Thanks. all, for your thoughts and reflections.
I would ask though, with a large (very large) percentage of bridges that have (or will have very soon) reached the end of their original "lifespan", is it a good idea to start adding more until the older ones are addressed?
If money was unlimited - then yeah, get rid of every crossing out there. But since it isn't, choices will have to be made. I don't want to see anyone hurt or killed by a train (of course), but yet we still have to be rational as long as real money is involved. Money vs. life is one of those moral arguments that can tear a person in half, but it is what it is.
As far as pedestrians... a train is very limited of where it can travel (usually). 2 sidesteps and you are out of the way. I just can't fathom how people can walk around public roads, and yet get hit by a train.
PS. I see the 1-star bandit is out and about. Who are you, mysterious bandit? Don't hide behind that button...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The long (very) range solution as put forward by Henry, Phoebe Vet and others is start replacing grade crossings by flyovers, underpasses, along with some grade crossings closings. To me that is a good use of stimulus funds that will eventually save lives. Surely a formula based on # vehicles crossing, # trucks, school buses, angles of incidence, visibility restrictions, accidents & near accidents, etc could be implemented?? I would think that the Fed Highway Administration already has a good formula? Now that is a good use of federal highway funds that helps both the highway folk and RRs
1. The Stilgoe book sounds interesting.
2. Pedestrian accidents are even more problematic, in terms of difficulty of prevention and more tragic when children are involved, although even then, the Darwin Award seems to get mentioned by some.
3. Pretty clearly, the primary objective should be accident prevention. Finding blame and delivering punishment, although necessary, does not seem to be a fruitful means of prevention.
4. The inconsistency in responses on this forum which seems best explained by attribution theory. A good example was the young, alleged railfan who claimed to have been falsely arrested for trespass and suspicious activity at a crossing on the Metro North line. There was generally a quick judgement that he may have been abused by the police, or at least that the police had reacted improperly. Some of us (zugmann and myself) were (and remain) skeptical. I wonder what the response would have been if he were not a railfan?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well, there certainly is a template among railroaders and railfans that every grade crossing victim is a moron, idiot, stupid, and deserves the Darwin Award. Such deaths are celebrated as a victory in the war of weeding out the stupid and thereby improving society. The reason for the crash can never be that the driver simply made a mistake. Instead, the death is celebrated as fitting punishment, and the only regret is that the victim is dead and cannot be punished further. This template arises from the frustration over the fact that trains always have the right of way, but nevertheless railroads are forced to deal with trespassers and crossing violators on a routine basis.
However, blaming every pedestrian or driver death on the stupidity of the victim leaves no room to look for solutions to the problem. I doubt that we will arrive at the day where all the stupid people have been killed off by the trains, and crossing deaths will therefore come to a permanent end as the Darwin Award hopes.
I tend to push back against this Darwin template. I have been interested in the causes of grade crossing crashes since being close to the railroad industry and observing how frequently trains hit cars and pedestrians. There are deep issues at work in this dynamic, and you won’t spot them if you close your mind and blame them all on stupidity of the victim.
When railroading first began, grade crossings were simply identified as railroad crossings. A driver might cross and respond to the sign by saying, “yes, obviously.” So in order to clarify why a railroad crossing needed to be identified with a sign, the message, “Look Out For The Cars” was added. A driver needed to understand that he or she was being warned about the danger of a train, and not just being informed of the existence of a crossing.
There is deep psychology at work with the grade crossing, and there are a wide variety of motives and unfamiliar contingencies that shape driver behavior. I am convinced that if you could analyze the statistics of the number of vehicle-to-vehicle encounters and compare them to a like number of vehicle-to-train encounters, there would he a higher number of crashes in the vehicle-to-train encounters. I can’t prove that because the data gathering would be an enormous project. I doubt it has ever been done. But I am convinced it would bear out my assumption.
