oscaletrains wrote: what i get at school: ahh he "plays" with trains, he is stuped! amazing how that stays with people.
what i get at school: ahh he "plays" with trains, he is stuped!
amazing how that stays with people.
Trains? trains? Yes you ARE stupid, BUCK UP youngster!
TIME TO BE A MAN! Go out and get yerself a bottle!
Show the World your a real mans man!!!!!!
Get drunk! DRIVE CAR! HIT SOMETHING!!!
We'll show them who's really stupid!!!
(note: sarcastic ironic humor intended, I'm on your side oscaletrains)
Have fun with your trains
Poppa_Zit wrote: To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:..........................
To those legal lightweights who have emailed to spank me about violating this woman's privacy rights by posting the letter:..........................
PZ, we have legal lightweights around here??? I had no idea.
Dan
CNW 6000 wrote: There certainly was commentary on this letter. If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234
There certainly was commentary on this letter. If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.
http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234
In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see. So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity. But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had. Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop. You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not. Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.
The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture.
Bucyrus wrote: CNW 6000 wrote: There certainly was commentary on this letter. If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234 In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see. So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity. But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had. Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop. You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not. Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture.
Geez, wont do any good, you could cover the entire sides of every freight car in reflective tape and some idiot will still hit it and claim they never saw it....
This character "Investigator" sure as hell sounds like the guy who used to infect this forum like a fungus named Misery, oh wait thats "Missouri", who used to rail that every crossing point in the country was a murder site and that all railroad employees were akin to serial killers and was so viceral in his venomous bile that he got bounced off the site completely. The guy was really off the rails. I think he was the first guy we actually begged Bergie to bounce, quite an honor.
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!
this partt of her letter is most telling .Maybe we should reconstruct all roads to enable drunk driveres.Then instead of hitting a ditch they can hit a van occupiedby a family coming toward them.If the drunk is still conscious,sitting upright behind the wheel instaed of laying aross the front seat.
Chico
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: CNW 6000 wrote: There certainly was commentary on this letter. If you follow the link below you'll read what I and others said about this.http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234 In the discussion in this link, "Investigator" makes a big point about crossbusks being equivalent to yield signs, and it is true that you can't yield to something you can't see. So, in that framework, the argument about black tank cars being hard to see has validity. But the argument collapses when you introduce the stop sign, which this crossing had. Stop signs are equivalent to yield signs with the added requirement to stop. You have to stop no matter whether there is something to yield to or not. Furthermore, stop signs usually have advance warning signs, so they give you time to react.The discussion sure demonstrates how the FRA reflector mandate feeds right into society's growing "it's not my fault" culture. Geez, wont do any good, you could cover the entire sides of every freight car in reflective tape and some idiot will still hit it and claim they never saw it....This character "Investigator" sure as hell sounds like the guy who used to infect this forum like a fungus named Misery, oh wait thats "Missouri", who used to rail that every crossing point in the country was a murder site and that all railroad employees were akin to serial killers and was so viceral in his venomous bile that he got bounced off the site completely. The guy was really off the rails. I think he was the first guy we actually begged Bergie to bounce, quite an honor.
I agree that reflectors are largely the wrong cure to the problem, although it is true that they might be the saving grace in some unfolding catastrophies. However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad. Whereas, according to traffic law, running into a train is never the fault of the railroad.
When you read the above-linked discussion, you can see that the ones who believe the Friendship, Wisconsin fatal crash was that railroad's fault for blocking the crossing are the same ones who are demanding reflectors.
Bucyrus wrote: However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad. .
You really think so? I see it as more of an indication that the RR understands how careless many drivers are, and need all the supplementary warning that is possible.
Sort of like when you put crash curbs on either side of drive-in doors on buildings. Not that the building is going to jump out in front of cars trying to enter, but just that some fools are not going to display due caution, so you try to protect your own interest as best you can
Convicted One wrote: Bucyrus wrote: However, my larger point is that the reflector mandate represents an admission on the part of the industry that running into trains is partly the fault of the railroad. . You really think so? I see it as more of an indication that the RR understands how careless many drivers are, and need all the supplementary warning that is possible.Sort of like when you put crash curbs on either side of drive-in doors on buildings. Not that the building is going to jump out in front of cars trying to enter, but just that some fools are not going to display due caution, so you try to protect your own interest as best you can
I agree with Convicted on this one. It is more of a way to protect people from their own stupidity than an admission of fault from the railroad.
