ungern Informed ungern: Thank you for the thoughtful response. you're welcome. As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident. I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it. Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials. You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings. I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident. From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond? As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case. In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads. As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened. I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded. Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time. I'll let the engineers here respond to this. BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit? With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that. I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test. I know that the the wonderful world created by lawyers these days that 62 vs 60 is the end of the world. With similar thoughts about sounding the horn. Where I work there are grade crossings after grade crossings for at least to miles with the crossing less then a quarter mile apart so sometimes I do hear not completely correct horn signals but usually I know if there is something and heavy coming and I pay very careful attention aroung these tracks because a bad day is any day that I lose my life or limb. Otherwise, I have a good day no matter how awful it my get. ungern PS Welcome to the forum. I hope you like trains or just want to learn to learn more about them because there are lots of knowledgable people here.
Informed ungern: Thank you for the thoughtful response. you're welcome. As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident. I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it. Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials. You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings. I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident. From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond? As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case. In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads. As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened. I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded. Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time. I'll let the engineers here respond to this. BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit? With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that. I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
ungern:
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
you're welcome.
As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident.
I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it.
Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials.
You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings.
I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident.
From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond?
As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case.
In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads.
As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened.
I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded.
Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time.
I'll let the engineers here respond to this.
BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit?
With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that.
I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
I know that the the wonderful world created by lawyers these days that 62 vs 60 is the end of the world. With similar thoughts about sounding the horn. Where I work there are grade crossings after grade crossings for at least to miles with the crossing less then a quarter mile apart so sometimes I do hear not completely correct horn signals but usually I know if there is something and heavy coming and I pay very careful attention aroung these tracks because a bad day is any day that I lose my life or limb. Otherwise, I have a good day no matter how awful it my get.
ungern
PS Welcome to the forum. I hope you like trains or just want to learn to learn more about them because there are lots of knowledgable people here.
Thanks for the warm welcome, and apologies for the delayed response.
I fully appreciate your comments regarding jury duty. However, without dedicated and commited citizens such as yourself, our legal system would implode upon itself. I'm sure your community appreciates the sacrafices you have made in the past to sit on the jury.
Thanks for your comments regarding how crossings are funded. As time permits, I will be investigating this in more detail and will report back with any significant findings.
P.S. I do like trains, and understand that the railroads provide a vital function to National Security and every day commerce. I also fully appreciate the knowledge that exists within the members of this forum and hope to be a future contributor to other subject matters as well.
Railway Man BucyrusQuick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?124 mph is the legal maximum speed. See 49CFR213.347 and 49CFR213.307
BucyrusQuick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?
124 mph is the legal maximum speed. See 49CFR213.347 and 49CFR213.307
I should add that the FRA will only allow 110 mph or greater at an at-grade if it is equipped with alternative safety measures equal to or better than a grade-separation. So far, no "alternative safety measures" have been proven to be equal or better. Thus, for practical purposes, 109 mph is at present the maximum speed, not 124.RWM
A 'partial' solution: Post "STOP" signs (y'know, the octagonal red thingies that you roll thru every day) at ALL railroad crossings. Then, enforce the law! It will cost you $80, here in Montana, for not coming to a complete stop. "Going Around the Gates" will cost you $20, if proven!
Well, the 'whackos', 'loons', and 'cuckoos' are alive-and-well in my little city (pop: 3,200). The mayor wants to make the city a "Quiet Zone". With 40+ BNSF trains (when the economy recovers) passing thru, at 'Track Speed' of 45 mph (restricted), the two body shops should prosper! Only $450,000 for the extra gates and roadway divider! What a deal! I don't want to get into the trespasser (pedestrian) bit. That is really scary! Saw a grade-school kid, on his bicycle, riding no-handed, texting across the tracks, a couple of weeks ago. Some sort of 'thingies' in his ears, too!!!
BNSFwatcherSaw a grade-school kid, on his bicycle, riding no-handed, texting across the tracks, a couple of weeks ago. Some sort of 'thingies' in his ears, too!!!
Yet if he got smacked, it would be "that big, bad train."
Sheesh!
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...
