larsend wrote: If she made it across the tracks, beating the first train, I wonder if she gave any consideration to the cross traffic on the street just past the tracks.
If she made it across the tracks, beating the first train, I wonder if she gave any consideration to the cross traffic on the street just past the tracks.
At that speed? of course not. She could have hit a school bus full of Nuns and richoceted over a troop a Girl Scouts crossing the street without losing a beat and instead we'd be hearing about "What a dangerous intersection that is" and "Why doesnt the city do something about these dangerous school buses roaming the streets".
Have fun with your trains
Look at the sattelite view on the Google map indicated above.
It is obvious that just before she is first seen on a survellance camera, she was on a street, heading for a crossing that was already blocked by the first freight train. She turned into the parking lot to get to the next crossing, racing to beat the train.
When she got to the other end of the parking lot she had to swing to the left to go thru a drive to the second street, turning right to cross in front of the train that she was racing.
Looking at the satellite view, you can see that there was no obstruction shielding her view of the second train. She must have been concentrating on the first train.
There are cross bucks and flashing lights at the second crossing.
TimChgo9 wrote: mersenne6 wrote: I showed the clip to a doctor friend who specializes in affairs of the mind and the immediate reaction to the video was suicide. She said the fact of other people in a vehicle would not necessarily act as a deterrent. While we will obviously never know the drivers thoughts it is worth noting that stupidity, as an explanation, is not the only option. Regardless, I agree with MP173, the survivors are going to need a lot of help.I have heard the same explanation from people I know in the medical field. But, throwing that around is touchy ground at best. Stupidity ranks high in my book as for the reason...however, we will never know the real reason, because we weren't there, and also the fact that this lady didn't survive. I think the fact that she was distracted by the train she was trying to beat is a very good possibility. She probably became "fixated" on the train she was racing, and wasn't paying attention to the rest of her surroudings.
mersenne6 wrote: I showed the clip to a doctor friend who specializes in affairs of the mind and the immediate reaction to the video was suicide. She said the fact of other people in a vehicle would not necessarily act as a deterrent. While we will obviously never know the drivers thoughts it is worth noting that stupidity, as an explanation, is not the only option. Regardless, I agree with MP173, the survivors are going to need a lot of help.
I showed the clip to a doctor friend who specializes in affairs of the mind and the immediate reaction to the video was suicide. She said the fact of other people in a vehicle would not necessarily act as a deterrent. While we will obviously never know the drivers thoughts it is worth noting that stupidity, as an explanation, is not the only option. Regardless, I agree with MP173, the survivors are going to need a lot of help.
I have heard the same explanation from people I know in the medical field. But, throwing that around is touchy ground at best. Stupidity ranks high in my book as for the reason...however, we will never know the real reason, because we weren't there, and also the fact that this lady didn't survive. I think the fact that she was distracted by the train she was trying to beat is a very good possibility. She probably became "fixated" on the train she was racing, and wasn't paying attention to the rest of her surroudings.
I think you are right.
It is true that we cannot determine the motive of this crash with complete certainty. Only the driver would have the potential ability to honestly and accurately say what motivated her, and we will never hear her explanation. However, in the case of this crash, we do have an unusually large amount of evidence pointing to the motive of the driver. There would be even more evidence if her intended destination were known, and if that destination defined a specific, optimum route. This might settle this question: If it were not for the train, would she have driven through the parking lot? Or would she have crossed the tracks at a crossing nearer to the point where she began the drive through the parking lot?
The video suggests that she was speeding through the parking lot, pulling ahead of the parallel train. When she made the right turn, she first swung wide to the left, as someone would do when they did not want to slow down for the turn. Indeed, it looked as though she made that entire turn maneuver at rate of speed that would correspond to being motivated to not lose a race. When she approached the crossing the lights were flashing, and the train she was shadowing was far too close to the crossing to safely cross; yet she clearly attempted to cross without even slowing down. The fact that she did not slow down suggests that she made a calculation that, even though the train was quickly closing in on the crossing, she could beat it. The position of the train and her vehicle indicates that her calculation was correct. She would have been over the crossing and perhaps 100 feet beyond it by the time the train got to it.
But this kind of daring calculation to race and beat the train requires that you pay riveting attention to the train so you can constantly assess your chances right up to the point of no return. Clearly she won the race. If she was instead destined to lose the race, I think she would have recognized that fact, and given up, stopping before reaching the point of no return.
But what she left out of her calculation was the fact of a double track and the need to look out for a second train. If, when approaching a crossing, one were not completely distracted by a life or death race with a train, a train coming from either direction would very likely attract one's attention, even if there were no flashing red lights. But in this case, the flashing lights were of no use to warn of the second train if the driver attributed their warning entirely to the first train.
