Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB: “The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB:
“The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
Truck driver was moving at less than road speed with occupied flatbed trailer and had 7 seconds (not 7/10ths) but 7 full seconds to see and respond to the warnings. With moving vehicles - 7 seconds is a relative eternity. If the allegation is that the sun hid the train, the correlary to that allegation is that it did not, therefore, hid the warning lights that were disregarded.
Since the flatbed was occpied, do the laws that require stopping at a crossing that normally apply to busses and HAZMAT carriers - no matter if the warnings are activated or not, apply to the truck drivers actions?
If the truck driver did stop, was he expecting to hear something he could not see because of the sun? NTSB indicated the horn was first sounded 15 seconds before impact, yet the driver entered the crossing 12 seconds before impact.
The driver, while not being a Pinball Wizard, still demonstrated the actions of being deaf, dumb and blind of the Pinball Wizard.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68I don't think that the industry is in denial about it. The FRA acknowledges the problem: http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_86.shtml And lists 1300 crossing incidents nationwide so far this year. On 250,000 crossings. The FRA says there are 300-400 annual fatalities. One site was apparently going for the shock factor by saying there are upwards of 2400 fatilities per year... If someone ran the crossing every single time a train was approaching, a fine of just $28 would cover the cost of a single camera. But we know that won't be the case. In many instances, there are no cars at the crossing, due to the late hour some of the trains come through town. Installing said cameras would be tough sell here. I'm sure there are places where numerous collisions have occured, and where camera enforcement would be appropriate, just as there are places where red light cameras are appropriate. But a blanket approach (say, 200,000 crossings at a total cost in the millions just to support the cameras) isn't going to help. Besides, you're worried about that period of time that people interpret the lights as "amber," yet you're willing to give them a pass for seven seconds... That's one third of the total warning time.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_86.shtml
And lists 1300 crossing incidents nationwide so far this year. On 250,000 crossings. The FRA says there are 300-400 annual fatalities. One site was apparently going for the shock factor by saying there are upwards of 2400 fatilities per year...
If someone ran the crossing every single time a train was approaching, a fine of just $28 would cover the cost of a single camera.
But we know that won't be the case. In many instances, there are no cars at the crossing, due to the late hour some of the trains come through town.
Installing said cameras would be tough sell here.
I'm sure there are places where numerous collisions have occured, and where camera enforcement would be appropriate, just as there are places where red light cameras are appropriate.
But a blanket approach (say, 200,000 crossings at a total cost in the millions just to support the cameras) isn't going to help.
Besides, you're worried about that period of time that people interpret the lights as "amber," yet you're willing to give them a pass for seven seconds... That's one third of the total warning time.
Regarding your points above:
In my reference to denying the problem, I was referring only to denial of the one cause factor of drivers taking risk to avoid a train delay. This factor I alone, I believe is what makes grade crossings like magnets for trouble compared to highway crossings. I don't see much if any official acknowledgement of that factor. Solving that problem would go a long ways toward eliminating crossing crashes, but I am not sure how it could be solved. It has set in since railroading began, and is now etched in public consciousness.
I would not say that cameras should be a blanket approach, but rather, priortized according to need.
The cost of the cameras would be offset by more than just the fines. Reducing crashes would save a lot more money than the revenue from fines.
You have to give drivers a 7-second pass after signal activation to allow them to respond; depending on the road speed limit. It is the laws of physics. The pass is there now, but not identified as such. But if a camera issued a ticket for a driver failing to override the laws of physics, a lawyer would get it dismissed. And a camera would split hairs and issue a citation for violating the flashing lights for just the tiniest fraction of a second. A cop wouldn't do that.
Isn't it kind of an oxymoronic situation to expect the cameras to pay for themselves from the Fines paid; if the cameras do their intended purpose then there will be no people paying the Fines!
The red light and speeding cameras around here are primarily catching tourists and that gives our fair city a bad name and reduces the tourist dollars that come in.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
In a past thread discussing the need for horn blowing, I concluded that horn blowing only contributed safety in the case of a driver approaching the crossing while not being attentive to the approaching train. Not being attentive would be caused by distraction, impairment by drugs or alcohol, sleeping, or having a medical emergency. An inattentive driver might be oblivious to an approaching train, so here is where the locomotive horn is critically essential. It could get the driver’s attention and prevent a collision.