An "expensive model collector"
I think that in the interests of corporate and civic citizenship, and as stewards of their own image in communities, it behooves the railroads to do "something" logical and remedial when an incident like this happens, not so much to admit culpability, but to acknowledge that there is a cost to its business and use of shared crossings over and above merely the maintenance. Regardless of all that the companies have done with regard to improving safety, as long as it convinces the public that it is taking remedial action voluntarily, and not with reluctance or out of mere duty, that should suffice for most folks' purposes.
Furthermore, indifference is callous and will be sure to incite anger and retributive justice in the long term. Win or lose, it costs. So whatever the railroads offer to do that may actually improve safety, they should do what really works. Anything more is wasteful, and anything less is unethical. If the reflectors will actually measurably improve public safety at crossings, then they should be added. If they don't, then why adopt the practice and lead the public to conclude that the measure is effective?
I agree that reflectors will do as you say, and that they make sense as self-protection to the railroads (at one level). But I believe the federally mandated reflectors are a double-edge sword, and I want to point out the other edge.
The broad effect of the Federal edict requires a sweeping justification to convince the entire industry that the cost of a universal adoption of reflectors is worth it. That sweeping justification has been a declaration by the FRA that freight trains are hard to see at night. This powerful statement issued from a high Federal office introduces a sea change in the normal interpretation of the laws that apply to grade crossings.
Previously all the traffic laws held that trains had the undisputed right of way. But the rationale for reflectors raises a conflict with that undisputed right of way that trains were once thought to have had. It shifts liability for collisions in favor of the highway users and against the railroads. The right of way of trains is no longer undisputed if one can argue that they ran into a train because they could not see it. A driver cannot yield to something they cannot see.
So every single railroad grade crossing in the country incurs added liability for the owner railroad with the FRA declaration that trains can be hard to see at night, no matter whether the crossing is signalized or not, or illuminated by roadside lighting or not.
CNW 6000 wrote:IMNSHO the whole thing could have been avoided if the driver of the vehicle had followed the laws applicable to driving. Sober, following the speed limit, obeying/reacting properly to signage on the shoulder of the road.
Exactly!
All this talk about reflectors on train cars is all well and good, but let us not forget that this road had a REFLECTORIZED railroad crossing advance warning sign (big, yellow), a REFLECTORIZED stop sign (big, red), as well as REFLECTORIZED crossbucks and vertical stripe on the crossbuck post.
In addition, the ex-person was going so fast (at night, on a dark road) that when he hit the train, his vehicle went all the way under the train car he hit.
I'm inclined to believe that even if the entire train had been made of reflectorized material, with neon outlines, lit from above by the searchlight from a UFO, and strobe lights every 5', this guy would have still hit it.
Zardoz, you are right.
In my life experience, I have noted that regardless of the size of the warning, some people neve see it. I have seen this in situations that have been tragic as well as comical, but, I honestly believe that some people just don't get it. They are either to preoccupied, distracted, impaired, or self important to heed a warning.
My favorite story about this kind of thing is non-tragic, and actually kind of funny.... I think I may have even related it before, not sure, but the long and short of it is, is this: A bunch of years ago, there was this shopping mall, with a free standing electronics store that belonged to a national chain (I don't remember if it was a Highland Superstore, Fretter's, or Silo) Anyway, it's a weekend morning, and the lot around this store is empty.... A lone car drives in, and parks in the store's lot and a man gets out, carrying what appears to be a sales ad. He walks up to the door, pulls on it and discovers it's locked. So, he looks at the store, at his ad, and pulls the door again. He then tries to peer in the window...and I must mention he can't do that, because the windows are covered with huge "STORE CLOSED" signs in BIG red letters, in addition to "OUT OF BUSINESS" signs as well. Since he can't see inside, he knocks on the door, then on the window, and then on the door again..... This went on for several minutes before the guy left, and judging by his body language, he wasn't happy.....