The charge of stupidity is always thrown out, but I think it rarely applies. Risk taking born of impatience-- or-- distraction are the two most common causes. Usually it is one or the other, but this case was ironic in that both causes worked together. The risk taking was its own distraction.
In case anybody is interested, Google has an excellent satellite view on the accident location.
Just type into the search box:
41 37 48.9 N 87 30 48.9 W
To me, suicide as a motive in this crash, makes no sense whatsoever. Why rush through a parking lot to catch up with a train to commit suicide, when you can methodically pull in front of one any time and get the timing right? And I don't think the cause was driver stupidity. I think she obviously knew she had the first train beat, and that is why she was moving fast when she hit the crossing. The problem was that she did not see the second train because she was so focused on beating and not getting hit by the first train. I would call the cause of her getting hit by the second train: distraction by trying to beat a train.
I feel bad for the father and the son who survived. They will need a ton of help getting thru this.
It should not have happened.
ed
However, one must wonder why there is a double-track crossing in the middle of a city that does NOT have crossing protection.
I'm not saying gates would or would not have helped, as she seemed rather determined to not wait. What I am saying is that having a crossing like that, in a busy city, with trains that travel at a fairly good clip, is indeed inviting disaster.
What if that vehicle had got caught on the front of one of those locomotives, and was then force-wedged between the opposing lead locomotive...would it not be possible for the struck auto to perhaps nudge the first axle off the rails?
spokyone wrote:This lady died this morning from her injuries. My heart goes out to the surviving children.
Well, all we can do is pray for the surviving kids and the family members, this is in the Big Man's judgement now...maybe its for the best. I cannot imaging how hard it would have been moving on after the accident knowing full well your actions killed your own kids, and that they have it all on videotape to prove it.
It's always amazing to me that, in these types of cases, the media and general public perception is that it's the railroad's fault, dangerous crossing w/o gates, etc., etc. How about once, just once, a headline would proclaim: "Idiot driver tries to beat train at crossing thereby giving locomotive engineer nightmares for the rest of his life."
On another front, I do believe that all railroads - big or small - DO have a responsibility to the communities they serve and toward that end I agree with Bucyrus and others that Operation Lifesaver efforts have to be pushed to the max; whether it's in schools or with graphic advertising showing the gory/gruesome aftermath of a collision with a train at a crossing. Also, I'm too young to have ever seen it but back in the day there used to be (from what I've seen/read anyway) Burma Shave-like signs in advance of a crossing alerting motorists. Also, I don't know if they're in place still but I've heard that the UP has extra warning signs on some of their crossings on their Overland Route mainline warning of fast trains. Can anyone confirm that? I remember on the former Rock Island (now IAIS) mainline in the Iowa City-Coralville area there was one crossing in particular that warned of fast trains back in the late 70's.
With all of this forehead wringing over the possibility of a judge not permitting a viewing of a video and the possibility of a jury deciding it wasn't her fault I'm left with the impression that I'm the only person reading these missives that has ever served on a jury and watched a judge in action. I agree, there are extremes of judicial behavior and that they make the news, however, I also know that most trials don't make the news probably because the behavior of judge and jury are not extreme or stupid.
Based on my limited sample of 3 times on a jury, its been my experience that juries aren't stupid or gullible, that most defense lawyers are doing their job (which is to force the state each and every time to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt), that most prosecuting lawyers aren't bumbling idiots, and that most judges are a lot smarter and more savvy than the live on five sound bite would lead you to believe. What I do know is that each time I've been part of a group (the jury) holding another persons life in our hands we have spent a great deal of time making sure we understood the evidence, understood the charges, and understood the legal technicalities involved. In each case I was satisfied with the verdict and I left the jury room confident that I and the others had done the best we could with respect to all parties involved in the dispute.
My take on this situation is that if she does try for some kind of legal action to shift the blame she will fail.
go to this website:
lots of interesting info. and most of the ingorant people in around complaining about railroads disturbing them.
http://www.topix.net/business/railroads
csmith9474 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: csmith9474 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: MP173 wrote: ... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.edI'm not so sure about this ditz. It is obvious she showed complete disregard for the lives of her children before the accident -- why should it bother her afterwards?She might have had a slight chance in court without the video ... but the video evidence is awfully damning. I hope she is charged with either depraved indifference murder or at the least criminally negligent manslaughter. The fact that two of her children are dead is not a mitigating factor nor should it make her a sympathetic figure. They are dead because of her actions, period.That was my thought exactly as far as her regards to her children. After viewing something like that, it seems like it is "all about her".As far as her getting charged with murder/manslaughter, and going to trial, she has a good chance of beating that with a good defense lawyer, I would think. The general public's perception seems to be that railroads are a nuisance, so convincing a jury that it is the railroad's fault may not be that difficult. I can see the average Joe thinking to themselves "I hate getting stuck at crossings!". Any chance to stick the blame on the railroad, especially if the defense lawyer can twist the lack of gates into something, could possibly be agreeable to a jury. I'd think the opposite -- the evidence here is prima facie -- just hope for some parents on that jury. And DCFS should take her other two surviving kids, pronto. She is unfit to be a mother.I suppose you are right. The video is pretty clear cut. I have heard of jurys doing some pretty wild things in the past, so that is why my thoughts took me the direction they did. I am in no way trying to justify what she did. What she did is just plain insanity!! I just hope that the video "evidence" doesn't get chucked out over some stupid technicality.