However if a driver had decided to try to beat the train, I concluded that the horn signal would accomplish nothing. If the driver intends to beat the train, the driver obviously has to know the train is approaching, so what good would it do to blow the horn?
But then zugmann pointed out that the horn signal often will persuade drivers to abandon a risk that they are in the process of taking for the purpose of beating a train. In other words, the driver has decided to make a dash to get across before a train gets to the crossing because it seems to the driver that there is time to make it. But when the driver hears the horn, the driver apparently feels enough added intimidation to decide that the gamble to beat the train is too risky, and therefore the driver decides to stop and yield.
In the case of a quiet zone, with the horn signal absent, this ability of the horn signal to stop drivers from taking a risk is also absent. So to make up for the lack of a horn signal, quiet zones are built to prevent risk taking by making it physically impossible to go around the gate. The theory is that the drivers will not intentionally break through the gate just to beat the train because beating the train is not worth the risk of damaging the vehicle—plus the risk of getting hit or getting a ticket.
So I gather that the quiet crossing theory holds that making the gates insurmountable eliminates the risk-taking motive for violating the crossing. But does it entirely? This gets to why I wondered how often drivers try to beat the train by running straight through before the gate is fully lowered, but misjudge and hit the gate. Full width gates and/or divided medians will not prevent this type of risk-taking cause. So eliminating the train horn leaves this type of risk-taking cause more likely to happen because the train horn will not be able to convince a driver to not attempt to beat the gate.
Furthermore, many of the crashes within the inattentive-cause category of crashes could be prevented by the train horn. A sleeping driver who is about to run through the gate and into the side of the locomotive might be woken up in time by the horn.
Therefore overall, I do not see how a quiet zone can possibly be enhanced to compensate for the loss of safety due to the removal of the train horn. I conclude that quiet zone crossings have to be statistically less safe than non-quiet zone crossings.
However, my general understanding is that the official position is that quiet zone crossings are no less safe than non-quiet zone crossings. I think that is incorrect.
Semper Vaporo Isn't it kind of an oxymoronic situation to expect the cameras to pay for themselves from the Fines paid; if the cameras do their intended purpose then there will be no people paying the Fines! The red light and speeding cameras around here are primarily catching tourists and that gives our fair city a bad name and reduces the tourist dollars that come in.
Au contrare!
Red light and Speed Cameras are designed for just one thing - adding money to the coffers of the locality where they are installed. Using 'safety' as a front!
Normally, cameras are installed by a provider company, a company that gets a share of the proceeds collected. The provider company wants to make money - they don't give a whit about safety, they are looking for a return on investment of their equipment.
Locally, speed cameras are restricted to school zones and construction areas - laudable. Recent audit of those caught by the school zone cameras - highest frequency - School Buses - both loaded and empty.
With regard to the construction zones, locally, they use 'roving camera cars' to monitor the zones on a sporadic unscheduled schedule - my personal observations the camera cars are in place when there is no construction taking place - not when construction personnel are on the job and thereby in danger.
Ames,IA has at least one railroad xing with camera inforcement. First vehicle caught was an Ames Police car.
There is a big debate in Des Moines and it's suburbs (as elsewhere in Iowa) about traffic light or speed enforcement cameras. One of the same arguments that S.V. said comes up. That the cameras (and resulting tickets) mostly catch unsuspecting visitors and may hinder people coming from out of town to visit the area for shopping, etc. Funny part is, the addresses from the people complaining in the editorial page are usually local to the metro area. (That and the fact that no one seems to complain about the local option sales tax imposed because of all the outsiders who come to shop.) It seems most opposition is local, and they don't like having to drive the speed limit.
I bet many of these people who seem to think that speed limits are "advisory" are the same people Bucyrus talks about as viewing railroad xing signals as "advisory."
Jeff
It comes down to this - a certain percentage of drivers are risk takers. The study I cited earlier comes right out and says so.
