Ted, if Phillips 66 was applying to transport those items you can bet they would have been protested as well. They were not asking to do so.

To your point; unfortunately you neglect to consider that the railroads are under FEDERAL control.

Local communities do not have standing to dictate what can be hauled by train passing through a community. (Interstate commerce)

The spur however is a different matter. It is a county decision, not a Federal or State decision.

So the protesters are not hypocrites–as you claim—Protesting to the county over materials the county has no right to control would be silly–would it not?

That is a nice list though.

Can you just imagine if this truck was loaded with LPG that travels by rail and truck as well? The misguided apponents to the Phillips 66 plant only had OIL ON THEIR MINDS, at the expense of other very hazardous materials being shipped as well through the area.

Again, where were the lawn posters wanting to eliminate other hazardous materials being shipped by rail and truck through SLO County? Did anyone see posters wanting to remove ALL railroad freight cars, along with trucks, that contained the following hazardous materials? Anyone?

Anhydrous Ammonia, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Ethylene Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Vinyl Chloride, Anhydrous Hydrofluoric Acid, Anhydrous Ammonia Metallic Sodium Chlorine, Liquefied Hydrocarbon Gas, Motor Fuel Anti-Knock Compound Vinyl Chloride, Fertilizer Ammoniating Solution, Chlorine, Anhydrous Ammonia, Sulfur Dioxide, Butadiene, Refrigerant or Dispersant Gases, Nitrosyl Chloride, Helium Hydrogen Oxygen, Nitrogen Fertilizer Solution, Ethyl Chloride.

If the naysayers of the oil trains were really supporting their cause for total safety to our area, then the above dangerous materials should have been listed as well!

Can the naysayers spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S? Sure they can.

I thought we were talking logic. It has rules just just like math. Beliefs don’t carry much weight when making a logical argument.

He compared the severity of a tanker car accident to a truck. Valid point.

You responded with the likelihood of a train crash when compared to a truck crash. A valid but separate point.

Those are two different things. Apples to oranges. The one does not disprove the other as you claim.

You did not refute his point directly; which would constitute an acceptance that train accidents are more severe.

That’s not what I believe. That is the logical conclusion one can take from your initial argument.

If you are implying that I am overly cautious in my assessment that one flipped truck would spill less than one whole train of tankers, then I think you should check your math again.

You read the story right? One truck flipped, 5 gallons spilled. That’s pretty good by anyone’s account, so why are you so certain that this isn’t the best way?

And you have heard of chicken little as well?

I have a question! What happens when you multiply 5,200 by 40? Answer = 208,000 gallons that COULD have been spilled if that tanker was part of a 40-car train. You’ve heard that phrase about all your eggs being in one basket, right?

Yes, I have questions:

1. Are all drivers of these vehicles the same (training, restrictions, etc) = NO.
2. Are all miles traveled by each type of vehicle equal = NO.
3. Are all vehicles traveling on the same path = NO.
4. Are the consequences of each vehicle crash equal = NO.

Logic 201.

You can believe what you want to believe. As far as new point it is YOU sir that missed. He brought up the train argument not I. Did he not compare it to tanker cars? Did I miss something??? PLEASE let me know!!

You didn’t use circlingthedrain’s logic at all.

The point was a train accident would cause a more severe accident, if it happened.

The likelihood of that happening is less when compared to a truck…your point.

Separate points altogether. Each equally true.

Logically speaking you “accepted” Circlingthedrain’s point by not addressing it and attempting to make a, new, separate point to the one being discussed.

My bad, Willow Rd and Hwy 1:

“The California Highway Patrol told KSBY News the truck driver’s account of what happened. He was coming down the hill on Willow Road and said he had no brakes. A car was stopped at the stop sign and the truck driver figured he had to either take out the car and barrel across Highway 1 or take the tanker off the shoulder into the ditch. He did not hit any other cars”.

O.k. so lets use your logic. Let’s take the distance the train would have run from point to point. On the area around the track on all that distance how many car or truck accidents the last three years? Now how many train accidents? Sorry but a train runs a fixed route and odds of accident are lower than that of the highway. Now go back to mending your grill, the fire is going out.