Poppa_Zit wrote: csmith9474 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: MP173 wrote: ... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.edI'm not so sure about this ditz. It is obvious she showed complete disregard for the lives of her children before the accident -- why should it bother her afterwards?She might have had a slight chance in court without the video ... but the video evidence is awfully damning. I hope she is charged with either depraved indifference murder or at the least criminally negligent manslaughter. The fact that two of her children are dead is not a mitigating factor nor should it make her a sympathetic figure. They are dead because of her actions, period.That was my thought exactly as far as her regards to her children. After viewing something like that, it seems like it is "all about her".As far as her getting charged with murder/manslaughter, and going to trial, she has a good chance of beating that with a good defense lawyer, I would think. The general public's perception seems to be that railroads are a nuisance, so convincing a jury that it is the railroad's fault may not be that difficult. I can see the average Joe thinking to themselves "I hate getting stuck at crossings!". Any chance to stick the blame on the railroad, especially if the defense lawyer can twist the lack of gates into something, could possibly be agreeable to a jury. I'd think the opposite -- the evidence here is prima facie -- just hope for some parents on that jury. And DCFS should take her other two surviving kids, pronto. She is unfit to be a mother.
csmith9474 wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: MP173 wrote: ... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.edI'm not so sure about this ditz. It is obvious she showed complete disregard for the lives of her children before the accident -- why should it bother her afterwards?She might have had a slight chance in court without the video ... but the video evidence is awfully damning. I hope she is charged with either depraved indifference murder or at the least criminally negligent manslaughter. The fact that two of her children are dead is not a mitigating factor nor should it make her a sympathetic figure. They are dead because of her actions, period.That was my thought exactly as far as her regards to her children. After viewing something like that, it seems like it is "all about her".As far as her getting charged with murder/manslaughter, and going to trial, she has a good chance of beating that with a good defense lawyer, I would think. The general public's perception seems to be that railroads are a nuisance, so convincing a jury that it is the railroad's fault may not be that difficult. I can see the average Joe thinking to themselves "I hate getting stuck at crossings!". Any chance to stick the blame on the railroad, especially if the defense lawyer can twist the lack of gates into something, could possibly be agreeable to a jury.
Poppa_Zit wrote: MP173 wrote: ... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.edI'm not so sure about this ditz. It is obvious she showed complete disregard for the lives of her children before the accident -- why should it bother her afterwards?She might have had a slight chance in court without the video ... but the video evidence is awfully damning. I hope she is charged with either depraved indifference murder or at the least criminally negligent manslaughter. The fact that two of her children are dead is not a mitigating factor nor should it make her a sympathetic figure. They are dead because of her actions, period.
MP173 wrote: ... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.ed
... she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!
No amount of $$$ would be worth that burden.
I'm not so sure about this ditz. It is obvious she showed complete disregard for the lives of her children before the accident -- why should it bother her afterwards?
She might have had a slight chance in court without the video ... but the video evidence is awfully damning. I hope she is charged with either depraved indifference murder or at the least criminally negligent manslaughter. The fact that two of her children are dead is not a mitigating factor nor should it make her a sympathetic figure. They are dead because of her actions, period.
That was my thought exactly as far as her regards to her children. After viewing something like that, it seems like it is "all about her".
As far as her getting charged with murder/manslaughter, and going to trial, she has a good chance of beating that with a good defense lawyer, I would think. The general public's perception seems to be that railroads are a nuisance, so convincing a jury that it is the railroad's fault may not be that difficult. I can see the average Joe thinking to themselves "I hate getting stuck at crossings!". Any chance to stick the blame on the railroad, especially if the defense lawyer can twist the lack of gates into something, could possibly be agreeable to a jury.
I'd think the opposite -- the evidence here is prima facie -- just hope for some parents on that jury. And DCFS should take her other two surviving kids, pronto. She is unfit to be a mother.
I suppose you are right. The video is pretty clear cut. I have heard of jurys doing some pretty wild things in the past, so that is why my thoughts took me the direction they did.
I am in no way trying to justify what she did. What she did is just plain insanity!! I just hope that the video "evidence" doesn't get chucked out over some stupid technicality.
I never thought you were trying to justify her action, not in a million years.
The video is the key. I can't see any other way it could be interpreted, either. I only hope that a sharp defense attorney can't talk a stupid judge to throw it out as evidence because it is too prejudicial.
