tree68 I would opine that offering opinions regarding the thoughts of others about offering opinions should be acceptable, providing the content therein is of a constructive nature and does not constitute an ad hominem attack.
I would opine that offering opinions regarding the thoughts of others about offering opinions should be acceptable, providing the content therein is of a constructive nature and does not constitute an ad hominem attack.
Yes, absolutely. I share that opinion.
Gotta dig out that bafflegab thesaurus again...
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...
tree68 Euclid "However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur. Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield. Let me type this slowly, so maybe you can understand it. I do not regard that opinion as a factual explanation of what happened. I regard that as one hypothesis, to me the most logical at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't put words into my mouth.
Euclid "However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur. Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
Let me type this slowly, so maybe you can understand it.
I do not regard that opinion as a factual explanation of what happened.
I regard that as one hypothesis, to me the most logical at the time. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don't put words into my mouth.
No need to type slow. I understdand it perfectly. And I am not putting words in your mouth. I never said an opinion was a factual explanation of what happened if you just stop there.
What I mean is that an opinion is a belief, so if you believe that it explains the facts, then according to your belief, it is a factual explanation. That's all I said.
How can you have an opinion that something is true without believing that it is true?
I suggest that we take this discussion about opinions to the next step: let's discuss whether or not we should express our opinions on whether or not we should offer our opinions on other posters opinions.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
And here we go again. About picking nits. He said, he said. As Rodney King said, "Can't we just get along".
Euclid"However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur. Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
tree68 Euclid “But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.” Not. Forming a opinion (or informal hypothesis) does not mean that one feels it is the factual explanation. It means it's one of the possibilities. A person may argue that they feel their hypothesis is the best choice of the options that could be considered - but that's their opinion. Others may agree or disagree, and often do. A person may have the opinion that there are several possibilities involved, depending on facts that have yet to be discerned. That doesn't make any of those hypotheses fact until proven so. And if they have several hypotheses, one may end up being correct, which will make the others pretty much wrong.
Euclid “But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”
Not.
Forming a opinion (or informal hypothesis) does not mean that one feels it is the factual explanation. It means it's one of the possibilities.
A person may argue that they feel their hypothesis is the best choice of the options that could be considered - but that's their opinion. Others may agree or disagree, and often do.
A person may have the opinion that there are several possibilities involved, depending on facts that have yet to be discerned. That doesn't make any of those hypotheses fact until proven so. And if they have several hypotheses, one may end up being correct, which will make the others pretty much wrong.
You are missing my point in quoting what I said and have since clarified by saying the following:
"However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur. Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield. To clarify; I mean the “factual explanation” only in the mind of the person forming the opinion. In other words, if you believe it happened, it is a factual explanation to you. Of course it is not objective proof. It is simply this: “In my opinion, this happened…”
As I tried to explain in that same post, stating a hyopthesis is one thing, and forming an opinion that the hypothesis occurred is something entirely different. But once you form an opinion that a certain hypothetical explanation is a fact, then to you must regard that opinion as a factual explanation. I do not mean a factual explanation for all of society. I mean only to you, the one who holds the opinion that the factual explanation is correct.
Euclid“But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”
Euclid Overmod Euclid But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
Overmod Euclid But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
Euclid But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
Perhaps the term "informal hypothesis" is a more appropriate usage than "opinion" to avoid confusion? However, I believe most of us recognize that we can have a multitude of opinions, many of which are not based on established facts. Research from at least two disciplines (cognitive studies, marketing) strongly suggests that much opinion formation is strongly based on emotions.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EuclidI just don't understand the basis for forming an opinion to explain why a driver failed to yield without any knowledge of the circumstances that might have contributed to the failure to yield.
The only controversy here is that the conditional "might" in your statement applies slightly differently. You are assuming that the circumstances have to be 'known' first, and then considered as to the degree to which each 'might have' contributed to the accident. The rest of us are wondering what circumstances might have led to or contributed to an accident like this occurring -- hypotheticals, in other words. They are not 'conclusions' in any sense.
Since we don't know, and at this point probably can't know, what actually caused the van to be in front of the train at impact, I don't know why you'd even participate in this discussion, if your criterion for 'forming an opinion' is as you stated it.
But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.
That is evidently true for the way you think. It is not true at all for the way I think. The way I see it, "forming an opinion" comes when, after assessing the 'possibilities' in a rational way, you conclude that one alternative gives a better explanation, or is a better 'predictor' (in science), or is for some reason preferable to others. It has nothing to do with being a "factual explanation" of anything; it does not need to be true; it does not have to be fanatically defended against all comers with 'yes, but' as if it were the truth. Perhaps more to the point, it leaves other opinions open, to be reconsidered and perhaps adopted without delay if new evidence or hypotheses or circumstances come up. That is one difference between science and advocacy, and it is (in my opinion) a critical one.
