren't exactly in
> effect at exactly the right time, in exactly the
> right ambient temperature, and so we're all just
> gonna shrug it off.
You've made another erroneous conclusion.
> Anyhow, Hillenbrand claims the
> signal was green. Sounds like the elderly
> railroaders I've come to know elsewhere.
Lots of witnesses claim things that are subsequently disproved.
> Our legal system provides for accountability in
> situations like this when all else fails, and it
> does seem that all else has failed, at least for
> the dead and injured. OPRRMS seems all bent out
> of shape that a lawyer with expertise in the rail
> industry should be representing some of these
> victims.
Please show me where you find me to be "all bent out of shape." Anyone who wishes to do so has my permission to retain a lawyer about anything. By the same token, one should not be misled by the promise of dollar signs. As they say in the TV ads, "Your results may differ." If you'd like me to tell you the story of my first involvement with a non-employee personal injury case, Mr. Bruce, just ask me.
> As a member of the informed public, I'm entitled
> to draw my own conclusions, about Sanchez and
> about the guys who seem to want to circle the
> wagons.
Absolutely! It's your "conclusions" and the reasoning behind them that has me so fascinated and entertained.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So let's walk back the cat:
OK. Let's.
> 1. Connex, a company with a bad safety reputation,
> hires Sanchez, who has a record of a shoplifting
> felony arrest that was plea bargained to a
> misdemeanor specifically so he could continue to
> pursue a rail career.
Please give us some examples of Connex's "bad safety reputation," to support your claim.
I am not familiar with Connex's hiring procedures. UP only requires potential employees to indicate any felony convictions, not misdemeanor convictions. I'd be surprised if Connex's requirements were any different. It's also not something that would be prohibited under FRA licensing procedures.
> (Wow. Sounds like the kind
> of employee you'd want, huh?)
I don't think a reasonable person would consider a misdemeanor conviction for shoplifting to mean he would not be fit to operate a locomotive.
> 2. Sanchez is the engineer in a head-on which is
> 99.999% certain caused by Sanchez texting. It
> appears that this is a habit he's picked up over
> time. Common sense (aka armchair expertise)
> suggests this is conduct so bizarre that it had to
> have attracted notice.
Why so? The cell records the NTSB released indicated he made a habit of text messaging long before the Chatsworth incident, yet he had no previous problems. With only one person in the cab, who do you think would "notice"?
> 3. A lawyer for some of the victims says he has a
> witness who in fact had noticed Sanchez's texting
> and had complained about it. (Some news accounts
> say twice, by the way.) Connex, accourding to
> this account, blew it off. The allegation also
> asserts a supervisor found a personal cell phone
> switched on in Sanchez's grip, but this also came
> to nothing. Again, assuming Sanchez had a habit
> of texting while at the throttle, it sounds
> completely credible that someone would notice this
> and report it.
See my answer to Question #2.
> It seems to me that there are two interesting
> points of view on this forum. One, represented by
> Dr. Zarkoff, seems based on a primitive sense of
> job entitlement, and says nobody should be
> penalized for rule violations, and anyone who says
> otherwise is just an armchair expert. After all,
> Dr. Z wasn't one of the killed and injured at CP
> Topanga.
>
> Another, represented by OPRRMS, who it seems to me
> should know better, seems to be that by a series
> of logical hail-Mary plays, you can argue that
> nothing happened here that was anybody's fault.
You've come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The rules against x,y, and z weren't exactly in
> effect at exactly the right time, in exactly the
> right ambient temperature, and so we're all just
> gonna shrug it off.
You've made another erroneous conclusion.
> Anyhow, Hillenbrand claims the
> signal was green. Sounds like the elderly
> railroaders I've come to know elsewhere.
Lots of witnesses claim things that are subsequently disproved.
> Our legal system provides for accountability in
> situations like this when all else fails, and it
> does seem that all else has failed, at least for
> the dead and injured. OPRRMS seems all bent out
> of shape that a lawyer with expertise in the rail
> industry should be representing some of these
> victims.
Please show me where you find me to be "all bent out of shape." Anyone who wishes to do so has my permission to retain a lawyer about anything. By the same token, one should not be misled by the promise of dollar signs. As they say in the TV ads, "Your results may differ." If you'd like me to tell you the story of my first involvement with a non-employee personal injury case, Mr. Bruce, just ask me.
> As a member of the informed public, I'm entitled
> to draw my own conclusions, about Sanchez and
> about the guys who seem to want to circle the
> wagons.
Absolutely! It's your "conclusions" and the reasoning behind them that has me so fascinated and entertained.