Hammond has always been tough to drive thru, particularly at the CSX & SS part of town.
It does appear the big stumbling block to this would be to double track from Willowcreek to Gibson Yard. But, wouldnt that route put more trains at street level in Gary? So, all you are doing is trading places. Am I missing something here, is the MC elevated thru Gary?
MP173 wrote: Today there is a front page article which discusses a bypass route thru daRegion which would use the old Michigan Central route. The problem is it would require massive $$$ to get this up and running. There have been discussions in the past about this routing, but the funding hasnt been made available. I am not sure what route it is, but this might be the motivating factor to get this moving.ed
I am not sure what route it is, but this might be the motivating factor to get this moving.
Westbound traffic from the old B&O line would leave that line at Willowcreek for the old Conrail Porter Branch (which is ex-MC)--which would be restored to double track. I'm not sure of the connection, but it would basically come in to Hammond along the IHB, go under Hohman Avenue, and could split and rejoin the B&O line anywhere between Torrance Avenue and Dolton.
Hammond has a couple of principal north-south roads (including U.S. 41, I believe) that cross both the South Shore and the CSX line, yet there are no grade-separated crossings in the city that involve those railroads (not counting the Toll Road, hardly an alternative for local traffic). The IHB's route through Hammond, on the other hand, has few grade crossings.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
MP173,
The old Michigan Central Route in Hammond is the current IHB main line...it's about ½ Mile South of the CSX line (B&O Chicago Terminal). It runs through Central Hammond and is mainly grade separated by overpasses. Gibson Yard is part of that line. If you have crossed the Nine-Span Bridge on Indianapolis Blvd. in Hammond, you cross the old MC line and Gibson yard.
While it would be good for CSX to start utilizing that line, I'd doubt it at this time, unless other parties come up with the major bucks necessary...
Brian
I dont think that is going to happen, but if it does, she will still have to live with the fact that SHE CAUSED TWO DEATHS TO HER CHILDREN!
Perhaps Gabe can weight in on this.
csmith9474 wrote: MP173 wrote: The Times coverage of this has been very fair, in my opinion. Today there is a front page article which discusses a bypass route thru daRegion which would use the old Michigan Central route. The problem is it would require massive $$$ to get this up and running. There have been discussions in the past about this routing, but the funding hasnt been made available. I am not sure what route it is, but this might be the motivating factor to get this moving.I am not defending the woman here, what I think she did was idiotic and stupid. The railroad situation in East Chicago, Whiting, and Hammond leaves a lot to be desired. Many trains passing thru the area are travelling at slow speeds. That causes considerable waiting at grade crossings. Often the trains are stopped and the gates are down or flashers operating (this happened to me this week in EC). This event could have and should have been avoided with the use of common sense. She deliberately endangered her kids (and killed two). She will be forever punished, if she has a soul...edIn my cynical view, the woman is gonna get rich off the railroad, and with the "help" of friends and family, will completely transfer blame to the railroad.
MP173 wrote: The Times coverage of this has been very fair, in my opinion. Today there is a front page article which discusses a bypass route thru daRegion which would use the old Michigan Central route. The problem is it would require massive $$$ to get this up and running. There have been discussions in the past about this routing, but the funding hasnt been made available. I am not sure what route it is, but this might be the motivating factor to get this moving.I am not defending the woman here, what I think she did was idiotic and stupid. The railroad situation in East Chicago, Whiting, and Hammond leaves a lot to be desired. Many trains passing thru the area are travelling at slow speeds. That causes considerable waiting at grade crossings. Often the trains are stopped and the gates are down or flashers operating (this happened to me this week in EC). This event could have and should have been avoided with the use of common sense. She deliberately endangered her kids (and killed two). She will be forever punished, if she has a soul...ed
The Times coverage of this has been very fair, in my opinion.
Today there is a front page article which discusses a bypass route thru daRegion which would use the old Michigan Central route. The problem is it would require massive $$$ to get this up and running. There have been discussions in the past about this routing, but the funding hasnt been made available.
I am not defending the woman here, what I think she did was idiotic and stupid. The railroad situation in East Chicago, Whiting, and Hammond leaves a lot to be desired. Many trains passing thru the area are travelling at slow speeds. That causes considerable waiting at grade crossings. Often the trains are stopped and the gates are down or flashers operating (this happened to me this week in EC).
This event could have and should have been avoided with the use of common sense. She deliberately endangered her kids (and killed two). She will be forever punished, if she has a soul...
In my cynical view, the woman is gonna get rich off the railroad, and with the "help" of friends and family, will completely transfer blame to the railroad.
That's life, do something that gets someone killed or maimed, and get rewarded. Hey, I think I'll go to Mcdonald's, order some coffee, dump it on my lap, sue the company, and collect my 100K!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.