My scanner is on 24/7. Having it on sometimes gives me a jump on a potential fire response, and as chief, that can be handy. Not a day goes by that I don't hear a traffic stop involving someone who has "scoffs" - failure to appear for a previous traffic infraction (often more than one), or a suspended registration for failure to pay a fine, have insurance, or some other action (or inaction) that can lead to suspensions.
Cameras, education, you-name-it, are going to have little to no effect on these people. They either don't think the rules apply to them, or they are willing to take the risk. And for some, the risk is part of the game.
We can discuss this until the cows come home, but short of total grade separation, there's no way the running of crossings, or even stop lights, is going to change.
As an aside - local residents here often complain about the corrections officers from a nearby prison speeding as they leave work (who speeds going to work?). Occasionally the police will do some targeted enforcement. Invariably the people they catch are the local residents...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Red light cameras are perceived to be an unjust rip-off to levy hefty fines for petty offenses, only for the purpose to shake down the public for revenue. The public blowback against these cameras is enough to get rid of them or prevent them from being installed.
But the grade crossing application is entirely different. Who can possibly argue that the offense is petty? It kills drivers and wrecks trains. If anything deserves a red light camera, it is a grade crossing. It is a perfect no-brainer to put cameras on crossings.
They have thought of every idea to prevent crossing crashes from barriers that automatically rise out of the roadway to giant air bags on the front of trains. I cannot think of anything more practical and cost effective than a crossing signal camera.
Bucyrus But then zugmann pointed out that the horn signal often will persuade drivers to abandon a risk that they are in the process of taking for the purpose of beating a train. In other words, the driver has decided to make a dash to get across before a train gets to the crossing because it seems to the driver that there is time to make it. But when the driver hears the horn, the driver apparently feels enough added intimidation to decide that the gamble to beat the train is too risky, and therefore the driver decides to stop and yield.
I believe zugmann was talking about crossings equipped with just flashers. No gates.
Lets go back to the camera idea. Fine for crossings equipped with gates - but what about crossings with just crossbucks or flashers? Depending on state, the laws governing crossings with just flashers can be kind of screwey. And having cameras set up at certain crossings near industries wouldn't be a good idea. I know there were several crossings that we would have to switch cars over, and many times we would "flag" cars through instead of holding them up while we did our switching moves. Couldn't do that with a camera sitting there snapping photos.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Well that may be the case that you were citing a crossing example that had flashers without gates, but I don’t think that changes the point I am making. If the sound of the horn heightens the driver’s perception of the risk of trying to beat the train, it will do so for gated or un-gated crossings. It will even do so for crossings without signals or gates. Drivers try to beat the train at all of those crossing types. They also try to beat the train at crossings with full gates and/or dividing medians.
But it did change the point I made. And you don't get to do that.
So tell me how.
Tell you what? I was talking about crossing equipped with just flashers. That does not equate to crossings with gates.
You never got around to addressing the other part of my post regarding cameras and grade crossing types, BTW.
Tell me how it changed the point you made about horn signals changing drivers minds about trying to beat the train.
To your other point: I think cameras would work fine with crossings just haveing lights and gates. The routine hand flagging would complicate a camera application. But I see the camera being applied selectively to the most needy crossings, and those would probably not have much flagging. But basically, I think the camera technology could be made to work with any kind of crossing including ones with a lot of flagging. But that might require some buttons and levers.
Regarding the horn signal comment, I did not say it had to apply to crossings with gates, but it does. It applies to all types of crossings. You may have cited an example of a crossing without gates. I never said otherwise. I don't see how it conflicts with what you said.
My main point is that when you remove the horn signal, it removes safety. I don't think the saftey they add is enough to make up for the loss of the horn. The safety they add is the insurmountable gates. They add nothing that makes up for losing the horn for getting the attention of inattentive drivers. They also add nothing to make up for losing the horn for discouraging drivers from trying to get under the gate before it is down.
Bucyrus Tell me how it changed the point you made about horn signals changing drivers minds about trying to beat the train.
Forget it. Too late at night to play games with you.
Are we now down to playing "tit for tat"?
Time to move on, folks!
