http://m.kare11.com/news.jsp?key=121404&rc=top
I have no idea what to make of this. Does a railroad company have reference data that proves whether or not grade crossing signals were functioning when trains passed?
It seems like this trial found that the railroad failed to prove that the signals were working, and that onsite evidence proved that the car could not have been in the location in which it was hit if the gates were down.
But the difference in point-of-impact location between a car going around the gate and one passing straight through if the gate were raised is only 10-15 feet or so. The police said the crash evidence indicated that the car went around the gate. I did not see this story on Kare 11 last night, so I will see if I can find out more about it.
Yet another case of the jury and media trying to pin the blame on the "Big, Bad Railroad" in yet another case... The parents obviously aren't willing to admit that maybe, perhaps, their kids did what most new (and not) drivers do at railroad crossings, break the law and drive around the gates.
I don't think the control boxes have any information recording the position of the gates at every given time. Over 6 years ago (the crossing is most likely much older than the crash) there were not small, cheap, solid state electronics to record this, and the last thing the railroad wants is more moving parts to maintain.
Also, the article stated that the car had a "black box" like device, which I think may be incorrect. I've never heard of anything like that being installed in cars.
Speaking of event recorders, wouldn't the locomotive's cameras pick up whether the gates were down, and if the car went around them? They already know the train was doing 62, so that probably means it has an event recorder, and at that speed, is more likely to be a road freight with newer power than a local with older power. So having cameras is not out of the question...
The media is defietely taking sides on this one...not that they don't every single other time someone gets hit by a train...
A quick review of the linked article leaves me with the impression that the victims'lawyer was successful in inciting the jury to nail BNSF, supposedly because "evidence" that was recorded in the bungalow for the operation of the crossing signals was downloaded but not turned over to police. So there are allegations of concealing and tampering with evidence, on top of the underlying multiple deaths in the crash.
I suspect that there are more facts that have not been reported completely.
- PDN.
TrainManTy Also, the article stated that the car had a "black box" like device, which I think may be incorrect. I've never heard of anything like that being installed in cars.
They certainly do. Google "Bosch CDR" for a sample of information.
I find it curious that "marks in the roadway" indicate that the car got hit dead center. I should think that those same marks could be used to discern whether the car was in an appropriate lane or was positioned such when it was hit to indicate that they had driven around the gates.
I should also think the reported speed of the car (28 mph) would be an indicator. Does that square with the posted speed limit for that road? And is it possible to drive around the gates at that speed?
It appears to me that pretty much the families' entire case centers around the data downloaded from the crossing equipment shelter, the fact that the RR didn't immediately volunteer it to the police (who probably didn't ask for it in the first place), and the possibility that said data may have been manipulated.
These are rhetorical questions, by the way - no need to offer theoretical answers.
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...
Bucyrushttp://m.kare11.com/news.jsp?key=121404&rc=top I have no idea what to make of this. Does a railroad company have reference data that proves whether or not grade crossing signals were functioning when trains passed? It seems like this trial found that the railroad failed to prove that the signals were working, and that onsite evidence proved that the car could not have been in the location in which it was hit if the gates were down. But the difference in point-of-impact location between a car going around the gate and one passing straight through if the gate were raised is only 10-15 feet or so. The police said the crash evidence indicated that the car went around the gate. I did not see this story on Kare 11 last night, so I will see if I can find out more about it.
My goodness, what an editorial that is. No attempt at objectivity, fact gathering, or any journalism at all.
All modern crossing signals have event recorders. It indeed proves what the system was doing. It's standard evidence admissable at a trial. Jurors seem to have disagreed. That's America for you.
RWM
Well of course people had to blame BNSF. It's the only major RR to use special "tippy-toe" trains that can silently leave the railroad track, hide behind helpless motorists, and then lash out like a scorpion, killing or maiming all. No advantage for the RR, just sheer, gory, sadistic fun.
The really new wrinkle, I suppose, is the notion that if anything bad happens to you, then someone else must be responsible. This is a textbook example of "deep pockets" theory gone wild. It doesn't help if the local media treat the deceased as a carful of Joan of Arcs and the BNSF as Satan.
What's next? Witchcraft trials? - a.s.
It does seem strange that the legal outcome would have pivoted on a disagreement as to whether or not the signals were working if the company has the ability to prove that the signals were working. It seems that the jury decided that they were not working because BNSF did not prove that they were working. I recall that when that crash occurred in 2003, the immediate conclusion was that the car ran around the gates.
