Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
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.  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> 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: <o:p></o:p> 1)      The vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane as it was struck by the train. <o:p></o:p> 2)      The vehicle could not have gotten into that position if it had driven around the lowered gate. <o:p></o:p> 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.  <o:p></o:p> 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.     <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> The State Patrol concluded that item #1 was proven by the following evidence: <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag