Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Thanks for your insight on this David.  I had not studied that map until reading your post, and until doing so, I was not aware of the changing road alignment approaching the crossing from the south.  News coverage quoted experts saying that the signals could be seen from a half-mile minimum.  So I assumed that the road runs straight to the crossing for at least a half-mile.  Now I see that is not the case.  The experts must have been referring to the visibility of the signals over distance, assuming no object interferes with the view.  Obviously that assumption does not apply in the actual circumstances of this crossing.   <o:p></o:p> It is so easy for people to beat up on the driver by concluding that a 25-second warning should be more than enough time to stop a vehicle.  Yet, I don’t see how it would be possible to see the signals if you are not aligned with them.  A warning does not do any good if you don’t know it is happening.   <o:p></o:p> If the driver only came into alignment 900 feet from the crossing, as you say, and if the truck required 600 feet to stop, that would leave the driver with a 2.9-second warning.  Considering that the consequences of not heeding the warning may be the death of the driver and many people on the train, even the possible derailment of the 79-mph train; it seems to me that a warning of only a few seconds is astoundingly inadequate.  <o:p></o:p> I see that, according to Trains Newswire, the Nevada crossing in this crash has passed inspection, so any signal malfunction can be ruled out.  That is a good first step in the coming official state review of this crossing to determine whether it has a fundamental design flaw in the practical amount of timed warning.
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