A few questions occur to me:
Did the train get stopped before it cleared the crossing, and if so, were the signals and gates activated when the police and witnesses arrived?
Did the engineer testify as to the activation of the signals and gates?
Was the engineer the only person in the cab, or was there also a conductor, and if so, did the conductor testify as to the activation of the signals and gates?
Why was the Chevy Cavalier equipped with a black box event recorder?
What is the probability of a car zigzagging around the lowered gates while traveling at 28 mph? It would be interesting to see what the jury concluded on that point. They may have concluded that it would have been an impossible move, however, the car did not make it to the second gate. Therefore, it is not possible to know whether they had gone around the first gate, but were traveling too fast to dodge the second gate. Missing the second gate would have been the hard part if they were traveling at 28 mph. You could go around the first gate at 100 mph and miss it without difficulty.
Here is a story from 2003:
http://www.abcnewspapers.com/2003/anoka/october/2train.html
Notice that it says the conductor testified that the signals were working. It does not mention the engineer. The story about the legal case says the engineer witnessed the signals working, but it does not say whether he testified so. It also does not mention the conductor.
Here is another story after the legal outcome:
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/43342282.html?elr=KArks:DCiUtEia_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
I cannot copy and paste from that last link for some reason, but you can open it and read about the part where it talks about BNSF committing perjury, misrepresentation, and concealing and destroying pre-accident evidence that included replacing an 8-foot stretch of rail the day before the crash.
In terms of the intentional nature of the accusation of “misrepresentation and concealing,” how can one destroy pre-accident evidence before the accident happens? In other words, how can you intentionally destroy the evidence of an event that has not yet occurred, and one that you have no way of anticipating?
When I used to work on the west side of the metro, sometimes I'd come home through Anoka, and I've been over this crossing numerous times. I passed over this crossing a few days after the accident, and I saw BNSF RR police out there to watch-over the friends/families coming out to lay flowers at the scene.
It's a two-lane road, and you have rather good visibility towards the east as you approach the crossing headed south (headed south out of Ramsey on that road you swing a little ways east then turn back south towards the tracks). Whenever I've been out there, in fact, I've always thought the only good visibility one would have if you wanted to photograph a train there would be facing east on the north side of the grade-crossing.
In other words, a westbound train approaching that crossing would've certainly been visible to a car headed south at that location. I never chose that particular spot to snap pictures, because the road is too narrow and too busy, there's no public parking close enough, and the ROW is somewhat elevated so that the angle from the private land adjoining the tracks would be too low for my tastes (an upward angle). The grade-crossing is one of those where the road rises-up to the level of the tracks then quickly drops-down again.
Were you to try to drive around those gates on that narrow road, your car (and from what I understand their car was small) would possibly go off the pavement and ride onto the rail, and BNSF has heavy rail installed there (I'd be willing to bet a small car would get hung-up if they were trying to maneouver that way). I can't recall for sure if the gates cover both lanes on each side, but I think they do, so going around them would quite possibly lead to getting hung-up.
I personally have never seen a train passing over that crossing without the gates, flashers and bells working. Every train I've ever seen there has sounded its horn. That's an extremely busy area, especially in rush hour, and I have to believe if there was ever a case that the gates didn't work BNSF would get on it PDQ.
Here's a portion of the last link as provided by Bucyrus that may explain some of this:
"Or was it the "bungling" of a "rogue" BNSF employee -- a signal technician who the families' attorneys say failed to download key data, misplaced a key computer drive, and may have given conflicting testimony -- that ultimately persuaded jurors to award the families $21.6 million last year, as [BNSF attorney Timothy] Thornton suggested in court.
"This was a problem employee," Thornton said of technician Craig Hildebrant.
[Judge Ellen] Maas bristled at the suggestion that Hildebrant "bungled" anything. Hildebrant was retired by the time the civil suit came to trial, Maas reminded the courtroom. Burlington Northern "selected" Hildebrant and he was no "rogue" employee, the judge said. Hildebrant did not immediately return a call from the Star Tribune."
As I noted before, there are some considerable unexplained litigation dynamics at work here. As examples, why would a lawyer disparage his client's employee, and why did the judge see fit to rebut that herself ?
The "pre-accident evidence" claim boggles my mind, too. Stay tuned . . .
P.S. - You "Want to run short-line railroad ?" guys - still interested in that now ?
Bucyrus Why was the Chevy Cavalier equipped with a black box event recorder?
