Renamed: Sigh! Moron hits train

[n012944]

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.

[csmith9474]

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.

Sort of similar to the crash netting thing, I recall in the early 00's when the railroads (I believe it was UP to be specific) was testing the gates that came down to completely block the grade crossings in Illinois. I believe these things would even stop an 18 wheeler. I wonder what ever happened to that program. I remember seeing one, and it was quite a rig up. I would imagine they would be quite expensive to maintain relative to the standard crossing gates.

[CShaveRR]

This is almost embarrassing to admit, but I blew a stop sign at a railroad crossing in Michigan a couple of weeks ago.  Just plain didn't see the sign under the cross-bucks.  My wife did...

I've been known to do strange things while driving in the vicinity of a railroad track.  I'd submit that in my case, I'm probably distracted by the presence of said track, and am therefore unlikely to run into a train, or into the path of one.  In my defense, I'll say that "my" crossing was less than familiar to me (in fact, the track was more familiar than the road!), and I'm far more used to fully-protected grade crossings.  But that doesn't make the possiblity of distraction, momentary absent-mindedness, or whatever, less scary.

And my wife and I both know whose fault any incident would have been.

Everyone needs to be more careful out there!

 

[CShaveRR]

Smitty, there were a couple of such crossing devices installed along what is presently UP's line between Joliet and St. Louis, but it was because of the upgrading of this line to high-speed standards.  I only got to see one of these crossings; it has since been replaced with four-quadrant gates.

There was an incident along this line where a signal maintainer, through neglect, rendered grade-crossing signals inoperative, and it resulted in a fatality.  I can't remember whether it was at one of these crossings--but the elaborate design was removed soon afterwards.

[spokyone]

I saw this while researching another story.
http://www.hartandassociates.net/PracticeAreas/Railroad-Accidents.asp

 

[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.

[csmith9474]

Smitty, there were a couple of such crossing devices installed along what is presently UP's line between Joliet and St. Louis, but it was because of the upgrading of this line to high-speed standards.  I only got to see one of these crossings; it has since been replaced with four-quadrant gates.

There was an incident along this line where a signal maintainer, through neglect, rendered grade-crossing signals inoperative, and it resulted in a fatality.  I can't remember whether it was at one of these crossings--but the elaborate design was removed soon afterwards.

Thanks. Now that you mention the high speed upgrade, that jogs my memory as to why they wanted to use these types of crossing protection.

Yikes!! I didn't hear the one involving the signal maintainer's neglect.

[zardoz]

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.

Might I suggest that some this magic money be spent on driver education.  Perhaps knowledge of a more stringent set of basic rules be required before a driving license is handed out.  The DMV seems to allow anyone to drive, with the only requirement be that they are able to sit upright (traffic law knowledge optional).  How about having to re-pass a driving test every time a license needs to be renewed?  At least a written test. 

I would guess that if whatever states of mind these drivers are in when they hit trains (or drive in the path of a train) are also responsible for many of the other traffic incidents that dot our landscape on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

I saw this while researching another story.
http://www.hartandassociates.net/PracticeAreas/Railroad-Accidents.asp

 

Hmmm....... this doesn't say it's the railroad's fault as much, but they do mention malfunctioning of the crossing systems, but don't mention the drivers swerving around gates trying to beat the train. They also mention speeding, but wether they mean the train or the car, I'm not sure

[Murphy Siding]

     Has there been anything published, about whether alcohol was a factor in this accident?

[Anonymous]

Re-

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

I noticed that "Investigator" suggested that failure-to-activate signal malfunctions are responsible for a large number of grade crossing crashes, and that railroads cover up this type of cause.  I have always wondered about the possibility of grade crossing signals failing to activate.  It seems rare, but not altogether impossible.  I have heard that grade crossing signals are fail safe.  But does that really mean that they cannot possibly fail?  If failure does occur from time to time, wouldn't there be accident records indicating that signal failure was the cause?  I would think there would be public statistics available. 

[Steam Is King]

Maybe its just me but even when the lights aren't flashing and/or the gates are up I slow down and look bnoth ways as if it were a rural crossing marked only with wooden crossbucks.Its not a goodidea  to trust someone elses techology with your life when all you need to do is exercise a little caution at the tracks.It doesn't require much  effort.It reminds me of the people wjho insist on driviong even though their windshiled is coated with ice and they cant see out. I've eve seen poeple driving with their head  out the window so they can see.

Chico

[jfallon]

Re-

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

I noticed that "Investigator" suggested that failure-to-activate signal malfunctions are responsible for a large number of grade crossing crashes, and that railroads cover up this type of cause.  I have always wondered about the possibility of grade crossing signals failing to activate.  It seems rare, but not altogether impossible.  I have heard that grade crossing signals are fail safe.  But does that really mean that they cannot possibly fail?  If failure does occur from time to time, wouldn't there be accident records indicating that signal failure was the cause?  I would think there would be public statistics available. 