Fun and games at Ferry street crossing in Anoka; last Saturday afternoon around 3PM I noticed a female jogger running on the BNSF bridge which crosses the Rum River. This is just east of the infamous Ferry Street crossing. There were also 3 young men on the bridge and in a few seconds they would be joined by an eastbound BNSF coal train. If these dingbats had looked at the signal they would have seen it was green over red which should translate to get off the tracks! If any of these jerks had been hit by this train I am pretty sure how the local media would have reacted; BOO HOO! poor babies the big bad railroad strikes again. To paraphrase the Trix commercial; railroad tracks are for trains not silly tresspassers.
In their defense, the signals mean nothing unless you know how to read them, which I can pretty much guarantee that they don't. Some railroaders have proven that they can't, either.
However, that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have been there in the first place...
In my neck of the woods BNSF is going to be sued for wrongful death from 2 years ago.It isnt a question if the lights were working here so i have no idea whats going to happen.Happened in Colona Illinois, Lady got trapped on the tracks and left her car. All good so far. But as the train is approaching she runs back towards her car.It gets whacked and sent into the air striking and killing her. So why dear friends is the railroad at fault here? I give up if I hit someone now I am just ready to hear how its all my fault that they were killed when I couldnt swerve.
I will try to find out more and start a new thread on this.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
route_rock In my neck of the woods BNSF is going to be sued for wrongful death from 2 years ago.It isnt a question if the lights were working here so i have no idea whats going to happen.Happened in Colona Illinois, Lady got trapped on the tracks and left her car. All good so far. But as the train is approaching she runs back towards her car.It gets whacked and sent into the air striking and killing her. So why dear friends is the railroad at fault here? I give up if I hit someone now I am just ready to hear how its all my fault that they were killed when I couldnt swerve. I will try to find out more and start a new thread on this.
Was it because the engineer stuck his head out the window and hollered, "C'mon! I double-dog dare you!"
Sorry. I guess humor is inappropriate but some behavior is so grossly ludicrous that gallows humor is sometimes the only way out. .
Is there perhaps more than we've been told? Seems to me sometimes the "evil" RR co's look that way because of omissions, not always additions. This holds true for the "trusting" motorists going "home, as s/he had every day for the past twenty years." - a.s.
aricat Fun and games at Ferry street crossing in Anoka; last Saturday afternoon around 3PM I noticed a female jogger running on the BNSF bridge which crosses the Rum River. This is just east of the infamous Ferry Street crossing. There were also 3 young men on the bridge and in a few seconds they would be joined by an eastbound BNSF coal train. If these dingbats had looked at the signal they would have seen it was green over red which should translate to get off the tracks! If any of these jerks had been hit by this train I am pretty sure how the local media would have reacted; BOO HOO! poor babies the big bad railroad strikes again. To paraphrase the Trix commercial; railroad tracks are for trains not silly tresspassers.
Is there something in the water in Anoka?
I guess since these "victims" have no capacity for independent thought, everything will have to be thunk out for them. Kind of like birth control: "Don't, but if you do, wear a condom." The local RR: "You are never welcome to cross the track or walk down them or cross a bridge, and it doesn't matter if everyone else does." Followed by: "For heaven't sake! Don't you know a green light on top means a train is coming up behind you?" Notice that if the townies had stuck to their side of the bargain, such foreknowldge of RR operating practices would not be necessary. - a.s.
The one thing that I just don't get is a car full of teens and early 20's is actually doing under the speed limit, with a car full of beers that were not open before the crash, going to a party at 10pm and none of them had any blood alcohol level at all.
It is interesting the huge variance in what the police said at the scene (including noting that the gates were working) and at the trial. I suppose access to the photos of the scene would help understand where everything took place. Just reading it does not do it.
I am not surprised the engineer did not get basic facts right (just try to get 2 witnesses to give the same description of anything), nor am I surprised the witnesses seemed "coached" (they probably went over their testimony 100 times with the attorneys). It would be interesting to see the transcripts from the trial as well, just to get an idea of what was said when.
If, IF, the United States really wants fast train service, the best course is to pass a federal statute prohibiting lawsuits against railroads or their agents for injuries or deaths caused to non-employees by trains on railroad tracks; the basis would be that such lawsuits unduly burden interstate commerce. To alleviate howls from those who think otherwise, the feds could promote an insurance fund that the feds would administer to pay medical costs and other readily ascertainable costs to the victims. People who lack the sense to stay off railroad tracks are of course stupid beyond reform. Sadly, we let them vote.
