Renamed: Sigh! Moron hits train

[spokyone]

But what new conclusion about the crash could be reached if he was found to have been intoxicated?  I think we all agree that the crash was entirely his fault for running the stop sign.  Say for instance, that he was not intoxicated.  Would that make him less at fault?

Perhaps.
 In at least one other state, when one driver is intoxicated, the State Patrol ceases the investigation and assigns blame solely on drunk driver.

[chessiecat]

Posted, without comment:

Oshkosh, Wis.: The Northwestern

Posted October 29, 2007

Letters: Railroad creates fatal conditions at crossing

I would just like to comment on the train accident that happened near Van Dyne on Oct. 6 and 7. This was an accident caused 99 percent by the railroad.

As soon as the train was stopped there it was an accident waiting to happen. The first vehicle to come along would be carrying a victim of the train. Whether a person was drunk, speeding or just not paying attention we don't know but the road disappeared so there was no place to go. They were dead either way. There was no place to turn around or go around because the train covered the whole road!

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do the people have to put up with the antics of the railroad? That train should have stopped already in North Fond du Lac because they already knew they would have to stop and block a crossing some where in between! The victim could have been saved if the road would have been open. Even a drunk person can follow the road if it is there even if they aren't driving straight. Or if they had hit a ditch it would have been better than a sheet of steel like a train!

I hope someone with a bit of authority will do something about this before it happens again and it will. Make the railroad accountable for their actions. Not bury them.

Sheila Miller, Van Dyne

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071029/OSH06/710290371/1189

I don't know what to say.....WOW....

 

 I guess that by reading this , we are to assume that this lady feels that drunk driving is somehow an okay thing to do.I'm amazed that someone actually printed this piece of trash wow.Ask anyone who's lost a loved one to a drunk driver how they would feel about this. A truly sad thing to read.

 I never want to sound heartless, and I do feel for the family of this guy but wow what a laspe in judgement. I've noted that many who have posted to this thread are or were railroad employee's. Another not covered aspect of this is just how they crews feel when they hit someone and know they've killed them.If you are at teh controls of a mile long freight train and someone runs the crossing, you hitt eh brakes and try to stop , but a train of that length even if it was travelling under the speed limit for the track will liley stop long after it's run down the individual who is running stop sign or a gate.Bottom line the train will win all races that involve an impact, simple physics ,and the crews will have to live with that, not a pleasant thing, but something most people who complain about how railroads run never take into concideration.

 Unfortunatly you see far to many people taking chances, and sadly this will not be the last time we hear of similar incidents.Wether this guy was drunk or not is imaterial,driving a car is a priviledge and you MUST obey the rules and signs, no grey area there.

Rob

 

I wonder how she would feel if the guy had been drunk and the train had not been blocking the crossing. Then he goes on and hits headon with another vehicle killing an innocent person and maybe their family. I wonder how much simpathy she would have for him then! Then I guess it would be the other persons fault for being on the highway sober and in their own lane!

Sorry but some people just get to me!

Jim

[Anonymous]

People run into trains for different reasons, and with some of those reasons, roadside lighting would not help.  And with some of those reasons, reflectors would not help.  Considering what probably occurred with the Friendship, WI crash, I believe that either roadside lighting or reflectors may have prevented it, whereas the stop sign did not.  In fact, I would say that roadside lighting would have contributed far more crash prevention than the stop sign.

And at what point does the driver have to take some responsibility?  We could light up every crossing like the Vegas strip, but at some point people need to learn how to protect themselves.  Maybe we should have crash netting come up anytime a train comes near, just in case a careless driver thinks that the rules of the road don't apply to them.

The drivers have been expected to take all the responsibility up until the point where the FRA said that freight trains can be hard to see at night.  Why would the FRA tell us that trains can be hard to see at night, and add reflectors to light them up instead of just telling drivers to live up to their responsibility to make sure the crossing is clear? 

I believe the money spent on installing and maintaining reflectors would buy more safety if it were spent on roadside lighting for passive grade crossings without stop signs, that are in un-illuminated areas.