    It seems that evry time some fool tries to beat a train through a crossing, he claims that the signals weren't working. Even when he is driving in the oncoming lane to pass the line of cars stopped at the flashing lights (oh, are those the signals). Perhaps what should happen is that the states pass laws requiring all vehicles to come to a complete stop at all RR crossings, and to look for oncoming trains before proceding. This would be the safest alternative!

                                John "I Brake for Trains" Fallon
 

[Poppa_Zit]

The original news story of this senseless tragedy said the results of the tox tests on the driver wouldn't be available until one week after the accident (last Oct. 14).

With over 160 posts in this thread and over 4800 views, there was a lot of interest here. So I'd say this topic deserves some closure.

I have been looking online a couple times a week ever since but could find nothing. Any of you guys in the Oshkosh area know if the newspapers ever did a follow-up revealing the tox report? It would have popped up in their 60-day file last Saturday.

Dan?   

[spokyone]

PZ.  I emailed the reporter again. Still no reply.

[CNW 6000]

The original news story of this senseless tragedy said the results of the tox tests on the driver wouldn't be available until one week after the accident (last Oct. 14).

With over 160 posts in this thread and over 4800 views, there was a lot of interest here. So I'd say this topic deserves some closure.

I have been looking online a couple times a week ever since but could find nothing. Any of you guys in the Oshkosh area know if the newspapers ever did a follow-up revealing the tox report? It would have popped up in their 60-day file last Saturday.

Dan?   

I've heard nothing publicly.  My 'source' at the ONW says that the attitude in the bull pen was to drop it and move on because it wasn't 'juicy' enough.  I plan on following up and will keep you posted.

[Poppa_Zit]

PZ.  I emailed the reporter again. Still no reply.

Good. I called the newsroom of the newspaper this afternoon and one of the editors said he'd talk to her.

[spokyone]

PZ.  I emailed the reporter again. Still no reply.

Good. I called the newsroom of the newspaper this afternoon and one of the editors said he'd talk to her.

Peggy just emailed me. She said she is checking.

[CNW 6000]

Here's a link to the Oshkosh North Western web site with the story.

[AlcoRS11Nut]

(colored highlights mine) 

Man killed after hitting train on Cemetery Road

By Peggy Breister
The Reporter [e-mail]

TOWN OF FRIENDSHIP, WI - The rural railroad crossing where a car struck a train early Sunday morning is marked only with a stop sign and "crossing ahead" sign, a Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department official says.

The crossing at Cemetery Road in the town of Friendship where Nathan L. Novotny, 30, of Oshkosh, was killed is not marked with flashing lights or gates.

Novotny is believed to have struck the stopped Canadian National train at 2:30 a.m. Sunday, according to a Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department report. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

His eastbound Ford Explorer passed under the train and came to rest on the east side of the tracks, said Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy Mark Strand.

The train engineer did not realize a vehicle had struck the train and the train eventually continued northbound.

A passerby saw Novotny's vehicle at 3:46 a.m. and called 911, Strand said.

The crossing is marked with a stop sign and a "railroad crossing ahead" sign.

There are no flashing lights or gates there, said Sheriff Mick Fink.

"Although it is properly marked, would it be better with flashing lights? Probably," Fink said. "Does it meet the statutory requirements as is? Yes."

Modifying crossings requires a request to the Office of the Commissioner of Railroads. An investigation is typically performed into the necessity of upgrading the crossing. If the OCR determines modifications are needed, it assesses costs for the project.
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071016/FON0101/710160374/1985

==============================================================

This vehicle was travelling so fast that the SUV went under the train and ended up on the other side!!  Gee, d'ya think maybe excessive speed and/or alcohol just might possibly have been a contributing factor?? 

If this idiot had hit a bridge or streetlight, would the community demand the city do something about those menacing obsticales?

Sigh.

 

No sympathy here....another idiot out of the world...how is that bad? 

[Poppa_Zit]

The rural railroad crossing where a car struck a train early Sunday morning is marked only with a stop sign and "crossing ahead" sign, a Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department official says.

This perhaps is the most interesting quote to come out of this story. "Only a stop sign..."

Sheesh.

Since when are stop signs optional? 

[vsmith]

Try driving out here, its getting to the point where Red Lights are "optional"

[upchuck]

The rural railroad crossing where a car struck a train early Sunday morning is marked only with a stop sign and "crossing ahead" sign, a Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department official says.

This perhaps is the most interesting quote to come out of this story. "Only a stop sign..."

