Corporate Responsibility?
A Union Pacific train hit and killed two people on a railroad bridge in Washington State yesterday, reports CNN. As we know, train collisions and accidents happen rather frequently in the United States, so this is no surprise. It's no surprise either to find out that the individuals were killed after ignoring No Trespassing signs posted by Burnlington North Santa Fe, which owns the bridge.
There's another side to the story, however. This is the only walkable bridge between two small towns on either side of the Lewis River. The land road goes fifteen miles around. And, in fact, the railroads know that local residents have used the bridge to get between towns for years -- in the last five years, at least two others have been struck by trains.
Does a transit company have an obligation to improve safety around a bridge that it knows is the only major thoroughfare between two towns -- even if it is offically private property? From a legal standpoint, I'd say probably not. They did their due diligence by posting the no trespassing signs. From a corporate ethics point of view, it's questionable. I'm sure our friends at Transport Blog would say certainly not, but I might disagree. While legal due diligence has been met, I'm not sure the moral and ethnical requirements have. If you are fully aware that there is no viable alternative to using the bridge (other than a 15 mile drive or by fording a river), you have an obligation to present an alternative solution or at least make a better effort to keep people off the bridge. BNSF could have taken many different approaches to the problem, like building stronger security around the bridge or attaching a pedestrian walkway to the side, but opted instead to take the legal minimum, resulting in at least four deaths and many injuries.
Post Author:
amg | 1:50 PM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
Why should the company pay for it? Why not the residents that want the path? Maybe they can build a footbridge hanging off the side of it.
Perhaps if the towns asked UP nicely (and agreed to indemnify UP against all pedestrian claims) UP might be willing to add a pedestrian bridge for good public relations. Or perhaps not.