Bucyrus:  You raise many valid points here and in other posts.  I have some comments.

There is no system that cannot be defeated by anyone, any time.  No one can assert, unless they're a liar or a fool, that a crossbuck can always be seen under all conditions at all times, and is always sufficient warning to motorists.  Stating that the motorist is at fault when they slam into the side of a train, might be true but completely misses the point of safety measures, which is that every person will eventually be careless, inattentive, foolish, or reckless, and up to a point it's worthwhile devising efficient and inexpensive ways to protect each person from their folly.  This is not only to protect the individual who commits the folly but everyone else.  The cost of an inattentive motorist running into a train is not just born by the motorist but by the railroad and the public.

It's always a question of cost-benefit.  The FRA rule requiring reflectorized tape on the side of trains was an acknowledgement of public determination that the cost to the public of adding the tape was less than the value to the public of reducing the rate of vehicle-train collisions.  The public pays for everything.

One polar end of the argument is that people who are careless should bear 100% of the cost of their carelessness and only basic warning devices such as crossbucks are all the public should pay for.  The other polar end is that the system should be 100% guaranteed to keep the careless from harming themselves.  Those seem like good positions for a lawyer advocating for the plaintiff or the defendant, but otherwise these strike me as political positions, not practical choices.  Choosing either end will cost the public a great deal more than a balance between the two.

RWM

Railway Man,

I agree with your analysis, and what you say about the polar opposites.  Saying almost the same thing, I would put it this way:  There is a system of laws and signage, and then there is driver response.  The system of laws and signage is expected to be 100% infallible in preventing collisions, but the driver response is always subject to error that can defeat the system of laws and signage.  In laws and signage, you have crossbucks to warn motorists of the conflict of train traffic, coupled with the admonition for drivers to keep a constant lookout to make sure they have an unobstructed right of way.  If it is too foggy to easily see the crossbuck, the driver must slow down to accommodate that shortened sight distance.  That is part of the system of laws and signage.  So I would say that the situation is covered, in so far as the system of laws and signage, simply by a crossbuck that tells a driver of the existence of a grade crossing and the requirement to yield to trains.

However, the driver response component is subject to all kinds of failure, so there is no end to the amount of additional warning that can be layered onto the basic system of laws and signage.  Additional warning will save lives, so it is only a question of where to draw the line.  We seem to be living in an era where the point to draw the line is shifting toward, the more safety warning, the better.  The trend seems to correspond with a prominent, growing societal refusal to accept personal responsibility.

Personally, I think reflectors are a bad idea because, while their benefit is obvious, they contain many hidden costs that I believe have not been recognized or acknowledged.  And I believe the true tally of costs outweighs the benefits.  But this not my point in mentioning them in this thread.

I brought up reflectors in this thread to make a specific point that is not related to their cost/benefit.  That point is the sea-change brought about by the official admission that there is a flaw in the basic system of laws and signage.  Previously, the law to keep a constant lookout for obstruction was deemed sufficient to prevent drivers from running into trains.  Now there is an FRA admission that trains can be hard to see at night.  Perhaps this change is justified.  After all, you cannot be expected to yield to something you can't see. 

So here is my point:  Many on this forum have indicated that they believe there is simply no excuse for a driver running into the side of a train.  I am sure most of the railroad industry feels that way as well.  They have the undisputed right-of-way, after all, and they naturally defer to the basic system of laws and signage just as they do to their own operating rules.  But the FRA disagrees.  They say there is indeed an excuse for a driver to run into the side of a train.

[Railway Man]

Railway Man,

I agree with your analysis, and what you say about the polar opposites.  Saying almost the same thing, I would put it this way:  There is a system of laws and signage, and then there is driver response.  The system of laws and signage is expected to be 100% infallible in preventing collisions, but the driver response is always subject to error that can defeat the system of laws and signage.  In laws and signage, you have crossbucks to warn motorists of the conflict of train traffic, coupled with the admonition for drivers to keep a constant lookout to make sure they have an unobstructed right of way.  If it is too foggy to easily see the crossbuck, the driver must slow down to accommodate that shortened sight distance.  That is part of the system of laws and signage.  So I would say that the situation is covered, in so far as the system of laws and signage, simply by a crossbuck that tells a driver of the existence of a grade crossing and the requirement to yield to trains.