Sheesh.

Since when are stop signs optional? 

In San Diego, stop signs seem to be viewed as a suggestion. Downed crossing gates?....a challenge.

[tree68]

The "North Pole" for our PE trains is such that we spend a bit of time blocking a crossing.  Even after the train clears the crossing, it is still on the "island circuit" for a bit of time during which no amount of pushing of the "raise" button on the control box will make the gates go up.  The trainman handling said button doesn't always have time to go to the crossing to wave traffic through before it's time to try hitting the "raise" button again...

This past weekend I was busy mashing the button so I could clear the gates for the line of cars when one driver apparently decided he'd had enough and passed the entire line of cars, then drove around the gates.  I couldn't get his plate.  The gates went up right after he drove through.

Since we do this almost every night for four weeks, it is only slightly in his defense that he knew what was going on and had a good idea he'd be safe.  On the other hand, he did drive around the gates.  We occasionally have a local fire police officer show up who will help traffic the crossing until the gates go up.

[spokyone]

PZ.  I emailed the reporter again. Still no reply.

Good. I called the newsroom of the newspaper this afternoon and one of the editors said he'd talk to her.

Peggy just emailed me. She said she is checking.

I wonder if she checked.

[Poppa_Zit]

PZ.  I emailed the reporter again. Still no reply.

Good. I called the newsroom of the newspaper this afternoon and one of the editors said he'd talk to her.

Peggy just emailed me. She said she is checking.

I wonder if she checked.

Been looking every other day the last few weeks, nothing yet on the web site.

We should stay on this since some parties (no regulars) have made a big deal about it here and on other forums. Even if there was a lawsuit filed by the family the tox results are a matter of public record. The newspaper may need to file a FOI Act request, tho, to loosen the local PD up if for some reason they're not forthcoming. 

[Anonymous]

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?

[Railway Man]

Re-

http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=14234

I noticed that "Investigator" suggested that failure-to-activate signal malfunctions are responsible for a large number of grade crossing crashes, and that railroads cover up this type of cause.  I have always wondered about the possibility of grade crossing signals failing to activate.  It seems rare, but not altogether impossible.  I have heard that grade crossing signals are fail safe.  But does that really mean that they cannot possibly fail?  If failure does occur from time to time, wouldn't there be accident records indicating that signal failure was the cause?  I would think there would be public statistics available. 

Significantly less than 1% of collisions at grade crossings have as a cause of collision the failure of the active warning device to activate, or activate late.  "Fail-safe" means that under normal failure modes, the warning device activates.  Examples of an abnormal failure mode are copper thieves break into the instrument house and steal all the copper, or a truck carrying a wide load wipes out the signal and gate mast, and doesn't report it.

The fail-safe principle is that systems are designed so that if they need an input to activate, the LACK of input becomes the instruction to activate.  An analogy: you worry about your child coming home.  You don't wait for the child to call you and say "I'm in trouble, call the police," it's the absence of that call that makes you call the police.  In basic terms, grade-crossing signals activate when they detect the presence of a train, using a track circuit consisting of current placed upon one rail that travels out to the limit of the approach to the crossing, crosses to the other rail, returns to the instrument house at the crossing, and energizes a relay, picking it up and opening its contacts.  The moment that circuit is "shunted", that is, a short-circuit is placed across it, the current is no longer strong enough to hold up the relay and it drops, closing the contacts and activating the signals.  The fail-safe principles at work here are (1) the relay falls to activate the signals, it's not picked up to activate; (2) loss of input signal for any reason de-energizes the relay and activates the circuit; (3) the circuit requires "no shunt" to keep the relay energized; shunt from any cause de-energizes this.  

The statistics are kept at the Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website.  Fair warning -- they are not easy to use.  Accidents usually have multiple contributory causes, there's rarely if ever agreement upon the causes because large sums of money are at stake, and many investigations are done by local and state law enforcement in a haphazard or incomplete fashion resulting in incomplete or unusable data.  The federal government is not funded to investigate every collision; the NTSB will only take on mass-casualty collisions.  The railroad will, I guarantee you, will immediately test its crossing signals, because a very common argument of the motorist or passenger, or family member, is that the gates didn't activate.  There are people who think that the railroad cannot be trusted and will cover up evidence, so they want to shut everything down for several days and treat it like a crime zone.  This has been resisted by the federal and state governments due to the disastrous effect this would have on commerce and public transportation.  Given the substantial exposure railroads have to tort claims by motorists, and the substantial payouts they make to motorists, railroads are deeply incentived to get it right.  Whether this is enough incentive is not a technical question that I can address, it's a political and ideological question.

RWM

[Railway Man]

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

[trolleyboy]

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