All GM cars since model year 1999 have been equipped with event recorders. They hold 5 seconds worth of data. The other manufacturers followed suit a few years later. The purposes is to collect data from collisions to compare the force acting on the car with the response of the car structure, in order to improve designs. It also helps limit automaker liability. Data from auto event recorders is admissable in court -- as former S.D. Congressman and Governor Bill Janklow found out.
tree68 TrainManTy Also, the article stated that the car had a "black box" like device, which I think may be incorrect. I've never heard of anything like that being installed in cars. They certainly do. Google "Bosch CDR" for a sample of information. I find it curious that "marks in the roadway" indicate that the car got hit dead center. I should think that those same marks could be used to discern whether the car was in an appropriate lane or was positioned such when it was hit to indicate that they had driven around the gates. I should also think the reported speed of the car (28 mph) would be an indicator. Does that square with the posted speed limit for that road? And is it possible to drive around the gates at that speed? It appears to me that pretty much the families' entire case centers around the data downloaded from the crossing equipment shelter, the fact that the RR didn't immediately volunteer it to the police (who probably didn't ask for it in the first place), and the possibility that said data may have been manipulated. These are rhetorical questions, by the way - no need to offer theoretical answers.
As I recall the posted speed for that stretch of the road is 30 MPH. Driving-around the gates there at 28 MPH would seem to me to particularly treacherous (not that it isn't treacherous anyplace) because of the narrowness of the road (see my earlier post). At that speed, in that location, I have to believe the car would definitey hit the rails outside the grade-crossing surface and get hung-up or at least slowed severely.
I think this may have been the xing incident from several yrs ago which rewrote the now strictly enforced eng horn rules. The sad part of this is that as long as the crew was doing everything correct, the rr would be in the clear. If the train was over its max allowable speed or if the eng horn was not being sounded correct as the written rules require, then this opens up a silly can of worms. All that was obtained off the downloading process that the RFE or TM does when such an events takes place. What really makes this sick is as a rr worker, if my engr fails to sound the eng horn correctly, then everyone on the crew most likely will be handed a level S. So some fool in the general public can be basically 100% fault for causing an accident but if the train crew was 99% in doing their job correct, guess who is at fault and could possibily be jobless?
Here's my take on the incident. Even if the crossing signals had malfunctioned and not come on, the driver of the car was still responsible for looking and listening for approaching trains. Crossing signals are like any other electronic traffic device. They can and sometimes do malfunction. If the car involved would have come up to a traffic light that was out (say from a power outage), and the driver went into the intersection without stopping and got hit by another vehicle, who would the parents be blaming? I used that as an example because here in Ohio, you are supposed to treat a non-working traffic light as a 4-way stop, even though a lot of people don't. People need to learn that even if the signals at a crossing aren't on, the crossbucks are still considered yield signs, which are regulatory signs like stop signs. As long as the train crew did everything they were supposed to, I don't believe the railroad should be found at fault.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
SFbrkmn I think this may have been the xing incident from several yrs ago which rewrote the now strictly enforced eng horn rules. The sad part of this is that as long as the crew was doing everything correct, the rr would be in the clear. If the train was over its max allowable speed or if the eng horn was not being sounded correct as the written rules require, then this opens up a silly can of worms. All that was obtained off the downloading process that the RFE or TM does when such an events takes place. What really makes this sick is as a rr worker, if my engr fails to sound the eng horn correctly, then everyone on the crew most likely will be handed a level S. So some fool in the general public can be basically 100% fault for causing an accident but if the train crew was 99% in doing their job correct, guess who is at fault and could possibily be jobless?
What is the strickly enforced horn rule you speak of? and as far as I know if you was speeding at the crossing and killed someone . you will be in court over it.
Railway Man Bucyrus Why was the Chevy Cavalier equipped with a black box event recorder? All GM cars since model year 1999 have been equipped with event recorders. They hold 5 seconds worth of data. The other manufacturers followed suit a few years later. The purposes is to collect data from collisions to compare the force acting on the car with the response of the car structure, in order to improve designs. It also helps limit automaker liability. Data from auto event recorders is admissable in court -- as former S.D. Congressman and Governor Bill Janklow found out. RWM
I went to a short seminar on this about 5 years ago. Almost of the recorders don't have anything to measure and capture the magnitude of the forces for structural design purposes, etc. - that would require an awful lot of calibrated hardware. Instead, they are for liability and warranty claim protection. What they mainly do is record the status of the seat belts and air bags, head lights, door locks, engine starts, transmission position - and sometimes speed, and especially all of the "idiot" (warning) lights pertaining to same, etc. So if there's a claim that "I had the seat belt on but was injured anyway" or "The doors flew open on impact, and I was tossed out and injured by faulty door design", the manufacturer has a prayer of being able to rebut that claim with the recorder data. I'll bet that Quentin/ modelcar can add a lot to this point.