However, the driver response component is subject to all kinds of failure, so there is no end to the amount of additional warning that can be layered onto the basic system of laws and signage.  Additional warning will save lives, so it is only a question of where to draw the line.  We seem to be living in an era where the point to draw the line is shifting toward, the more safety warning, the better.  The trend seems to correspond with a prominent, growing societal refusal to accept personal responsibility.

Personally, I think reflectors are a bad idea because, while their benefit is obvious, they contain many hidden costs that I believe have not been recognized or acknowledged.  And I believe the true tally of costs outweighs the benefits.  But this not my point in mentioning them in this thread.

I brought up reflectors in this thread to make a specific point that is not related to their cost/benefit.  That point is the sea-change brought about by the official admission that there is a flaw in the basic system of laws and signage.  Previously, the law to keep a constant lookout for obstruction was deemed sufficient to prevent drivers from running into trains.  Now there is an FRA admission that trains can be hard to see at night.  Perhaps this change is justified.  After all, you cannot be expected to yield to something you can't see. 

So here is my point:  Many on this forum have indicated that they believe there is simply no excuse for a driver running into the side of a train.  I am sure most of the railroad industry feels that way as well.  They have the undisputed right-of-way, after all, and they naturally defer to the basic system of laws and signage just as they do to their own operating rules.  But the FRA disagrees.  They say there is indeed an excuse for a driver to run into the side of a train.

Bucyrus -- though I suspect when you and I go to the polls we might sometimes vote quite differently, I like the way you think things through.  It's enjoyable talking about this with you.

There's laws and there's reality.  Laws don't make people stop doing stupid or evil things, they just prescribe a penalty, and, we hope, incentive the only mildly stupid to run a quick cost-benefit analysis in their peabrains before they knock over the local C-store for $70 and a couple packs of smokes.

Drivers who are attentive, careful, and don't overdrive the limit of their vision, won't crash into the side of an unreflectorized train on a dark, rainy night, ever.  Many drivers are never that careful and I think even those of us who pride ourselves on our caution on occasion are careless.  I've had a few close calls in my youth where I came within inches of getting myself killed.

Any safety measure, it is true, relieves the individual of some of his or her need to be careful.  Do we need a crossbuck to tell us there's a track there?  No! Not unless we're driving at a speed beyond the limit of our vision.  Need is not the same thing as responsibility, and what you and I are seeing in this thread is a lot of people who are unclear on the difference. 

What the FRA is doing is accepting that the cost of reflectorizing the side of trains is less than the cost of not having the reflectors, the latter being lost wages, productivity, medical costs, equipment damage, police services, etc.  That's what the law tells them to do -- the law under which the FRA operates says nothing about shifting responsibility.  Subsequently the plaintiffs and their attorneys are arguing that this change entitles the careless to be more carefree.  We have to resist that strongly, but it's hard because a majority of the public accepts this argument!  A majority thinks that if a safety measure can be implemented it should be implemented, some of them because they believe the world can be made perfect if we just will it into being, and some of them because they think someone else has to pay for all this stuff (and accordingly vote for representatives who do the best job at bringing home "free" loot.)  I think I can characterize your argument as the "slippery slope" argument, and I agree, we're on it, and it's hard to keep from ending up at the bottom, in the swamp.  

Our job is to help others understand that nothing is free, and there are limits on the individual's right to demand that society pay for his or her carelessness and stupidity.  I don't think I want to go so far as to say that we should prohibit behaviors with a higher than average casualty rate, for instance allligator taming, but I think we should demand that alligator tamers be segregated into their own insurance pool and not ours.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the public's attitude that safety is the sole responsibility of the state and the corporation, instead of the individual, is that it results in LESS safety than the public could have had.  The public's attitude causes concious decisions by people like me to implement no solution at all unless it can be an almost bullet-proof solution.  For example, if we have a dangerous situation where the law doesn't require we install a safety device, and we know if we install a safety device it will work 70% of the time, we will probably NOT install it, because if someone gets hurt during the 30% of the time the device doesn't work we're going to get slammed in court, but if someone gets hurt and there's no device at all, we're blame free.