If the United States really wants fast train service they will begin a program that over time will totally eliminate grade crossings.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Informed 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. P.S. You would have made a good juror in this case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
P.S. You would have made a good juror in this case.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I began this thread, I said that I had no idea what to make of this case. Then poster, “Informed,” provided details about the Minnesota State Patrol conducting a test that proved that the gates had not been activated at the time of the crash. After reading all of the references that I could find and considering the information discussed in this thread, I still cannot conclude whether or not the gates failed. However, based upon the details of the test that have been given in this thread, I do conclude that the test was faulty and could not have proven that the gates did fail.
In the course of this accident reconstruction and proof test with a vehicle identical to the actual vehicle in the crash, there were two stages of conclusions that were reached. Together, they were accepted as proof of the gate failure. The two stages were:
1) The vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane as it was struck by the train.
2) The vehicle could not have gotten into that position if it had driven around the lowered gate.
From the explanation of the testing, the State Patrol proved item #2 beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regardless of variables such as road conditions or speed, the limitations of vehicle steering geometry alone meant that the vehicle simply could not have gotten into the correct position within its proper lane by the time the train struck it; if it had run around the gate.
However this irrefutable conclusion of item #2 is dependent upon the truth of item #1. And in the explanation of the testing, there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that proves item #1.
The State Patrol concluded that if the vehicle had run around the lowered gate, it could not have gotten into the proper position by the time the train struck it. However, another explanation could be that the vehicle may have run around the lowered gate and not gotten back into its proper position before the train struck it. I do not see how the test has proven either one of these two possible scenarios.
The State Patrol concluded that item #1 was proven by the following evidence:
The crash left a debris field that extended over some distance. The disintegration and sideways movement of the vehicle during the crash also caused the vehicle to leave skid marks and other road markings such as fluid wetting on the roadway and railroad tracks. These markings and debris field did begin at the point where the vehicle would have been in its correct position in its proper lane. Therefore, from this evidence, court concluded that the point of impact was located where the markings and debris field began.
However, this is a faulty conclusion. Simply put, the beginning of the debris field and markings on the pavement cannot be assumed to coincide with the point of impact. The point of impact might have coincided with the beginning of the debris field and pavement markings; however, it is just as likely that these items of evidence began a substantial distance after the point of impact. It is only about a fifteen-foot difference between the position of the vehicle if it had run around the gate and its position if it had not run around the gate. It seems absurd to conclude that the first item in the debris field marks the latter location and not the former.
I am not surprised that the jury or the judge bought into this faulty conclusion, but I am surprised that the State Patrol did.
I have no knowledge of any kind about this particular accident, however I have investigated hundreds of motor vehicle accidents. There is always some debris at the point of impact, and skid marks begin at the point that the tire began sliding.
People are still fighting the Grange War in Minnesota. Aside from the jury's disreard for the police report or any other facts, this is all the more reason for authority-witnessed downloading and preservation of event recorder evidence.
In a similar vein, the news photos of the Chatsworth crash showing a lone signal maintainer working on a signal at the scene was an appalling breach of evidence integrity.
HarveyK400People are still fighting the Grange War in Minnesota. Aside from the jury's disreard for the police report or any other facts, this is all the more reason for authority-witnessed downloading and preservation of event recorder evidence.
But the jury did not disregard the police. The Minnesota State Patrol concluded that the signals had failed to activate, and the jury agreed. However, according to the article linked below, just after the crash in 2003, the State Patrol concluded that the signals were working, and the driver went around the lowered gate. I have no opionion about whether the signals were working, but I fail to see the evidence for the premise that the signals failed.
Also, in 2003, the State Patrol said that no speed evaluation was possible for the vehicle that was struck. In 2009, they say that the vehicle had a black box that proved it was traveling 28 mph when hit.
Here is the 2003 article:
http://www.abcnewspapers.com/2003/blaine/december/18train.html
HarveyK400In a similar vein, the news photos of the Chatsworth crash showing a lone signal maintainer working on a signal at the scene was an appalling breach of evidence integrity.
You're inferring this? Or you have evidence in addition to the photo such as when it was taken, what was going on, who was present, etc?
RWM
Phoebe Vet I have no knowledge of any kind about this particular accident, however I have investigated hundreds of motor vehicle accidents. There is always some debris at the point of impact, and skid marks begin at the point that the tire began sliding.
