Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Informed"] [quote user="Bucyrus"]   Sorry for the delayed response to your post.  Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked.      Thank you for that information.  I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements.  As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train.  It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact.    I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate.  If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate. Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both.  Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts.  But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate.  Did you witness this test?  When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.”  By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean?  1)        The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate.    2)        The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community.  Please appreciate that there has been considerable time that has passed since some of these events have taken place and the subject matter is very technical.  That said, I will endeavor to respond with as much accuracy as possible, but I’m certain that I won’t recall every significant detail.There were two separate and distinct rounds of testing that occurred.  In both scenarios, identical vehicles; right down to the pin striping, were used within the testing.  The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident.  As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive.  The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact.  In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle.  The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location.  The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane).  Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.The second round of testing happened just before the railroad modified the configuration of the crossing.  In this case the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses (certified accident reconstruction experts that had previously been retained by the National Transportation Safety Board – NTSB), conducted a series of tests to determine if it was possible to maneuver the vehicle around the gates and place it at the point of impact.  I did witness some of this testing, but had no real understanding of the test at the time (i.e. the test methodology wasn’t clear to me at the time).  The testing again proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the vehicle around the gate and place it at the point of impact (as determined by the physical evidence).  The vehicles turning radius would not permit this to happen.  In both test scenarios, recognized processes and test methodology were employed, which I’m quite certain were scientific and would stand up to peer review.  These points were clearly argued and heard by the court in numerous pretrial motions filed by both sides.  In my mind, my definition of “proven” would satisfy both criteria that you cited above.  First, the jury did in fact accept the test and reconstruction results consistent with their finding that BNSF was negligent.  Second, the test methodology and findings would in fact, stand up to peer review, were clear, and were compelling.   I assume that it would be item #1.  I would like to know who did the test.  Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train?  Who was driving the vehicle?  Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible.  How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks?    It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates.  If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks.  But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate.  If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over.    After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll?  If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered.  This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down. As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed.  The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.).  There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me.  However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did.  Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact.  The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers".  Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph.   However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks.  I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday.  If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline.  It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph.  The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move.  Clearly, it is my belief that the gates and signals did not activate and this was in fact, the major contributing factor of the accident.  I believe this point was clearly proven and that all of the physical evidence supports this conclusion.  At this particular crossing it is difficult to see trains approaching from the Northtown yard, as there are buildings and trees which obstruct the view.  If a train is approaching that crossing at 62mph and a vehicle is attempting to cross that intersection at a speed of 28mph in roughly a perpendicular direction (this crossing was not a perfect 90 degree intersection), the vehicle is nearly directly in the path of the oncoming train in less than 2 seconds before you see it.  The human reaction time, as presented in trial, would not allow a normal person to react in time to prevent the accident if the signals were not functioning as designed.  [/quote] P.S.  You would have made a good juror in this case. [/quote] Thanks again for your response.  I have as few other thoughts.  From your description, I understand that the test was conducted by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol along with other independent experts, and that the test came to its own objective conclusion of proof that the signals had failed to activate.  It was not a scenario of testing, then presenting the test results to the jury, and then the jury concluding the test result.  From your description, I also conclude that the proper lane for the car was the second lane that the train would have crossed within the crossing.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> You mentioned the contention of the BNSF that the locomotive lifted the vehicle upon impact when the vehicle was in the improper lane, and then the vehicle made contact with the roadway once it had been pushed into its proper lane.  That alone strikes me as something that would hard to prove or disprove.  I think that lift-upon-impact could very well occur notwithstanding the fact that the locomotive struck the vehicle above the vehicle’s center of gravity as you mentioned.  In fact, I am skeptical of that claim about the center of gravity, and don’t see the relevance of the vehicle center of gravity in relation to the point of impact.  The point of impact was higher than the vehicle contact with the roadway, so, no matter where on the vehicle, the locomotive struck the it, the force would tend to roll the vehicle forward ahead of the locomotive, thus pushing down hard on the two tires on the side opposite the impact point.  This would of course conflict with the theory of lifting the vehicle.   <o:p></o:p> But I am not sure how that plays out at a high-speed impact in which the effect might actually support the theory of lifting the vehicle.  With many locomotives, the initial point of contact with the vehicle would be quite low on the vehicle, say about one foot above the pavement level.  This general locomotive pilot configuration goes all the way back to the development of the cowcatcher, which was intentionally designed to lift the object being struck so it would not be drawn under the locomotive and thereby derail it.  So, at first contact in this Anoka crash, depending on the locomotive type, much of the vehicle height would be one foot or so away from the higher areas of the locomotive pilot features.  This would cause the vehicle to roll into the locomotive rather than away from it upon impact.   <o:p></o:p> Therefore, I suspect that the impact could indeed lift the vehicle away from pavement contact initially as BNSF contended.  You mentioned that their theory was disproved on the basis that there was no pavement marking evidence in the improper lane for the vehicle.  However, that would be the point of the BNSF theory, which suggested there was no pavement evidence because the locomotive had lifted the vehicle off of the pavement.  So the lack of pavement evidence in the improper lane would support the BNSF theory rather than refute it. <o:p></o:p> Also, the lack of the debris field existing in the improper lane for the vehicle would not refute the possibility that the point of impact was in that improper lane.  The vehicle and all of the dislodged pieces would be thrown forward upon impact, so they would be expected to come to rest beyond the crash point.  The whole case was only debating a crash location difference of about 30 feet or so.  At an impact of 62 mph from a train, where the car takes 100% of the impact, it is hard to imagine any lose part of the vehicle coming to rest on the ground as early in the crash progression as the point of impact.  <o:p></o:p> So regarding the theory of BNSF-- that the vehicle was lifted upon impact while in the improper lane, after having driven around the lowered gate, and thus made no marks on the pavement in the improper lane, I fail to see how their theory has been disproved   The conclusion by the State Patrol about the steering geometry of the vehicle not permitting the vehicle to have been driven around the gate and maneuvered back into the proper lane on the track center does seem compelling and conclusive in the context of its conclusion.  However, it is irrelevant if the vehicle was actually struck while in the improper lane.  And I don't see compelling evidence proving otherwise.  <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">  <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">To sum up my thoughts, I do not believe that the beginning of the debris field or the marks on the roadway necessarily coincide with the point of impact.  So I see no possible way of determining where the point of impact was.  All that can be concluded for certain is that the beginning of the debris field and marks on the roadway could not have preceded the point of impact.  But it seems perfectly plausible that the point of impact may have preceded those items of evidence by 30 feet or so.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag