Note: blue and red areas my emphasis
Two dead in train crash Minivan with mom and 4 children struck twice at RR crossing in HammondBY JOE CARLSON jcarlson@nwitimes.com 219.662.5339
The crash occurred about 10 a.m. at the CSX railroad crossing at Johnson Avenue and Hudson Street, six blocks from the Hammond home where the family lives in the 200 block of East Hanover Street."They were pretty nice people. They would invite us over to play," said Richard Zacarias, 12, a neighbor of the family.Authorities said the mom and children were southbound on Johnson when their Mercury minivan was struck by a train heading west. The van was then pushed onto the eastbound tracks, where a second train hit it.Two of the children were ejected from the van and were dead when police arrived. The van was crumpled on the driver's side and pushed about 30 feet west of Johnson. Smashed bicycle parts and children' shoes were strewn about.The eastbound train blocked traffic for about three hours Saturday as police investigated the crash.The crossing is protected by flashing lights, but it's not equipped with guard arms that lower when a train is approaching. Several neighbors complained that the dangerous intersection should be protected with guard arms."Hammond needs to do something about putting gates up," said Margarita Vargas, 24, who lives between the CSX tracks and the nearby South Shore Line tracks. "I've seen quite a few people almost get hit by the train."Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. could not be reached for comment Saturday.Other residents like Ben Wagner said it's common to see cars speed up to try to beat the trains.Hammond police Sgt. Michael Jorden and CSX spokesman Garrick Francis said the flashing lights appeared to have been working at the time of the crash.Francis said it was not clear how fast the trains were traveling, but they would have been authorized to be going 40 mph in that area."It's a very busy line for us, in and out of Chicago," Francis said.The westbound train that hit the van first was carrying 12 intermodal semitrailer containers bound for Chicago, and the eastbound train had 138 cars bound for Cumberland, Md., Francis said.Thirteen people were reported killed at Indiana railroad crossings in 2006, making it the seventh deadliest state in the nation for train crossings, according to statistics from the Federal Railroad Administration. A total of 136 cars were hit by trains in Indiana last year.At 2 p.m. Saturday, the CSX warning gates at Hohman Avenue came down as engineers were testing the warning signals at Johnson Avenue, just two blocks down.After the gates came down six vehicles drove around the lowered arms, just an hour after the train that killed two people was cleared from the same tracks.
For those who like to take shots at all reporters writing railroad-related stories -- this writer put those last two [red] paragraphs in -- now that's what I call FAIR news reporting. Kudos to you, Joe Carlson.
On our local news I saw TV interviews with some neighbors of this crossing -- they too were insisting to the reporter that gates would have prevented this tragedy.... blah, blah, blah...
Another fine example of people refusing to take responsibility for their actions -- and this error in judgment killed two small kids, who didn't know any better.
PZ, I have to admit that when I first read that story I was very impressed with the reporting. As for the TV side of things, I saw the report on channel 7 about it, my wife made me turn it off when I started yelling at the TV is that gives you a clue on how bad the report was.
An "expensive model collector"
And today, I witnessed a moron on a bicycle race around gates to cross a Union Pacific Sunset Route crossing in Benson, Arizona, when the lead engine was only 10 feet from the crossing and had been blowing his horn for several hundred feet before reaching the crossing, traveling at about 40 MPH.
Risking his life just so he wouldn't have to wait two minutes for the train to clear the crossing.
I agree that claiming to be a victim of a grade crossing because it doesn't have gates is classic victimology, and the reporter did show courage to buck that cultural mentality by citing an example of how readily people go around the gates. However, the case he cites is not exactly analogous. The drivers going around the gates in his example felt justified and safe because there was no train present. Oddly enough, some state laws allow drivers to proceed after stopping for flashing light crossing signals if it is safe to do so. And everyone agrees that it is safe if no train is present, in which case, the signals are assumed to be malfunctioning. However, even the laws with this tolerance to passing flashing lights prohibit the passing of lowered gates under any circumstances. But drivers don't know the law, and they see no practical distinction between passing lowered gates when no train is present or passing flashing red lights when no train is present.
The main question that is demonstrated by this collision is why a driver would pass the flashing lights or gates when a train is obviously approaching. If a driver is willing to pass the flashing lights when a train is approaching, they would probably be just as willing to drive around the gates.
Bucyrus wrote: I agree that claiming to be a victim of a grade crossing because it doesn't have gates is classic victimology, and the reporter did show courage to buck that cultural mentality by citing an example of how readily people go around the gates. However, the case he cites is not exactly analogous. The drivers going around the gates in his example felt justified and safe because there was no train present. Oddly enough, some state laws allow drivers to proceed after stopping for flashing light crossing signals if it is safe to do so. And everyone agrees that it is safe if no train is present, in which case, the signals are assumed to be malfunctioning. However, even the laws with this tolerance to passing flashing lights prohibit the passing of lowered gates under any circumstances. But drivers don't know the law, and they see no practical distinction between passing lowered gates when no train is present or passing flashing red lights when no train is present.The main question that is demonstrated by this collision is why a driver would pass the flashing lights or gates when a train is obviously approaching. If a driver is willing to pass the flashing lights when a train is approaching, they would probably be just as willing to drive around the gates.
I think the best question of all is why, even if the lights were working and there was no train present, a mother would place the lives of her four children at risk by driving onto the tracks. In this case, the role of the dice came up 2 lives short and 3 more ruined. I am fairly confident that no one will ask her this question, instead chosing to lament the fact that gates were not present to keep her from injuring herself. It is a tragic loss that her children had to pay for her mistake.
About 15-20 years ago there was a collision somewhere in the Southern California area, where a minivan (driven by a mom with 2 or 3 kids) crashed into the side of a train. All in the car were killed; the crossing had flashers and gates.
One of the things they looked for was skid marks on the road - were there any? In this case 15-20 years ago, according to the news reports at the time there weren't any skidmarks. No one knew for sure why she hit the train - they ruled out murder/suicide. The best "guesstimate" they came up with is that the mom could have been distracted by one of the kids and took her eyes off the road for that one fateful moment.
MP57313 wrote: About 15-20 years ago there was a collision somewhere in the Southern California area, where a minivan (driven by a mom with 2 or 3 kids) crashed into the side of a train. All in the car were killed; the crossing had flashers and gates.One of the things they looked for was skid marks on the road - were there any? In this case 15-20 years ago, according to the news reports at the time there weren't any skidmarks. No one knew for sure why she hit the train - they ruled out murder/suicide. The best "guesstimate" they came up with is that the mom could have been distracted by one of the kids and took her eyes off the road for that one fateful moment.
When someone drives into the path of a train and gets hit, it may be due to distraction, but I suspect that it is far more often due to trying to beat the train to avoid a delay. I think that often the imagined delay is exaggerated in the mind of the driver, and thus artificially raises the stakes in taking the risk. Then add to this formula that there are specific optical reasons why an approaching train always appears to be moving slower than it actual is, so the risk taker always miscalculates.
Part of what has helped create this delay aversion risk taking to beat the train is that trains have well demonstrated that they can cause a manly delay. You don't see drivers taking a risk because they worry about a delay from trucks or buses.
In the case of run-into-train crashes, risk taking cannot possibly be the cause. The only possible causes are inattention and suicide. Thus there are often no skid marks. Skid marks would indicate that the lapse of inattention expired before the driver struck the train, but not soon enough to stop in time. Inattention comes from impairment, sleep, or distraction. In the case of a distraction cause, it is interesting to note that the odds of running into the side of a train are far greater than being struck broadside because of the greater time available for the former of the two events.
What does that make for the Chicago/Northwest Indiana area for the last two weeks? 4 rail-related fatalities now? (Crystal Lake, LaGrange, and now Hammond)
Nothing short of a graphic, "grab-the-viewer-by-the-throat", dramatic advertising campaign is going to have an impression on people. Bucyrus is right, people view trains as a "delay", and since trains are nothing but a nuisance, and an inconvenience, people regard them with contempt. I have seen the looks on METRA passengers before, they regard an approaching train with almost bored indifference, as if they are saying "Stupid train, you're not going to cause me to be late" or whatever. It's that kind of thinking that is getting people killed. What kind of "graphic" advertising campaign? I don't know, perhaps running that video of that woman that was killed by the BN/METRA commuter that was all over YouTube...Maybe if it makes an impression on someone her death will not have been in vain......
I was in Berwyn last week, and witnessed at least 4 people drive around lowered gates at Ridgeland Ave..
One more note: The BNSF and the Village of Western Springs built a pedestrian tunnel between Wolf Rd, and Gilbert Ave, under the BNSF tracks, it was completed last year. The tunnel is about 1/2 a block from my ex-wife's place. There is a grade school right there too. Even though there is that tunnel, I still see kids, especially those coming from the High School walk across the tracks as opposed to using the tunnel. The tunnel was built with the idea of preventing kids from crossing the tracks (there are no grade crossings between Wolf Rd and Gilbert Ave, a distance of about a 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile...) because they didn't want to walk to either the Wolf Rd, or Gilbert Ave. crossings.
Other than full width, 6 foot high gates that completely block pedestrian, and road crossings.... I can't think of any other way to prevent this kind of stupidity.
first a mother in canada who doesnt watch her son closely enough leading to him getting his legs crushed by a freight train, and now a mother who recklessly drives in front of speeding trains with no regard for the safety of her children?
i think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
Lord Atmo wrote: first a mother in canada who doesnt watch her son closely enough leading to him getting his legs crushed by a freight train, and now a mother who recklessly drives in front of speeding trains with no regard for the safety of her children?i think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....
And the mother who's kids were hit by an Amtrak train in New Jersey last year and was quoted as saying "Yeah, my kids play on the tracks up there all the time. I don't know why the railroad allows it" The kids had torn a hole in the chain link fence to get to the tracks. The mother knew all of this but could not see that she had any responsibility at all.
Lord Atmo wrote: I think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....
I think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....
That probably needs to be applied to potential fathers as well.....
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...
Lord Atmo wrote:good point. of course either way, i wouldnt have to go through that process. i dont plan on getting married
We've all said that at one time or another, and most of us got married anyway.
tree68 wrote: Lord Atmo wrote: I think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....That probably needs to be applied to potential fathers as well.....
I agree with that, maybe everybody should be required to pass a common sence test to be able to obtain a lincence to breed. There was no reason for this woman to put her children in harms way the way she did. I'm sure that what she did will haunt her the rest of her life.
In stories like this, the media reports on the dead and then later MIGHT say the survivors continue to recover in the hospital. It sounds like all turned out well for them. What you never hear is how it all really turns out: "Survivors" are often maimed for life. I heard a 12-year-old boy screaming in the intensive care ward on Saturday when told he had broken his neck and back in a car accident and would be confined to a wheelchair for life. He screamed "why didn't I die?"
Much of the time a stupid act by one person takes the lives or ruins the lives of many others.
Tharmeni wrote: In stories like this, the media reports on the dead and then later MIGHT say the survivors continue to recover in the hospital. It sounds like all turned out well for them. What you never hear is how it all really turns out: "Survivors" are often maimed for life. I heard a 12-year-old boy screaming in the intensive care ward on Saturday when told he had broken his neck and back in a car accident and would be confined to a wheelchair for life. He screamed "why didn't I die?"Much of the time a stupid act by one person takes the lives or ruins the lives of many others.
Shame on the medical person that told that to the boy. That person should be flogged. That's not proper procedure in any hospital -- because it is both cruel and possibly untrue -- and they never make that kind of call in ICUs, especially to a 12-year-old. If it is said at all, it is only long after exhaustive rehabilitation efforts have proven to be non-productive. And with maybe 60-plus years of advancing medical technology left in his lifetime, who knows for certain?
My area has it's share of "train-dodgers" Not to long ago I was railfanning in White, Ga. I was setting up for a shot, when an adult drove SIX young children (in an old falling apart ESCORT!) out in front of a CSX freight traveling at 50 MPH, they beat the train by 3 seconds. This crossing (which dosen't have gates) is situated right smack dab in the middle of town and get this one hundred yards from city hall! Also in Rydal I've seen a loaded EXPLOSIVES TRUCK , drive through a gate and park in front of a unit Molten Sulphur train traveling at 60 MPH. The truck had to back through the gate, (which luckily didn't break both times) and missed the train by a foot. The reletively young driver was dumb enough to laugh and take photos of the whole thing. I would have given my right foot to have a cell phone at that moment. I did have a movie of the truck on my mom's digital camera, but she deleted it unfortunatley.
Hmmmm, seems that this thread made it to Google Alerts for CSX for today.
I guess Kudos are in order?
Being Crazy,keeps you from going "INSANE" !! "The light at the end of the tunnel,has been turned off due to budget cuts" NOT AFRAID A Vet., and PROUD OF IT!!
alphas wrote:Another possibility for running into the side of a train in the case of a gateless crossing is that the driver accidentially hits the gas instead of the brake. That's what happened to a women who was a friend of my wife's family. (Her 2 children in the back survived OK but she perished.)
That is a good point. I had not thought about that possible cause.
I was driving around in Shakopee, MN last weekend, and was amazed by their crossing layout for the UP Mankato Sub. On a road very close and parallel to the mainline, I came to an intersection where I wanted to take a left, which would take me across the track. There was a stop sign at the intersection, and another one on the post with an unlit crossbuck at the crossing. When stopping at the first stop sign, I was looking at the crossbuck and second stop sign perfectly edgewise. When making the left, I was on the tracks about half way through the 90 degree left turn. So to a driver making this turn, although the tracks are obvious right beside him, the crossing signage is invisible.
I guess it works because the trains run very slowly and blow their horn. This kind of road runs right alongside the track, on both sides, for many blocks, so I assume that there are many crossing compromises like the one I mention.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Sad story and interesting thread.
I hope the common sense test isn't issued by the government. On the other hand, if someone would pass a test like that maybe they are fit to raise kids!
What the RRs need to do is get operation lifesaver everywhere. Highway billboards, in schools, mailers, tv shows, educate until you think you've had enough. Then educate some more.
Dan
CShaveRR wrote:The answer to that one is extra signs at the crossing, facing drivers on the parallel street or at least angled to "meet" them as they strat into their turn. I've seen it done often around here, with flashing lights, too. Usually there's also the circular RXR sign, with an angled arrow beneath it, in advance of the intersection, to warn people intending to turn that this is a railroad over there.
Yes, there ought to be grade crossing signage that faces the driver before the turn. The stop sign that is there would obvioiusly be taken as a warning about cross traffic typical of any intersection, but not a train that would come from directly behind. When on this road, a driver is no more than ten feet from the closest rail.
solzrules wrote: I think the best question of all is why, even if the lights were working and there was no train present, a mother would place the lives of her four children at risk by driving onto the tracks.
I think the best question of all is why, even if the lights were working and there was no train present, a mother would place the lives of her four children at risk by driving onto the tracks.
CNW 6000 wrote: Sad story and interesting thread.I hope the common sense test isn't issued by the government. On the other hand, if someone would pass a test like that maybe they are fit to raise kids! What the RRs need to do is get operation lifesaver everywhere. Highway billboards, in schools, mailers, tv shows, educate until you think you've had enough. Then educate some more.
The school my youngest kids go to is situated right along the BNSF "racetrack", and it amazes me, that throughout the school, I have yet to see any "Operation Lifesaver" or other posters talking about safety around rail road crossings, and tracks. I think I will ask the principal if he has ever considered having Operation Lifesaver come out to talk. Perhaps the talk should be given to the parents as well.
I am all for edcuating the heck out of the kids. Sometimes, when I am picking up my kids, it's interesting to listen to the parents complain about the trains on occasion. This attitude reinforces my belief that the reason people play beat the train is because they view the train as a nuisance, and with contempt. There are those that just simply do not give the train the respect it deserves. It is not a "nuisance" it is a steel beast that can crush a car, or a person like a bug, and needs to be given the respect it deserves. Over the years, I have heard everything from "make all crossings over or underpasses" to "just tear up the rails, we don't need trains." I honestly beleive people are more careful crossing the street than crossing the tracks.
I wonder how one becomes a speaker for Operation Lifesaver? I would love to do it..... perhaps I will look into it.... I have a big mouth, so perhaps I should use it promoting something worth while....
There is a really disturbing article in todays The Times of Northwest Indiana regarding this accident. A facilty adjacent to the tracks has video cameras for security and the video shows the van running parallel to the train. She speeds up, then does a right hand turn and crosses the track, getting hit by the train, then being struck by the WB.
There is a video on the website of the accident, I dont care to view it. They had two still shots of the van obviously speeding past the train, in order to beat it to the crossing.
She doesnt appear to have been distracted, only in a hurry.
ed
JonathanS wrote: Lord Atmo wrote: first a mother in canada who doesnt watch her son closely enough leading to him getting his legs crushed by a freight train, and now a mother who recklessly drives in front of speeding trains with no regard for the safety of her children?i think we need to implement a system that makes all women go through an application process to be mothers.....And the mother who's kids were hit by an Amtrak train in New Jersey last year and was quoted as saying "Yeah, my kids play on the tracks up there all the time. I don't know why the railroad allows it" The kids had torn a hole in the chain link fence to get to the tracks. The mother knew all of this but could not see that she had any responsibility at all.
WHAT!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!
Now THAT is scary!!!!!
Wow..... what is this world coming to......
I think they should educate about railroad crossing safety in schools, and other public places.
MP173 wrote: There is a really disturbing article in todays The Times of Northwest Indiana regarding this accident. A facilty adjacent to the tracks has video cameras for security and the video shows the van running parallel to the train. She speeds up, then does a right hand turn and crosses the track, getting hit by the train, then being struck by the WB.There is a video on the website of the accident, I dont care to view it. They had two still shots of the van obviously speeding past the train, in order to beat it to the crossing.She doesnt appear to have been distracted, only in a hurry.ed
http://nwitimes.videos.vmixcore.com/p/iframe_widget?genre_name=news&show_featured=1&autoplay=0#
A link to the video, disturbing to say the least.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.