RWM

[trolleyboy]

I wonder how she would feel if the guy had been drunk and the train had not been blocking the crossing. Then he goes on and hits headon with another vehicle killing an innocent person and maybe their family. I wonder how much simpathy she would have for him then! Then I guess it would be the other persons fault for being on the highway sober and in their own lane!

I wonder if she's just out for her fifteen minutes of fame. Or she's simply just piling on. Or she's just got a grudge against r the railway company for all the times she was late for work when she had to wait for a train.Either way the logic of her statement is lost on me,either way what an awful some might say idiotic statement for her to have made. I'm with you some peopel just don't get it and that's what gets to me as well.

Rob

[Poppa_Zit]

But what new conclusion about the crash could be reached if he was found to have been intoxicated?  I think we all agree that the crash was entirely his fault for running the stop sign.  Say for instance, that he was not intoxicated.  Would that make him less at fault?

Well, we all have our reasons. I'm not trying to reach any conclusion because there is none.

I'd just like to know. Morbid curiosity isn't against the law.

[Anonymous]

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the public's attitude that safety is the sole responsibility of the state and the corporation, instead of the individual, is that it results in LESS safety than the public could have had.  The public's attitude causes concious decisions by people like me to implement no solution at all unless it can be an almost bullet-proof solution.  For example, if we have a dangerous situation where the law doesn't require we install a safety device, and we know if we install a safety device it will work 70% of the time, we will probably NOT install it, because if someone gets hurt during the 30% of the time the device doesn't work we're going to get slammed in court, but if someone gets hurt and there's no device at all, we're blame free.

RWM

Railway Man,

I think this is a very interesting point, and I agree that a safety device that is not 100% effective will raise liability because, in the case of its failure, the one who has installed the safety device has admitted to having a known hazard.  This is a part of my objection to the reflector mandate.  Reflectors will not work all of the time without stringent maintenance that I doubt that will be the case.

But there is even another pricklier element to a hit-n-miss safety device that is less obvious, although you have alluded to it.  Speaking in pure theoretical numbers for simplicity, say you have a hazard with no safety device that causes 100 accidents per year.  Then say you install a safety device that is effective 70% of the time.  On the surface, it would seem that the number of accidents should drop to 70 per year.  However, the provision of the safety device has lowered the natural wariness of persons exposed to the hazard as they become dependent on the safety device to protect them.  Therefore, during the 30% of the time that it fails there will be a higher likelihood of an accident than there would have been before the safety device was installed. 

That is the largely hidden, unintended consequence of a safety device.  The only way to avoid it is to build something that is nearly infallible.  Make it robust, and durable.  Otherwise a hit-n-miss safety device will have the unintended consequence of increasing the danger because it lowers human wariness.  An example is the child-proof container.  It makes it harder for a child to open a bottle of poison, but also makes adults less careful about keeping bottles of poison away from children.   

The reflector mandate is definitely a hit-n-miss remedy, so it is bound to trigger the unintended consequence to some extent, although it may not be enough to create a net loss of safety.  But it is a slippery slope as you say.  And the FRA has taken the first step onto it.  And once on a slippery slope, you always end up at the bottom.  If reflectors are worthwhile, then electrified markers will be more effective.  I would submit that standing trains are harder to see than moving trains because they lack the visual component of motion.  Electrified markers could be made to flash or even move, in order to make up for the loss of animation when a reflectorized train is stopped.