You are certainly right in that discussing the subject here on an Internet forum is pointless, and doesn't bring the family back. Think of it as therapy for some of us who are trying to find some reason for this awful thing that doesn't involve blame.
schlimmThere may be other things we know.
We know the train was westbound.
We know where the train stopped.
We know the van was hit on the right side.
Of course, the list of things we don't/can't know is pretty substantial, too.
We do know some things.
1. The crossing is essentially a driveway. It has a crossbucks.
2. Although it is possible, there were no indications of suicidality.
3. The engineer does not appear to be at fault.
4. Forensics may be able to determine if alcohol or drugs were involved.
5. Forensics may be able to determine if the van had mechanical problems.
There may be other things we know.
EuclidAll I see in that case, are possibilties.
Curiously, that's what I see, too. And each possibility lends itself to a potential cause for the incident. There are myriad other possibilities.
The possibilities I discussed have mostly been discussed by others here in the thread, and in the media. Bringing the "what if's" together with known facts might provide someone with some insight into what might have happened.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I have no objection to people having opinions. I just don't understand the basis for forming an opinion to explain why a driver failed to yield without any knowledge of the circumstances that might have contributed to the failure to yield. All I see in that case, are possibilties. But forming an opinion selects one of the possiblities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield. I don't see how you do that unless it is just a random choice.
EuclidI cannot imagine how, without having been there, one could find any basis to form an opinion as to why a person failed to yeild to a train.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
And I wouldn't necessarily consider what's being offered as just opinions. We cannot discuss the various cures for the problem without making some assumptions as to the cause. And we've been discussing cures.
In this case, there are a number of possible causes. Only the driver can tell us which one truly applies, and he's not here to offer his input.
The causes here might range from carelessness to distraction to intentional. Or maybe there was a mechanical issue - stuck accelerator or failed brakes.
Until a firm cause is found, we're left with speculation, and that's opinion. Some folks will lean toward the innocent, some toward the suspicious.
I cannot imagine how, without having been there, one could find any basis to form an opinion as to why a person failed to yeild to a train.
OvermodHas anyone plotted where the church is, relative to where the crossing is, and its orientation north-south?
The church (if I got the right one) is on the south side of Trinidad, on or about CR 69.3, the Santa Fe Trail. Regardless, it was apparently in Trinidad somewhere.
The County Route 32 crossing is here: N 37 13' 14" W 104 27' 29"
Given the fact that the van was hit on the right side by westbound train, they were northbound, which would square will pulling out of the driveway, across the tracks, and onto County Route 32.
After the collision, the train would likely have stopped in the vicinity of the County Route 75.1 crossing (MP632.753) (N 37 13' 0" W 104 27' 52"), and that's been pretty well established by the milepost visible in several photos (MP632.9).
Among the routes the family could have taken into Trinidad are a direct line across CR 32 to CR 75, then south, or CR 32 to CR 75.1 to US 160/350 and south. The first would not have them crossing the tracks again. The second would have them crossing southbound on CR 75.1.
If we go with the possibility that they were returning home, they would have had to be taking the second route and using the CR 75.1 crossing northbound, but that would mean the train stopped in a very short distance (.147 mile, or 776'). From upwards of 70 MPH, that seems unlikely.
I did a little research on where they lived, but could not find anything. News stories indicate they were likely renting from a farmer they were working for. IMHO, that might square with living in the CR32 location.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm not buying into the murder/suicide angle. It makes great press, but I lean toward a distraction angle - perhaps a fussy child. And they might have been running late, which would compound the issue.
wanswheel Good grief, whoever planted the idea this was suicide-murder needs a brain if not a heart. By all accounts he was a good Christian. The vehicle was struck on the right, therefore headed toward County Road 75.
Good grief, whoever planted the idea this was suicide-murder needs a brain if not a heart. By all accounts he was a good Christian.
The vehicle was struck on the right, therefore headed toward County Road 75.
Even good Christians have marital problems and/or a dark side. Not ruling anything in or out.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68I would opine that the odds are really good that the father may have been somehow distracted by his family, in which case a ten foot by ten foot stop sign would have made little difference.
I have a very bad feeling about this.
Has anyone plotted where the church is, relative to where the crossing is, and its orientation north-south?
We know the family was supposed to be going to church, but that the accident is said to have occurred with the van 'northbound'. Isn't that the direction into the driveway, not onto the road?