- Paul North.
chatanuga Here's my take on the incident. Even if the crossing signals had malfunctioned and not come on, the driver of the car was still responsible for looking and listening for approaching trains. Crossing signals are like any other electronic traffic device. They can and sometimes do malfunction. If the car involved would have come up to a traffic light that was out (say from a power outage), and the driver went into the intersection without stopping and got hit by another vehicle, who would the parents be blaming? I used that as an example because here in Ohio, you are supposed to treat a non-working traffic light as a 4-way stop, even though a lot of people don't. People need to learn that even if the signals at a crossing aren't on, the crossbucks are still considered yield signs, which are regulatory signs like stop signs. As long as the train crew did everything they were supposed to, I don't believe the railroad should be found at fault. Kevin
Kevin,
That is an interesting point about the responsibility of a driver when driving through a signalized crossing. I have asked what that responsibility is on this forum in the past, and never gotten an answer. I have also not found that point laid out in the driving rules, but I do have a newer resource that I have not yet checked. I suspect that there is a big difference in the way most drivers react to an un-signaled grade crossing and the way they react to a grade crossing with gates and lights.
In any case, I don’t believe that your analogy suggesting that the responsibility of a driver at a traffic light that is malfunctioning by failing to activate, is the same as the responsibility of a driver at a grade crossing signal that is unlit because no train is present. The expectation of a traffic signal is that it should always be lighted, so if it is not lighted, it can be concluded that it has failed and is not protecting the intersection. Whereas, no such conclusion can be drawn from a grade crossing signal that is unlighted because that is a normal phase of its operating cycle.
But I definitely want to know whether or not a driver is expected to assume all responsibility for yielding at a signalized crossing if the signals fail to activate as a train approaches.
I'm only finding one crossing on Ferry Street in Anoka, and it's this one. You might have to click on satellite or hybrid to see the image and not a map.
Assuming that this is the crossing, and that the gates drop perpendicular to the road, I'm of the opinion that it would be very easy to swing around the gates, at the speed limit.
Again, if the tracks showed there were centered up on the track when they got hit, those tracks should have also shown if they weren't in their lane.
There are two tracks there, again assuming that this is the crossing, which would have been in use?
tree68 I'm only finding one crossing on Ferry Street in Anoka, and it's this one. You might have to click on satellite or hybrid to see the image and not a map. Assuming that this is the crossing, and that the gates drop perpendicular to the road, I'm of the opinion that it would be very easy to swing around the gates, at the speed limit. Again, if the tracks showed there were centered up on the track when they got hit, those tracks should have also shown if they weren't in their lane. There are two tracks there, again assuming that this is the crossing, which would have been in use?
I am not sure which way the train was going, but that is the crossing. It does look like the gates may be as much as 120 feet apart, so I agree that it would be easy to make the zigzag swerve to get around them at 28 mph. Apparently, the police concluded that the car ran around the lowered gates, but the stories do not specify the evidence that led the police to that conclusion.
It's a scarey thing to be sitting in a courtroom with your future or your fortune in the hands of twelve people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Maybe it's the railfan nature, but when I approach a crossing of any kind, I slow down(I rarely go anywhere near 30MPH over a grade crossing that's not on a highway), turn the radio down, and roll the windows down. I approach every crossing as if the arms and lights weren't working. A bit extreme? Perhaps, but I have to think that if all drivers were that careful, maybe something like this wouldn't happen. I'm not blaming the driver, don't get me wrong, we'll likely never know what really happened(though if a police report says they attempted to round the gate, there must be something pointing to that), but sometimes, I think drivers take the arms for granted, and thought a malfunction usually doesn't come to this, I think drivers need to be a bit more vigilant as well.
What you can't see from a satelite image is the length of the gates when they're down across that road. As I recall from the last time out there, the gates do extend-out far enough to cover both lanes, so swerving around them wouldn't be all that easy because the road is narrow there. There are multiple tracks at the crossing.
The train was westbound and the car was heading from Ramsey into Anoka, so they got hit on the left side of the car. That means, in my opinion, that there's no way they couldn't have seen that train approaching as the visibility towards the direction of the approaching train (eastward) is unobstructed from the north side of the tracks.
