Oh, that indeed would be different. I had interpreted the comments as a train employee outside the train actually standing at the crossing. Admittedly, I'm perplexed by the term "driver."
Couple of points, and I accept that I am not familiar with USA crossings.
If the crossing gates are open, then there should be no chance of another train coming through... the interlocking fail safe systems should not allow any other train engineer to see a proceed aspect if the gates are open.
Whatever the problem, and OBS has pretty much nailed it, you can accept that the engineer can see you, and waves you through safely. He is a skilled worker who knows what is happening.
As to "legal" I have no idea, save to say that there must be some short time where cars are crossing just after the bells/lights start... they cannot be deemed to be doing wrong?
Ed
The issue is, if somebody does get hit, the police *have to* issue a ticket to whoever was breaking the law. That's how the court assigns culpability and any liability is assessed.
I disagree that a citation is required in order to prove liability. This is why we have finders of fact (juries and judges) and evidence to prove a case. A citation might be helpful to get a finding of "negligence per se" in a civil trial but in no way is it required. Citations in these instances are issued at the officer's discretion not due to some overt requirement. It also does not preclude a suit against the railroad involved even in the instant a citation is issued as all of that would depend on the facts of each individual case. Otherwise an officer would have to issue a citation in every crash (car v. car, cyclist, motorcycle, train, etc.) situation where a traffic violation occurs which is not the case at all.
Call 911 immediately and urge them to send a traffic patrol officer ASAP.
Why call Amtrak police, what would they do about it?
Unless it's codified somewhere (and I haven't found anything yet, not that I've looked too hard either) it sounds like the policy of insurance companies that they're using against people to low ball or refuse to pay settlements (and people say lawyers are bad...insurance adjusters are in the same boat.) Insurance companies are a for profit business so of course they pull everything they can to mitigate their losses. Once it winds up in the hands of legal and away from the adjusters a citation is a piece of evidence but not having one issued shouldn't preclude recovery if the case winds up in or on the way to court.
What US railroaders call an "engineer" is referred to as the "driver" in the rest of the English-speaking world. Eventually the US will join the rest of the world; the language shift is already happening. (It's probably happening because engineer means something else, while "driver" is unambiguous. On the other hand, the British usage of "guard" in railroading is disappearing, probably again because "guard" means something else.)
From my life experiences, the insurance company's don't quickly/automatically pay the claim because it is coming down to one party's word vs. the other party's word. So, there isn't any clear fault for an out-of-court settlement.
I am a recently retired Peace Officer, having worked in both State and County Agencies.
