hmmm, I was on a train that smacked a blue 4-Runner and knocked the SUV next to the Bell Station last week.

But I have to get on METROs side here. There a PLENTY of signs and markers that direct drivers NOT to make left-hand turns. Yet I see them do it daily out of my office, especially at Main and St Joseph.

Most of the people are from out of town but thats no excuse.

The only option left is to have an actual human looking the drivers in the eyes... telling them NOT to turn left, then you have the idiots that will question the person telling them NOT to turn left.

Royko,

     I don't understand what your last sentence has to do with train safety.  I just hope nobody was hurt on the train when it hit the ambulance.  Was this a private ambulance or one from a specific FD?  If the train had the right-of-way and was MOVING like it was supposed to, you wouldn't want a fully loaded one-car train (for example) with people packed to the doors to slam on the brakes just because an ambulance needed to get through, now would you?  I say---no.

don,

   The people who need the training are the motorists and pedestrians---especially those from out of town.  The train operators should have already received enough training even before they're allowed to carry a single passenger.

This plan I'm reading may work but still, people will---in my view---defy the law and do what they want and then blame mass transit just because they chose NOT to follow the rules.

Royko said:  "I'm sure the emergency vehicle driver was ticketed for having the audacity not to give the Utopian tram the exclusive right-of-way."

(puts on Nomex suit)

No offense but I do hope that the EMS driver DID get ticketed and hopefully reprimanded because that person risked the lives of himself, his comrades, the patient they were taking to the hospital, and everybody on the train.

Even though it may be an emergency vehicle (with its fancy lights and sirens), the operator should still use common sense and just let the train go by and then continue on to the hospital.

I'm not so sure about train operators training. Just about everytime I ride, the train starts off like it's in a race trying to see how many passengers he can knock over. Then they continually speed up and slow down. I'm not sure what the reason for this is. Maybe just to make the passengers uncomfortable.

Dominic,

       THANK YOU!  Unfortunately, Royko may not get that part as he may think the ambulance rules because they have lights and sirens.

don,

   There are "some" (key word there) train operators who know what they're doing---since they have more experience than others when doing things right to make the ride as pleasant as possible.  Those who may provide ya with any type of uncomfortable ride---to me---must not have that much experience as they should.

I understand what you're saying because there are some times where I may have the same problem as you---meaning---"...the train starts off like it's in a race trying to see how many passengers he can knock over. Then they continually speed up and slow down."

Since the tram is operating on city streets, they are subject to TEXAS law and city ordinances.

If an emergency vehicle, either police or ambulance, have the light bar activated, I would think the tram operator recognize it as an emergency situation, and emergency protocols might be followed, which would call for the operator to stop the near-empty tram vehicle, and let the ambulance pass.

Of course, I recognize METREAUX is above the law, and one can not expect logic from an organization run by unelected and seemingly unaccountable bureaucrats.

==============

Here is the Texas Law:

+++++++++++++++

TRANSPORTATION CODE

CHAPTER 546. OPERATION OF AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND CERTAIN

OTHER VEHICLES

SUBCHAPTER A. AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLES

§ 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT.  In operating an

authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:

(1)  park or stand, irrespective of another provision

of this subtitle;    

(2)  proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,

after slowing as necessary for safe operation;

(3)  exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided

by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the

operator does not endanger life or property;  and

(4)  disregard a regulation governing the direction of

movement or turning in specified directions.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.                    

Royko,

     WHAT?!  You obviously don't get it, do you?!  A couple of quotes from DominicMazoch.  Here's one: "Train has right of way over EMS."  Another quote:  "S-70 railcars each have the mass of a intercity rail car stoping over by the main post office."  I not only agree with both those quotes but also, what I'm inclined to believe is that the METRORail train is heavier than the ambulance (or any other emergency vehicle---YES---even those big red fire engines) and the only time the operator should yield the right-of-way to the ambulance is if the train ISN'T MOVING or if it's about to perform a slow take off.  By then, your stance on the operator being in the wrong for failure to yield can be more understandable.  For example, the train is sitting at the light (not the lights that the motorists are looking at---mind you), sees the emergency vehicle about to come through but takes off through the intersection anyway.

Also, there's nothing is this---whatever you're posting (which is dated 13 years ago---mind you)---that meantions anything about a light rail train having to all of a sudden slam on its brakes, throwing anybody standing onto the floor just because it needs to yield the right of way to anything with lights and sirens.  Also, I do NOT see any CURRENT city ordinances or CURRENT Texas laws that states that a "light rail train operator" must adhere to the same rules rules and regulations as motorists when they come across an emergency vehicle.

What if this issue was not about the light rail train?  What if it was talking about those freight trains--or perhaps---passenger trains such as the Amtrak trains?  Do you think they have to yield the right of way when they see an emergency vehicle coming towards a crossing?  Hmmmmmm?

Also, you FAILED to see what METRO has to say about this issue and therefore, using their facts (if any) to post on here in an attempt to "override" what is already being said about who wins---which is---the METRORail train.

You said this, "I would think the tram operator recognize it as an emergency situation, and emergency protocols might be followed, which would call for the operator to stop the near-empty tram vehicle, and let the ambulance pass."

Response:  I'm terribly sorry but that there is a poor excuse in your attempt to make me believe the rail operator will be in the wrong if they don't yield to anything that has lights and sirens.  You say "near-empty METRORail train" but still, there are passengers on that train and they're to be treated with care so they can have a pleasant ride from point "A" to point "B"---regardless.

Even placing all that aside (we simply don't have all the information about this situation), ROKYEAUX's argument is defeated by his quotation:

(2)  proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,

after slowing as necessary for safe operation;

The train didn't run a red light, so the ambulance must have, and charging out in front of a moving train is hardly "safe operation."

Exactly JamesL.  Good comment.  Even though I'll admit that the truthful info about this situation it not out there (don't know where one may find it), you are right that Roykeaux's argument is hereby defeated.

Besides, the METRORail operators have their own signal lights to deal with (vertical line=>GO; horizontal line=>STOP).  Another thing is that emergency vehicles (ambulances, for example) cannot just blast through an intersection---especially if they have a red light.  That's really not a "safe operation."

Now Roykeaux---you was saying?