On the thread about LRT $$$, I mentioned the coming technology which I believe will soon be in the cars we buy, and how it will be like driving with a highway patrolman sitting next to you.  Part of this on-board technology will be the ability to provide cab-signaling so that all traffic signals are also displayed in each automobile.  The cab signals might be enhanced with audible signals or even verbal instructions.  When approaching a grade crossing one of these technology equipped vehicles will pick up signals that will be transmitted into automobiles in the form of audio/visual warnings sufficient to wake up sleeping drivers.  A driver approaching such a crossing would press an acknowledgement button in order prove that he or she is awake, and thus to be spared the audio/ visual warning.  Not only would this be a vast improvement over today's active crossings, but it would easily accommodate the immediate equipping of all grade crossings, therefore eliminating all current passive crossings.

This kind of technology could simply stop your car in the clear if a train were present or approaching.  End of problem.

[Mr_Ash]

What ever happened to Operation Lifesaver..  

[trolleyboy]

What ever happened to Operation Lifesaver..  

This is a good point , unfortunatly and I'm speaking for my country and not the US, the operation lifesaver guys focus on kids in teh classroom not adults, exept at the odd model train show where they set up ( again mostly the kids flock to it )Mind you just an aside ,I know that both the CN and CP Police are ardent supporters of it, and they pay for alot of the promotional material at least up here in Canada.

Rob

[KingConrail76]

This vehicle was travelling so fast that the SUV went under the train and ended up on the other side!! 

I see the the SUV had a mind of its own. Didn't the driver drive the SUV under the train? But anyways I can't remember the train number that the driver hit but my Dad was at Neenah Sunday morning and he said that the train didn't stop until Neenah (Engineer and Conductor didnt know someone hit them) and that the Vehicle went under a tank car. The train was parked on the main where the cops and others were taking parts and pieces off of the tanker. The tanker was set out along with a boxcar before it and after it. Any reason why they would do that? I might just have answered myself but would it possibly be not to disturb the car in question?

Paul

The main reason for the cars on each end of the tanker to be set out is for the hand brakes. 

As this post is quite old, this may have been said already, BUT the reason for the (2) box cars on either end is because the Tanker car was probably HazMat, requireing a buffer car on each end. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the railroad to put "out of service" two extra cars not involved.

[KingConrail76]

SHAME ON YOU - you helpless soul. Do you know the absolute facts about what happened? Did you even stop to think that family and close friends of Nate's might be reading this?!!! SHAME ON YOU. Maybe you should read the facts before you go mouthing off about someone's loved one. No where is it written that alcohol or drugs played a part. It was also an extremely dark that night as it was overcast with no moon. Growing up in that area - I've almost hit the trains myself - when there are no markings on the trains, they're not that easy to see. I know for a solid fact that you are not from the rural Oshkosh area, because if you were, you would know how unbelievably annoying the trains are that sit on the tracks that block MILES of crossings to main roads. Getting from one side of a country block to the other can take an unbelievably long amount of time to cross - it's annoying, and quite frankly a hazard. It blocks access for rescue vehicles. Dealing with the issue of parked trains is long overdue. Its too bad that it took the death of a fine human being to get things rolling.

 

BAHAHHAHAAHAA........

You have got to be kidding me....Can't see a 50+ foot long train car across the road???

I don't care what time of day or night it was...if you can't see a stopped TRAIN across a roadway, you should NOT be driving!

Not to mention the WARNING SIGN that tells you to LOOK for a train!!!

PLEASE....get off your high horse.

[spokyone]

RWM and Bucyrus. We have a safety device in our cars called an airbag. When they became common a few years ago, some small women and children were killed in minor to moderate crashes when the airbag broke their necks. When the automakers were sued, their defense was the device was federally mandated or approved. The cases were tossed out of court. The automakers and the manufacturers worked on the problem until remedies were found. (Kids in the back. Warnings to everyone to buckle up. And softer, smart airbags.) Can this experience be applied to RR devices such as reflector tape? The railroads should be shielded by federal mandate.

[CNW 6000]

I've used the crossing in question during a 'new moon', heavy rain at night, and snow at night.  Yet somehow I've never had a close call with a train there: stationary or otherwise.  But then I obey speed limits and use headlights and common sense when I drive.  In my opinion had the driver been paying attention to the road the accident wouldn't have occurred. 