I have seen that effect of debris deposited right at the point of impact, as you mention. In a collision between two cars, the impact energy is shared between them. If one vehicle is moving and the other stopped, the moving vehicle decelerates upon impact and the stationary vehicle accelerates upon impact. The collision therefore has some dwell time at the point of impact, allowing pieces to be shed right there. And pieces are shed from both vehicles.
When a train strikes a vehicle, however, there is no sharing of the impact. The vehicle absorbs 100% of the impact energy, and the train, for all practical purposes, absorbs none of it. The effect is like a bat hitting a baseball. With a train hitting a car directly broadside at about 60 mph, I would think that every element of the vehicle, whether attached or detached by the force of impact, would be propelled into forward motion, and not come to a stop until it was some distance beyond the point of impact. I would not be surprised if there were no debris whatsoever left within several feet of the point of impact in such a collision.
There may not be any skid marks at the point of impact either if the force of the train initially lifted the vehicle. According to poster, “Informed,” that was BNSF’s explanation for their contention that the point of impact occurred prior to the skid marks.
You are in error.
You are correct about almost the entire force of impact being transferred to the car, but that is not the case with 100% of the debris.
There will be debris and marks at the point of impact.
In this picture, notice that the train is a small dot in the background, an indicator of how hard it hit the truck.The tractor of the truck is down there with the train. Then notice that there is a substantial amount of debris on the ground over the entire crossing. What remains of the trailer is on the far side of the crossing, but the debris field starts at the point of impact.
There is a significant quantity of "stuff" clinging to the underside of a vehicle. It will be knocked off if the vehicle is suddenly accelerated by an impact and will fall pretty much straight down.
Phoebe Vet You are in error. You are correct about almost the entire force of impact being transferred to the car, but that is not the case with 100% of the debris. There will be debris and marks at the point of impact. In this picture, notice that the train is a small dot in the background, an indicator of how hard it hit the truck.The tractor of the truck is down there with the train. Then notice that there is a substantial amount of debris on the ground over the entire crossing. What remains of the trailer is on the far side of the crossing, but the debris field starts at the point of impact. There is a significant quantity of "stuff" clinging to the underside of a vehicle. It will be knocked off if the vehicle is suddenly accelerated by an impact and will fall pretty much straight down.
I see your point, but I am not sure that the collision you show is completely analogous to the Anoka crash. You show a semi trailer full of say 20 tons of relatively dense, tightly stacked, loose objects.
Because the trailer is perhaps 30 feet long, and the locomotive is only 10 feet wide, wherever the locomotive strikes the trailer, the majority of the trailer and its load will be not be in line with the impact. The acceleration of that part of the load that is not in line with the impact depends on the ability of the trailer to transmit the acceleration force to it from the part of the trailer that is in line with the impact. The trailer does not have that degree of structural strength, so it torn in two as the locomotive carries the part it strikes forward, and leaves the rest behind.
To look at it another way, say you have a stick of soft butter as high and wide as a semi trailer and 500 feet long, stalled on the track, and the train hits it dead center. Most of that butter on either side of the impact is not going to even move, so you could say that it is a part of a debris field that begins right at the point of impact.
I think you tend to get a different result when a train hits a car perfectly broadside and none of the car extends beyond the locomotive on either side. Even if debris is immediately detached, it is still in line with the locomotive, and being pushed forward by it.
Furthermore, I suspect that ability to withstand disintegration is greater (proportionately) with a car loaded with human occupants versus a semi trailer loaded with many tons of stacked, loose objects. If you had a semi trailer full of BBs for instance, I suspect that shock of impact would act like an explosion and throw BBs in all directions, so some of them might land in locations prior to the point of impact with respect to the train travel direction.
Certainly the Anoka crash left a debris field. Apparently it was something like 200 feet long, and it did begin on the crossing in the proper lane for the vehicle. The only question is: Was the vehicle actually struck in that lane or was it struck in the preceding lane. There is only 15 feet of difference between them.
I know your explanation seems to make sense to you, but it is just not supported by my training and experience.
Test your theory. Put a ripe peach on a T-ball stand and hit it as hard as you can with a baseball bat. See if you get splashed or if all the contents are accelerated along with the peach.
I have no desire to engage in a protracted argument, so this is my last post on the subject.
Phoebe Vet .......There is always some debris at the point of impact......