Sir Madog Are we now down to playing "tit for tat"? Time to move on, folks!
Are we expecting Carl the lion to actually go vegan?
ARE QUIET ZONES JUST AS SAFE AS NON-QUIET ZONES?
I divide the causes of crossing collisions into two basic categories:
1) Risk-taking cause. Includes trying to beat the train to avoid a delay or to seek a thrill.
2) Non-risk-taking cause. Includes inattention from distraction, drug or alcohol impairment, sleep, or medical emergency.
Two other minor categories of cause are stalling on the tracks; and suicide by train.
Another variation of cause is the run-into-train (RIT) crash. They can be either in the risk-taking or non-risk-taking category.
I conclude that the horn signal could have the effect of mitigating any of those causes except for the non-risk-taking RIT crash. Other than that one exception, the horn signal would most directly affect the non-risk-taking causes, but it would affect both types of causes.
With a quiet zone, they take away the train horn and add insurmountable gates. In other words, they eliminate any passage to run around the lowered gate.
That eliminates only part of the risk-taking causes and none of the non-risk-taking causes. And yet the train horn (where it is used) reduces the incidence of all of those causes.
Therefore:
How can the extra safety resulting from the addition of insurmountable gates be said to compensate for the loss of safety resulting from the removal of the train horn?
Bucyrus Therefore: How can the extra safety resulting from the addition of insurmountable gates be said to compensate for the loss of safety resulting from the removal of the train horn?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Well that is the justification for removing the horn from a crossing to make it quiet. But what I am saying is that the justification is not adequate.
The insurmountable gate only eliminates driving around it in order to beat the train. But as I have pointed out, there are far more crash causes that are not affected by making the gate insurmountable.
And yet all of those other cause factors are mitigated by the train horn. So I think the quiet crossing boosters are wearing blinders to reach the conclusion that quiet zones are not more dangerous than non-quite zones.
Bucyrus Well that is the justification for removing the horn from a crossing to make it quiet. But what I am saying is that the justification is not adequate. The insurmountable gate only eliminates driving around it in order to beat the train. But as I have pointed out, there are far more crash causes that are not affected by making the gate insurmountable. And yet all of those other cause factors are mitigated by the train horn. So I think the quiet crossing boosters are wearing blinders to reach the conclusion that quiet zones are not more dangerous than non-quite zones.
Your conclusion is a stretch when you consider how many people get hit at non-quiet crossings. Once again, I have to ask the all important question: a collision at a quiet zone: is the absence of horn a cause or just a correlation?
Quiet zones are still a rarity, so when something happens at one, of course people are going to jump all over that as the cause. We as a people are scared of the unusual and different and instantly put blame upon it. Whether that is justified or not, I think is yet to be seen. But at the crossing of interest in Texas, the horn was sounded almost the same time it would have been sounded if the crossing was a non-quiet one, and you can see the results.
My conclusion is not based on empirical evidence of quiet zone statistics on crashes.
My conclusion is only based on my analysis of the logic behind the quiet zone principle.
However, it would be interesting to see the empirical evidence. But as you say, if there are not many quiet zones, it may not yet be possible to draw any conclusion.
Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it.
Bucyrus Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it.
They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
zugmann Bucyrus Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
Exactly!! The FRA has precise guidelines revised in 2005 for quiet zone crossings and does not label them as less safe than crossings with train horns. So you can believe whomever you want, but the FRA position has less of a vested interest and thus is probably more accurate than that of the UP.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
Bucyrus zugmann BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true. How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
Because THE PUBLIC in the form of their governmental bodies that have implemented the Quiet Zones has demanded that it be endangered. If you are demanding to be endangered how can you claim you were endangered against your wishes.
Yes I can understand that point, and the public is the ones demanding the quiet zones. I think they are more dangerous. And I can understand that maybe U.P. is setting a back fire to take that position that they are more dangerous in case they are. Altogether, it suggests to me that they may in fact be more dangerous. I believe they are more dangerous for the reasons I stated. Do you think they are more dangerous?
Dangerous must be the word of the day.
Bucyrus How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
Don't know if it reduces it, but it probably can't hurt.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.