[sgtbean1]

HAMMOND | A Hammond couple is suing Norfolk Southern Corp. because one of the company's freight trains smashed into their car at a street crossing.

I am sooo glad people over here use their brains. If someone over here tried to sue a railroad for "smashing into their car" the judge would not even consider to think about contemplating to try the case. It would be thrown out of court faster than that train was traveling and the idiot who filed would be severly reprimanded by the judge for bringing an idiotic case before him. Likely, the idiot would also be awarded a prize: pay all the legal costs, including the cost incurred for time spend by the judge rolling on the floor of his office, laughing his behind off.

Why can't people get it into their thick skulls that trains are not toys, they aren't fluffy and they don't steer clear of an idiot all that well. These morons should be glad their stupidity only caused damage to their car.

As to the dumb guy in the topic starter's post: had the crossing been fitted with lights and whistles and a naked lady showing a flashing warning sign, he would still have pancaked his car underneath the train, since it's obvious he wasn't paying attention to the road. At least he didn't drag a kid or wife with him, so I guess the world got a little safer after the accident....

[CNW 6000]

Many of the general public won't get that concept because they have a huge sense of entitlement.  That and a healthy case of ignorance.

[Krazykat112079]

I still think we need to somehow get privilege thrown back into driving.  Many treat it like a right.  Heck, there are probably many people out there in this country that don't know the difference between rights and privileges.  More license revokations would help a lot.  If you're an idiot, you get to ride a bike and hope your lucky enough to live in an area with mass transit.

[Mr_Ash]

What ever happened to Operation Lifesaver..  

This is a good point , unfortunatly and I'm speaking for my country and not the US, the operation lifesaver guys focus on kids in teh classroom not adults, exept at the odd model train show where they set up ( again mostly the kids flock to it )Mind you just an aside ,I know that both the CN and CP Police are ardent supporters of it, and they pay for alot of the promotional material at least up here in Canada.

Rob

Chicago & North Western used to have Operation Lifesaver logo's painted on the sides of some of there freight engines 

I mean we see all sorts of stupid commericals about all sorts of stupid stuff every day on TV (Not me personally I dont watch TV) Why cant they show some Operation Lifesaver commerials? Like stick the camera in the car so we can see the driver dealing with various distractions (phones/music/passengers/kids/ext) then cut to a camera above/other side of the crossing for when the car gets hit and they could do a few different ones each a diffrent driver in a diffrent situation and air them on during the superbowl.

That might wake a few people up

[CNW 6000]

I would even donate money to pay for airtime if it came to that.

Sadly the lessons that hurt the most don't seem to stick.

[trolleyboy]

  Actually they did run some commercials for a while , school buses getting hit that sort of thing.I'm guessing they just got to expensive to continue with.What CN and Cp have been doing latley is buying up billboard space,they still do the side of locomotive and covered hopper decals as well. I aggree with you guys though if a decent well done TV spot was done during the superbowl that would should get some well needed "press" on the operation lifesaver.

Rob

[trolleyboy]

HAMMOND | A Hammond couple is suing Norfolk Southern Corp. because one of the company's freight trains smashed into their car at a street crossing.

I am sooo glad people over here use their brains. If someone over here tried to sue a railroad for "smashing into their car" the judge would not even consider to think about contemplating to try the case. It would be thrown out of court faster than that train was traveling and the idiot who filed would be severly reprimanded by the judge for bringing an idiotic case before him. Likely, the idiot would also be awarded a prize: pay all the legal costs, including the cost incurred for time spend by the judge rolling on the floor of his office, laughing his behind off.

   This reminds of a jerk in Toronto about ten years ago. His brand new Lexus got tea-boned by a TTC streetcar after he ran a very red light. It wasn't a case of him clearing the intersection he just out and out ran the light.

He claimed that the streetcar had steered into him after it ran the red light. Unfortunatly for him the red light camera caught the whole,thing on video. He was out a car and a whole lot of legal fees,both his and the TTC's !

 Unfortunatly these people do walk amongst us, and unfortunatly they breed !

Rob