.......There is always some debris at the point of impact......
You could say it's inference.
No one else appeared to be around or taking any interest in the signalman as emergency personnel were bustling around the wrecked trains that was the focus of the news photos in the hours immediately following the crash.
One of the first things that needs to be done it would seem would be for a police officer to tape off, secure, and guard signal equipment consistent with protecting a crime scene until after investigators have a chance to inspect equipment and preserve evidence.
I'm a little leary ever since a crossing collision in Downstate Illinois was determined to be the failure of the signal maintainer to restore crossing signals to the operating mode after doing some work. Hearing about the collision, he had returned and was caught attempting to cover up his mistake.
The ruling came in spite of a police report that determined the accident scene was consistent with the driver of the car driving around the crossing arm.But so much of the case in the civil trial dealt with missing evidence that the jury was persuaded should have been maintained by the railroad.Mainly, there was a great deal of discussion about computerized data housed in a small metal shack by the side of the tracks which should have recorded precisely the position of the gates, the bells and lights of the crossing arm.Court evidence established the data was downloaded at the scene on the night of the crash by railroad employees. The police report indicated that data was never turned over to police.Copies submitted at trial were called insufficient by the families.
Ok, being a State Trooper I have investigated several train vs. auto crashes. You know a reasonable person can say. at 9 pm it is night time, BUT in court, can you actually say it is dark outside? A reasonable person will say ,"yes." Unfortunately, in civil trials, things like, "what is the definition of dark," or what is the definition of ,"is" can come into question and be spinned sufficiently enough to bring a reasonable person to doubt. Many of our community members have had the honor of performing their civic duty by being a juror in a civil case such as this, so you know precisely what I am talking about.
I once testified where person A ran a red light, thus striking person B broadside. Drive A sues driver B for being in the intersection. After several hours of testimony, I felt my judgement was being called into question because I didn't know how long the light had been red or know the mindset of driver A or even why I didn't feel empathy for driver A. I mean really, red means what? STOP. Not go faster, or slow down, but a complete cesation of movement STOP. I came under fire for this. What I found increasingly annoying was the fact that not only was my judgement called into question regarding what is supposed to transpire when faced with a red light at a stop intersection, but the fact that the Texas Department of Transportation had the "gaul" to control this intersection with a traffic light. I stuck to my guns and justice prevailed. Driver A failed to prove thier case. End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
All trains are equipt with safety features, a very bright lamp, and a very loud horn. Even IF the cross arms had not functioned properly (which I have no reason to believe they didn't), you may NOT cross the railroad unless safe to do so. It is technically a stopping point. 99.9% of the time crashes involving collisions between trains and vehicle, are die to vehicle driver negligence or the flagrant disregard of official traffic control devices.
I believe also that railroads go above and beyond to protect vehicle drivers and do everything within their power to protect us all. This reminds me of the person buying hot coffee from Macdonalds and sues after spilling it on themselves. <face palm>
Oh and regarding the "computerized data?" The railraod DID download the data and produced it in court. Ask yourself this question and use my driver A driver B scenerio...If the "black box" recorded the vehicles speed (driver B) at the time of the collision, should we award driver A, who was the primary causative factor of the collision a enormous amount of money because that "black box" did not record if driver B was wearing their safety belt? Sounds wierd I know, but that's how civil courts are.
This unfortunately is a case about "getting paid." I hate it that a life was lost, but I must not lose track of the fact that, if I do something that causes a crash, it is not the "other person" who sould have to pay due to MY negligence.
J&S RR End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
That's one of the big things that is so wrong with the world anymore. Nobody stops to think about how what they do affects others.
Just this morning on my way to work, I was stopped in the left turn lane of an intersection (left arrows were red). The other lights for the street I were on went to red, and the cross traffic got a green light. Just as traffic on the cross street was starting to move, some guy coming from the other direction from me came sailing through the red light yacking on his cell phone. It was the same light where a year ago I was stopped at a red light when a cell phone driver went under the back end of my Jeep.
People today don't seem to realize that when they are in a car they are supposed to be driving the car in a safe manner, not talking on the phone, text messaging, reading, putting on makeup, and everything else I've seen people doing at the wheel other than driving.
When it comes to safety at crossings, I always approach crossings prepared to stop, no matter if the signals are on or not. Even if the signals are malfunctioning, it is still my responsibility as a driver to drive defensively and make sure it is safe to cross before entering the crossing.