Suspect they went off to church, and something happened a short way down the road -- I can think of a couple of logical ones with children that age -- which made them rush home before going on. Focus on what would happen at home, not so much on the infrequently-used crossing they were coming to.
I'm not commenting on it any further, but I think the situation fits much better than 'suicide' if the geography and timing are as I think they are.
Excerpt from “Driver Behavior at Railway-Highway Grade Crossings with Passive Traffic Control: A Driving Simulator Study” by Bryan Andre Bartnik (2013)
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2705&context=utk_gradthes
The 1961 MUTCD guidelines put forth seven conditions that could warrant a STOP sign. The sixth warrant stated that STOP signs may be placed at “railroad crossings where a stop is required by law or by order of the appropriate public authority.” In the next 10 years there was much debate on the topic. In the next edition of the MUTCD released in 1971 that warrant was removed. There was one remaining warrant that could be applied to grade crossings. However, it was never made clear if the warrant applied to grade crossings or not. The State of Florida asked for an “interpretation” from FHWA whom responded that the STOP sign could be used after an engineering study was performed which shows a specific need but only as an interim measure. Several states and counties were putting stop signs at every grade crossing while others avoided placing stop signs at grade crossings completely. In 1991, the US Congress passed a law under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorizing the use of STOP and YIELD signs at grade crossings with two more trains per day.
Excerpts from “Effectiveness of Stop Sign Installations at Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: An Evaluation of Installation Safety Performance” by Harold Lynn Millegan (2008)
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=utk_graddiss
In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was enacted by the U.S. Congress. In Section 1077 of ISTEA, the Secretary of Transportation was directed by Congress to: “Revise the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to authorize States and local governments, at their own discretion, to install stop or yield signs at any rail-highway grade crossing without automatic traffic control devices with two or more trains operating across the crossing per day.”…
…Stop-sign installations at highway-railroad grade crossings have shown a definite benefit according to the accident record since 1980. The research conducted herein has proved in three different ways that Stop-sign installation safety performance is superior to Crossbucks-only in the target population. The ISTEA mandate to allow usage of Stop signs at highway-railroad grade-crossings has been shown to be correct.
Excerpt from “Study of Drivers’ Behavior at Passive Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings” by Eugene R. Russell (2007)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=ADDC19D744F192FBB3E38030D29CBD06?doi=10.1.1.485.4851&rep=rep1&type=pdf
FHWA 1978 conducted an extensive study to determine advantages and disadvantages of the selective use of highway STOP sign as safety improvements at rail-highway grade crossings and to develop guidelines for their use. In this study they compared the STOP sign with the CROSSBUCK sign. They conducted a field study of 17 crossings with STOP sign and 8 with only a CROSSBUCK sign and they found that 60% of all drivers exhibited “acceptable” stopping and 82.5% looked for trains at STOP sign locations, while only 42% looked for trains at CROSSBUCK sign sites. The final report concluded that the STOP sign could be more effective when applied selectively at hazardous passive grade crossings, and if guidelines for their use is provided. The guidelines from this study are presented below.
1. The installation must be believable. The driver must be able to perceive a reason for the stop sign which satisfies his requirements for validity. These requirements include low visibility to train detection, high train expectancy, and enforcement.
2. The vehicle-train exposure value should exceed 100. Translated into train per day and AADT values, this means that the train volume must be higher than average and AADT’s lower than average. At less than three trains per day, the stop sign should not be used without a compelling reason. Rough guidelines are that stop signs are acceptable for an AADT under 2000, temporarily acceptable while waiting active traffic control devices up to 4000 AADT, and impractical above 4000. The vehicle delay imposed by stop signs and the potential for vehicle-vehicle conflicts should be acceptable at these levels.
3. The driver should be unable to adequately detect trains unless he nearly stops. It is also necessary that the driver be able to perceive that a stop is necessary.
4. The level of enforcement must at least be equal to that applied to intersection stop signs. The courts must also agree that the offense of failure to stop is equal for grade crossings and intersection.
5. The stop sign must be selectively used so that expectancy is reinforced. If a driver is exposed to improperly used grade crossings stop signs, his respect for those which are properly used will be reduced. (The driver does not confuse intersection applications with grade crossing applications).
6. A high level of traffic engineering is required so that hazardous conflicts are not created at nearby intersections by the grade crossing stop sign.
7. The stop sign installation must be treated as a system, including proper deployment and maintenance of advance warning for both the grade crossing and stop sign.