And while the industry and the fans all seem to know the answer, the traffic control authorities are a lot less certain. They look at driver psychology, and they split hairs over it. In the book, Metropolitan Corridor, author John R. Stilgoe includes a chapter titled, CROSSING. That is by far the deepest exploration of the problem that I have ever seen.
The author starts at the beginning. He explains that in the 1900 era, railroads and their schedule keeping were held in such high esteem, that people set their clocks by the passage of the trains. And they looked for trains at crossings when trains were due. They looked less when no trains were due. So trains running late tended to kill more people than trains on time.
Thank you schlimm -- interesting observations from social psychology.
And I agree on the role of "fault" in its potential to encourage safety improvements. It just feels like we can intelligently discuss such improvements to reduce crossing accidents involving truck drivers on rural roads, but seem to have more difficulty doing so when it comes to reducing pedestrian/trespasser deaths (though, as zugmann points out, mechanicals do have less of an influence on pedestrian/trespasser incidents).
Interesting post. I asked the same question, though not so pointedly. Perhaps the answer lies in attribution theory from social psychology. When something befalls others, particularly those we have little in common with, such as a teen or young adult in the case of rail crossing and RoW accidents, there is a strong tendency to make an internal attribution of responsibility/blame. When it is a case of ourselves or people we know or people we have something in common with or can at least identify with, such as an engineer, truck driver or a railfan, we make an external attribution: the crossing safeguards, weather, visibility, signage, equipment malfunctioning, etc.
I'm only interested in determination the fault if it leads to a program of upgrading to more foolproof crossings and the elimination of the many lightly used crossings.
Mechanical failure is hardly a factor in pedestrian deaths. But it can be a variable (cause) is some motor vehicle crashes... and this particular wreck is calling that variable into definite question.
WMNB4THRTL What about the possibility of sun glare? How about a medical problem? Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck? Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of? It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
What about the possibility of sun glare? How about a medical problem? Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck? Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of? It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
What about the possibility of sun glare?
How about a medical problem?
Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck?
Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of?
It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
The above is a post from the "Semi-trailer plowed into an Amtrak train ..." thread on this forum.
I agree that it is so true -- so many possible factors. The final report will indeed be most intersting. And yet ...
I find these posts, pointing out all of the possible mitigating factors, and all of the discussions about possible improvements that might/could/should have been made to the crossing, very interesting in and of themselves. Not because I don't agree, because generally I do.
No, what I find so interesting is the completely different tone in the discussions from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser.
Isn't that, in effect, what we have here? Someone illegally and unsafely enters the ROW, in spite of clear warnings contra-indicating such action (which should not even be necessary, given the obvious danger of the active rail line). His action results in his own death, as well as significant repercussions for those properly using the RR ROW.
The perpetrator is an experienced commercial driver (from whom we generally expect a higher level of judgement and capability, hence tighter licensing, etc.), and we discuss the possible mitigating factors and how the crossing might have been better protected. All of which I believe is most appropriate.
But if the deceased perpetrator had been a teenager or young adult (especially walking on or across the ROW), I would bet good money that at least one of the first 3 posts would make reference to "Darwin Awards". The mere suggestion of possible mitigating factors or better protection of the ROW would be virtually shouted down. While there would be much (and very appropriate) sympathy for the crew and their families, there would be absolutely none for the perpetrator or his/her family. And all of that apparent vehemence without any serious damage or injury to anything or anyone on the train (other than the very real psychological trauma to the operating crew, which I am sure is also affecting this CZ crew).
So, any thoughts as to why the difference?
The fact that there were casualties on the train? (I would think that should mitigate towards increased vitriol against the driver, not less.)
The fact that he was a professional, and so we are more inclined to try to place fault elsewhere (although "fault" is something for the judicial system to ascertain, we certainly do like to speculate on the matter!).
Maybe we have more professionals (and especially professional drivers) on these forums, than we have teenagers & young adults (or their parents!).
And maybe I am just a bit too selectively sensitive to vitriol when I see it, and my premise (that there is a difference in tone) is all in my head.
Thoughts? Comments?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.