There was an episode of Rescue 911 in the first season where a man and his wife came up to a crossing in Michigan and were hit by two runaway boxcars. While the crossing signals in that incident did not come on, he still could have prevented the crash had he slowed up to check the tracks rather than just going by the signals. Unfortunately, his not checking the tracks cost his wife her life.
In my opinion, it's best to be safe than sorry.
Incidentally, I have lost somebody in a car-train crash. Initially, it was very difficult to deal with, and I, like others, blamed Amtrak/Conrail for what happened (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html), not wanting anything to do with trains. After some time, I dealt with my grief and realized that had my friend simply stopped at the stop signs at the crossing he was killed at and obeyed the crossbucks and yielded the right of way to the train, he would be alive. Unfortunately, he didn't. Unfortunately, most people don't learn to be careful around crossings until it's too late.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Bucyrus When I began this thread, I said that I had no idea what to make of this case. Then poster, “Informed,” provided details about the Minnesota State Patrol conducting a test that proved that the gates had not been activated at the time of the crash. After reading all of the references that I could find and considering the information discussed in this thread, I still cannot conclude whether or not the gates failed. However, based upon the details of the test that have been given in this thread, I do conclude that the test was faulty and could not have proven that the gates did fail. In the course of this accident reconstruction and proof test with a vehicle identical to the actual vehicle in the crash, there were two stages of conclusions that were reached. Together, they were accepted as proof of the gate failure. The two stages were: 1) The vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane as it was struck by the train. 2) The vehicle could not have gotten into that position if it had driven around the lowered gate. From the explanation of the testing, the State Patrol proved item #2 beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regardless of variables such as road conditions or speed, the limitations of vehicle steering geometry alone meant that the vehicle simply could not have gotten into the correct position within its proper lane by the time the train struck it; if it had run around the gate. However this irrefutable conclusion of item #2 is dependent upon the truth of item #1. And in the explanation of the testing, there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that proves item #1. The State Patrol concluded that if the vehicle had run around the lowered gate, it could not have gotten into the proper position by the time the train struck it. However, another explanation could be that the vehicle may have run around the lowered gate and not gotten back into its proper position before the train struck it. I do not see how the test has proven either one of these two possible scenarios. The State Patrol concluded that item #1 was proven by the following evidence: The crash left a debris field that extended over some distance. The disintegration and sideways movement of the vehicle during the crash also caused the vehicle to leave skid marks and other road markings such as fluid wetting on the roadway and railroad tracks. These markings and debris field did begin at the point where the vehicle would have been in its correct position in its proper lane. Therefore, from this evidence, court concluded that the point of impact was located where the markings and debris field began. However, this is a faulty conclusion. Simply put, the beginning of the debris field and markings on the pavement cannot be assumed to coincide with the point of impact. The point of impact might have coincided with the beginning of the debris field and pavement markings; however, it is just as likely that these items of evidence began a substantial distance after the point of impact. It is only about a fifteen-foot difference between the position of the vehicle if it had run around the gate and its position if it had not run around the gate. It seems absurd to conclude that the first item in the debris field marks the latter location and not the former. I am not surprised that the jury or the judge bought into this faulty conclusion, but I am surprised that the State Patrol did.
I appreciate the discussion over the past several days regarding this subject. I think you raised some good questions, but likely came to the wrong conclusion. This doesn't surprise me as you were not privy to all of the evidence and details that were presented in this case. Worse yet, I'm certain that I didn't present the data and subsequent findings in the detailed manner that it should have been in order for you to find fact in this accident. Worse yet, you have effectively heard much of the detail in this case from myself, and I'm not qualified in this highly technical subject matter, to effectively communicate all of the facts.
However, the jury did get the benefit of reviewing all of the detail and physical eveidence that remained (minus that data and evidence that was either lost, altered, or destroyed by BNSF), and they've come to a different conclusion. Having seen the arguments on both sides, it is still my firm belief that the jury made the right call.
That's the great thing about living in America, you are entitled to your opinions. Even though they may be based upon partial truths, unrelated experiences, or misrepresentations. There is allot more detail around the State Patrol accident report that was initially produced, than what was presented within the reporting of this accident by the media. In fact, there was disagreement about the findings within the department and that was brought out within the trial.