8. The crossing must be periodically reviewed to insure that the original conditions which prompted the stop sign use still exist.
https://archive.org/stream/evaluationofsafe6723berg#page/n0/mode/2up
Overmod You need to show what it did in action! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns (There is a movie of the Neon Crossing Signal with a streamlined train passing, but that version doesn't do justice to the sound...) Speaking of false alarms breeding contempt: apparently the siren was known for sticking 'on' until someone came out to fix it. It might be very likely for locals within earshot ... potentially that is a relatively large number, even for Grenada ... to take less notice if it cried wolf often. I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't built with lift-bridge functionality, lowering under gravity and then winching back up afterwards. THAT would almost guarantee that people would stop, and perhaps not try to go or crawl around to 'beat' a train. If I recall correctly, IC ran very fast trains through here at one point, so it's not as exaggerated as you might think given the location. And the accident at Bourbonnais established that the death might not, as schlimm said, be limited to the vehicle passengers or trespassers.
You need to show what it did in action!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns
(There is a movie of the Neon Crossing Signal with a streamlined train passing, but that version doesn't do justice to the sound...)
Speaking of false alarms breeding contempt: apparently the siren was known for sticking 'on' until someone came out to fix it. It might be very likely for locals within earshot ... potentially that is a relatively large number, even for Grenada ... to take less notice if it cried wolf often.
I'm still not quite sure why this wasn't built with lift-bridge functionality, lowering under gravity and then winching back up afterwards. THAT would almost guarantee that people would stop, and perhaps not try to go or crawl around to 'beat' a train.
If I recall correctly, IC ran very fast trains through here at one point, so it's not as exaggerated as you might think given the location. And the accident at Bourbonnais established that the death might not, as schlimm said, be limited to the vehicle passengers or trespassers.
I do not know about the crossings in towns south of Grenada, but between Memphis and Grenada there were many crossings so close together that the engineer was put to it make the proper signal for each one (the time I rode the engine, I would make the last blast for one such crossing be the first blast for the next one; the engineer did not chide me for my practice).
Johnny
But - This incident occured at a private crossing that is essentially a driveway.
There is no through traffic there. You're either going to the house (and farm facilities), or leaving. And, the house is very close to the crossing, from what I can see. The residents would likely have been very familiar with rail traffic there.
I would opine that the odds are really good that the father may have been somehow distracted by his family, in which case a ten foot by ten foot stop sign would have made little difference.
There were numerous subsequent stories after the incident about how better crossing protection was planned for the intersection in question, but I submit that the stories are referring to the CR 75-1 crossing, not the CR 32 crossing where the collision occured.
Ideally, the crossing should be closed. Doing so will involve building a new access road to the property.
Having the effects of stop signs being diminished by stop signs where they are not necessarily needed certain makes sense - but those less-than-necessary signs must be in relative proximity to signs that are needed. A driver that never sees a stop sign at a rail crossing will not be effected as such.
Peoples reaction to any sign is relative to its perceived importance in their life...
rdamon Maybe Mr. Billups was on to something ...
Maybe Mr. Billups was on to something ...
Maybe the visual and auditory protections of crossings need to be updated to 21st Century norms. Instead of just a ringing bell, utilize the multi-tone police and fire werbling horns. Instead of the common alternating flashing red lights, mix in the high powered red & blue LED's that are blinding drivers viewing today's police cars. For grins throw in strobeing black light and have black light viewable designs and images applied to the passing rail equipment. Maybe even have a laser light show between the components of the crossing protection.
schlimmDo we actually have the studies/evidence to support that?
Not my field of interest (or, really, of expertise), and I personally don't like abusing statistics to try to "prove" that the effect is or isn't valuable enough to incorporate in national policy, which is really what a question like this boils down to.
I'd be much more concerned with establishing some way to provide enhanced enforcement on stop signs associated with railroad crossings, which of course can be done ad nauseam with current privacy-intrusive methods of enforcement, particularly including well-placed cameras and overeager Barney-Fife-style rural communities that already love speed-trap revenues, like Gallaway, TN. The question then becomes whether it's worth it to engage in such activity for such purposes, rather than just developing better signage specific to railroad crossings that does not involve semantic confusion with traffic stop signs and then enforcing that going forward -- which I think is far more fair, and is the approach I, personally, have been following.
schlimm Overmod The argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view. Do we actually have the studies/evidence to support that? And as you know, being statistically significant, though important, is not sufficient, since you can get those results with a large n. The effect size is a more telling stat.
Overmod The argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view.
Do we actually have the studies/evidence to support that? And as you know, being statistically significant, though important, is not sufficient, since you can get those results with a large n. The effect size is a more telling stat.
This has been a party line in the Traffic Engineering community for at least 40 years.
OvermodThe argument is that if there are too many stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, it might breed contempt for stop signs in other locations and contexts, and I suspect those people have equally good (or at least statistically valid) studies and data to support their view.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.