The fact that the store was closed and out of business was evident from across the parking lot and from the street. It is proof to me that, no matter how much of a warning you put on something, some people just will not see it. Granted, it's not the same as a railroad crossing but the point is the same.
Now, I believe railroads need to be a good corporate citizen, and I saw evidence of this here where I live, because just recently, the BNSF, in cooperation with the town I live, built a pedestrian underpass so kids going to the school on the north side of the tracks could get there and not be tempted to cross the tracks.
The government cannot legislate common sense, and nor can they protect everyone from themselves. People need to, and have to take responsibility for their actions, there is no other way.
The man who died in Wisconsin is a tragedy, a tragedy for his friends, and family, and this man could have avoided it...
Railroads have a "Right of Way", interstate piplines have "Right of Way". Community's build roads etc.,over, under and across the railrods "Right of Way". I'v owned property's that contained a Right of Way, yes, right thru the adjoining property and the other owner)s could not stop me from using it!
I remember well running an excavator for Sheehan Pipeline Co on a job in MA. The guy built his house so close to the "Right Of Way" that I had to rip out his front steps or one of my tracks would have run over it. The guy went balistic. I told him to simmer down, he was in the wrong. I told him a lawer will not help. A "Wright of Way is inviolate. I told him DON't argue with Tennesee Gas, you cannot win. Instead ask for a nice set of brick steps 8' wide to replace the 3' wide precast piece of crap that was in place. He listened. I told the forman, big deal he did build a little to close, had to take the steps out.
They built him a beutifull set of brick stairs with flower pots on each side, actully made the house.
When some one has a Right of Way you cannot reverse it!
Why do people build direcly under runway approaches then bit*h about the planes.
In many instances the railroad was in place Looooong before the town was even there.
JulesB
Tom
COAST LINE FOREVER
It is better to dwell in the corner of a roof than to share a house with a contentious woman! (Solomon)
A contentious woman is like a constant dripping! (Solomon)
Actually, if I split a few hairs, I can see the point made by the FRA that because they are hard to see at night, freight trains could be a hazard to motorists at grade crossings.
When it comes to a driver being able to see a train blocking the crossing, a moving train is far easier to spot than a stopped train. The cars in a train are huge, and they create a huge, moving display as they pass in a vehicle's headlights. The cars may be visually drab colored, but the motion attracts a driver's attention. However, a stopped train sneaks up on you like a bunch of sheds in the fog. If it is parked across a crossing at night, with no flashers, and no stop sign, all there is to protect the crossing is a crossbuck, which means that a motorist must yield to trains. But drivers cannot yield to something they cannot see.
Perhaps the public needs to be informed to be on the lookout for a stopped train having the right of way at a crossing, in addition to the admonition to look for approaching trains. When they approach this type of crossing, motorists are supposed to make an effort to look both ways. They are taught to expect trouble from each direction. But the more they look both ways, the less they look straight ahead.
If a driver looks for the big hazard of a collision course with an approaching train, he or she might somewhat overlook the possibility of the second hazard, i.e.: that a train is silently parked like an iron fence across the road.
So I agree with the FRA warning and its implication that railroads are at least partly at fault when a driver runs into a parked train at night at a crossing marked only with crossbucks or a crossbucks plus yield signs, if that crossing is also un-illuminated by roadside lighting. Under these circumstances, all a driver has to protect him or her is their own wariness to be on the lookout for road hazards. Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction.
It is true that the crossbucks and signage at a grade crossing is reflectorized, but the visibility of these items only tells a driver that a grade crossing is there. So the reflectorized warning of the signage is irrelevant if a driver does not see a train and therefore perceives the crossing to be clear.
Bucyrus wrote: Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction. It is true that the crossbucks and signage at a grade crossing is reflectorized, but the visibility of these items only tells a driver that a grade crossing is there. So the reflectorized warning of the signage is irrelevant if a driver does not see a train and therefore perceives the crossing to be clear.
Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction.
spokyone wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Granted, the law requires this vigilance on the part of drivers, but if a motorist runs into an obstruction that is hard to see, the law tends to at least partly blame the obstruction. It is true that the crossbucks and signage at a grade crossing is reflectorized, but the visibility of these items only tells a driver that a grade crossing is there. So the reflectorized warning of the signage is irrelevant if a driver does not see a train and therefore perceives the crossing to be clear.I disagree with your conclusion. The perception of a clear crossing does not alter the fact that is was not clear.
I agree that it does not alter that fact, but all a driver has to go on is perception, and the FRA has declared that the perception of trains at night can be difficult for drivers. I am just agreeing with them.
With regard to the legal outcome, I must clarify that the crossing example that I gave where I believe the railroad would be partly negligent in the case of a vehicle hitting a stopped train does not apply to this Friendship, WI crash because that crossing had a stop sign.
There is no excuse for not seeing a reflectorized stop sign preceded by an advance reflectorised warning sign, and no excuse for running that stop sign. The evidence of this crash suggests that the driver did not stop for the stop sign. If a driver were to stop at a crossing that was occupied by a train, either moving or standing, it is very unlikely that the driver would proceed after stopping and run into that train. So I have no idea what the legal outcome of this Friendship crash will be, but it seems like the driver was completely at fault.
Okay so simple solution to this "problem" (quotes are because only a certen group of people consider it a problem because they arnt smart enough not to be effected) is install a pole with a light on it at every single crossing that will light up the crossing from above at all times day or night, that way stupid people cant say they didnt see it.... Unless ofcorse stupid person #443 hits the light pole 15 minutes before stupid person #764 gets off work to take that same route home from work
IMHO though, they should just let natural selection take its course
So instead of "RAILROAD CROSSING" on the crossbucks, maybe we should go back to these:
Poppa_Zit wrote: So instead of "RAILROAD CROSSING" on the crossbucks, maybe we should go back to these:
I agree 100% PZ, they're safe and look great!
It all comes back to the same thing. HE RAN A STOP SIGN. What would the naysayers say if he ran a stop sign at a corner and nailed someone. Will you hear the same outcries? Most likely. They need a flashing red light or traffic signals. It's a 2-sided coin.
We could discuss something more civil like Politics or religion
Paul
PS. It might hard to fathom but, most things at night are hard to see. Believe it or not
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
Soo 6604 wrote: It all comes back to the same thing. HE RAN A STOP SIGN. What would the naysayers say if he ran a stop sign at a corner and nailed someone.
It all comes back to the same thing. HE RAN A STOP SIGN. What would the naysayers say if he ran a stop sign at a corner and nailed someone.
Yep, no amount of reflectorized tape can cover that single fact. If he had slowed down and stopped their would have been no collision. What if he ran a stop at an intersection and went under a milk tanker in the same way? same result, is it the trucks fault? no
what i get from reading investagators poasts:
1. he is a major leauge ***
2. he depends too much on tecnolagy
3. he has a personal grudge against the railroads
this guy is wanting the railroad to isue common sense
Mr_Ash wrote: Okay so simple solution to this "problem" (quotes are because only a certen group of people consider it a problem because they arnt smart enough not to be effected) is install a pole with a light on it at every single crossing that will light up the crossing from above at all times day or night,...
Okay so simple solution to this "problem" (quotes are because only a certen group of people consider it a problem because they arnt smart enough not to be effected) is install a pole with a light on it at every single crossing that will light up the crossing from above at all times day or night,...
I would say that adding roadside lighting to all un-illuminated, un-signalized grade crossings would help a lot to reduce run-into-train crashes. Making every crossing signalized with flashing red lights and gates would be the best solution, but the cost is an obstacle. Certainly signals decrease the likelihood of all types of car/train crashes, but roadside illumination alone would significantly reduce the likelihood of run-into-train crashes, yet the cost would be far less than adding signals and gates to crossings. Only the completely un-illuminated passive crossings would need this added roadside lighting. This would solve the problem only where it exists, unlike universal reflectors, which apply their effects to all grade crossings, most of which are not unduly risky.
Adding stop signs to grade crossings would also help reduce the probability of run-into-train crashes, but highway engineers are sometimes reluctant to force a stop if it is not absolutely necessary because they worry about the likelihood of rear end crashes between vehicles that can occur if a vehicle stops.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.