Phoebe Vet I know your explanation seems to make sense to you, but it is just not supported by my training and experience. Test your theory. Put a ripe peach on a T-ball stand and hit it as hard as you can with a baseball bat. See if you get splashed or if all the contents are accelerated along with the peach. I have no desire to engage in a protracted argument, so this is my last post on the subject.
I realize that you have training and experience, and I appreciate your input on this matter, but I disagree with you on this one point.
You say the every vehicular crash leaves debris deposited at the point of impact (as opposed to the accident scene in general.) All I am saying is that I believe that is somewhat of a generalization, rather than a guaranteed consequence of every collision. Certainly it has to depend on the size, shape, and weight of the vehicles involved and other factors such as speed and the loads they are carrying.
And again, we are not just talking about leaving debris at the “crash site,” or “accident scene,” which is highly likely. We are talking about leaving debris right at the point of impact. And we are talking about reaching a conclusion that the point of impact could not have possibly occurred at a location that was fifteen feet away from the nearest debris.
Your analogy of hitting a peach is similar to your example of the semi trailer. The peach is relatively dense with little structural strength to withstand the acceleration. The concentrated force of the bat cuts right through it before it can accelerate. The peach explodes. An egg would explode as well.
Now try the same test with a baseball. How much debris is left at the point of impact?
Now go back to the peach, but instead of hitting it with a bat, hit it with something shaped like a big spoon the size of a tennis racquet. Will part of the peach drop straight down to the ground at the point of impact?
Now go back to the peach and hit it dead center with a locomotive at 60 mph. Every bit of that exploding peach will be carried forward before it can get beyond the face of the locomotive and drop to the ground. So even though the peach explodes as it does when hit by the bat, no debris will be left at the point of impact when the peach is hit by a locomotive.
Consider a bicyclist getting hit dead center by a locomotive traveling 60 mph. I doubt that will leave anything at the point of contact. There are plenty of videos on youtube showing trains hitting cars in tests and demonstrations. Most of them look a lot more like baseballs getting hit by bats than peaches getting hit by bats.
BNSF & DMIR 4Ever What really baffles me is that it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gates didn't work. They didn't do that in any way whatsoever. They relied on non-existent evidence, and in spite of a police report and an eyewitness stating that the gates were down, they still prevailed. In the eyes of the judicial system, this shouldn't even be where it is now, and should have been dismissed years ago.
What really baffles me is that it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gates didn't work. They didn't do that in any way whatsoever. They relied on non-existent evidence, and in spite of a police report and an eyewitness stating that the gates were down, they still prevailed. In the eyes of the judicial system, this shouldn't even be where it is now, and should have been dismissed years ago.
Uh, you are thinking of criminal law (and the standard there is actually "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Civil cases generally operate under a preponderence of the evidence standard. If the signals were not properly operational, that would constitute negligence.
Police on the scene are generally not trained in accident investigation. Police reports are also considered preliminary and are thus less persuasive (and can be totally discounted) if the later final investigation reaches the opposite conclusion - it sounds like that is what happened in this case is that the final investigation reached a different conclusion than the initial police report. That happens, especially when a police report may be based on self serving or incomplete information.
Just because the lights were observed flashing doesn't mean they were working properly - the lights and gates could have come on too late trapping the car for example. When lights and gates are posted the railroad has the duty to ensure they work properly and to post signs warning them if they do not work correctly or to post alternative means to stop traffic such as an employee. If there is no admissible persuasive evidence showing the lights were functioning properly, the railroad is liable period. Statements by railroad employees are considered self serving and thus properly accorded less weight than other evidence. The absence of evidence can be just as important as the evidence which is there. If you were charged with murder and you had a motive and means to commit, but you didn't do it and was home alone at the time, there is a good chance you are still going to prison even though you are innocent. And criminal cases require a much more stringent burden of proof.
In short, I think that you are misreading what happened - here the evidence suggested that the car did not go around the gates - no evidence was there that the gates were working properly other than the self serving statement of a railroad employee (which as I pointed out does not prove anything because it does not prove that the gates deployed at the proper time) and a preliminary police report that was later proven by subsequent investigation to be false. There is also the indication that BNSF may well have tampered with the evidence - at the minimum, they did not properly secure the evidence - both cases are absolute no nos. The only reasonable inference from that combination of facts is that the gates were not working properly. BNSF deserved to lose that case.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.