(The following op-ed piece by Michael W. Roop was posted on the Roanoke Times website on December 3. Brother Roop is a member of BLET Division 301 in Roanoke, Va. Roop, of Roanoke, is a locomotive engineer for Norfolk Southern Corp. and an Operation Lifesaver presenter/trainer.)
“Rail group’s neutrality argued,” a New York Times story published Nov. 14 in The Roanoke Times, criticized a nonprofit railroad safety organization called Operation Lifesaver. The story, written by Walt Bogdanich, not only contains several omissions and inaccuracies, but attempts to undermine the integrity of those volunteers associated with this organization.
One inaccuracy stated in the article is that Operation Lifesaver was co-founded by a railroad. The truth is that the program was co-founded by two employees of the Union Pacific Railway. It was designed to be a one-state program lasting only six weeks, but it was so successful it quickly attracted the attention of other states and their agencies. Over its 32 years, it has evolved into an international rail safety program.
Bogdanich gives a negative connotation to the program by stating that Operation Lifesaver “preaches its gospel of driver responsibility.” However, when you consider the hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries that occur each year from rail-vehicle collisions, shouldn’t someone be “preaching” driver safety and responsibility?
Bogdanich also reports that Operation Lifesaver is “tightly bound to the railroad industry.” Who better to explain the dangers of motorists trying to beat a train at a crossing than the railroaders who have seen it firsthand? As a locomotive engineer, I feel I am sufficiently qualified to explain how it feels when a young child, trespassing on the tracks, stands in the middle of the track and plays “chicken” with the 10,000-ton train I am operating.
The story further implies that placing lights and gates at all crossings would prevent collisions. However, it fails to mention that 50 percent of all collisions occur where lights and gates are installed. Had the New York Times writer attended an Operation Lifesaver presentation, he could have been informed of this fact.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this story is that The Roanoke Times did not give an equal opportunity for comment by Operation Lifesaver. Although the story was written by another newspaper, it was the editors at The Roanoke Times who decided to include it in our paper as well.
If unbiased reporting is truly the goal of The Roanoke Times, I would challenge its reporters to attend an Operation Lifesaver presentation. They might find it worthy of newsprint that many of our school’s driver education classes, law enforcement agencies and businesses take advantage of this free educational program.