I would surmise they saw the train approaching and the gates were down, tried to swerve left around the gates, went off the grade-crossing surface, bottomed out on the rail and that held them up long enough to get hit.
WIAR What you can't see from a satelite image is the length of the gates when they're down across that road. As I recall from the last time out there, the gates do extend-out far enough to cover both lanes, so swerving around them wouldn't be all that easy because the road is narrow there. There are multiple tracks at the crossing. The train was westbound and the car was heading from Ramsey into Anoka, so they got hit on the left side of the car. That means, in my opinion, that there's no way they couldn't have seen that train approaching as the visibility towards the direction of the approaching train (eastward) is unobstructed from the north side of the tracks. I would surmise they saw the train approaching and the gates were down, tried to swerve left around the gates, went off the grade-crossing surface, bottomed out on the rail and that held them up long enough to get hit.
That is a good point that there is no indication from the photo showing the length of the gates. I have not looked at the actual crossing. If the gates do extend across both lanes, successfully running around them at 28 mph when lowered seems improbable.
Most likely someone could not wait a minute or less for a train to pass. These stories are always so sad and for some reason its always the railroads fault somehow.
Besides the black boxes equiped by GM and other OEs, there are privite companies that make black boxes for car so that parents can monitor their teen drivers. That might make soom teens think twice before tring something stupide... then again it might not.
TG3 LOOK ! LISTEN ! LIVE ! Remember the 3.
Phoebe Vet It's a scarey thing to be sitting in a courtroom with your future or your fortune in the hands of twelve people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
I've seen two things happen during jury selection. For one trial if you have a brain or at least graduated from college they would kick you off. The other is if the trial would be technical in nature that they tried to keep the smart scientist/engineer types (like me) on. Basically depends on how "good" the plantiff and defense and who they want.
Of course I have seen a murder conviction thrown out because there was a biologist on the jury and his knowledge of biology because he understood how long it takes maggots to grow in a dead body and this prior knowledge "tainted" the jury.
ungern
If I had to guess what happened, I would guess that the gates were down and the driver tried to beat the train. That was what was reported after the crash in 2003. That is what the police concluded. But still, the signals could have failed. It is a possibility, no matter how remote. I would even tend to dismiss the possibility of signal failure because it is so remote, and at least one witness said the signals were working.
But here is the biggest problem that I have in dismissing signal failure:
If BNSF had data that would establish that the signals were working, how could they have possibly failed to produce it? I can’t get around that point.
Bucyrus [snip] But here is the biggest problem that I have in dismissing signal failure: If BNSF had data that would establish that the signals were working, how could they have possibly failed to produce it? I can’t get around that point.
There it is - very well said ! Reading between the lines here, I think that's the argument by the plaintiffs' lawyers that swayed the jury, too.
Without going into too much detail here, there's a legal doctrine called "spoliation of evidence". In brief, if someone can be shown to have destroyed or tampered with the evidence, the judge can impose various sanctions against the party responsible for that. The most devastating is an instruction to the jury to the effect that (here), "If the jury believes that BNSF withheld evidence, then the jury is permitted to treat that evidence was the worst possible evidence for BNSF in this case." That kind of thing happens - not often, but it does - someone is that stupid just often enough to serve as a usfuel negative example to the rest of us who try to live on the straight and narrow. "Pour l'encourager des autres" is the French phrase for it, I believe - literally translated as "For the encouragement of the others", and often quoted or cited at a public hanging or flogging, etc. for some heinous crime.
That's why tampering with evidence is a really bad idea - yeah, it looks dramatic and builds suspense in the movies and on TV - but in real life it's a bet-the-ranch gamble. Aside from the very real possibility of criminal prosecution - if you get away with it you're golden, but if you don't, then you're toast. Which is why I prefer to associate with those who won't and don't. Sometimes there are embarassing mistakes and explanations of same, but those people tend to stay around longer.
I wonder if any of the court's opinions or transcripts of the testimony in this case are available on-line. At the county court level it's not common yet, but not unheard of, either. A professional review of that might yield a more "fair and balanced" [TM Fox News] understanding of what went on here, both at the scene and in the courtroom.
That is a bit odd, though it could boil down to an employee not being careful, and accidentally losing, destroying, misplacing, corrupting, etc. and being too afraid for his job to say what happened. Not real likely, but just a theory.
What really baffles me is that it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gates didn't work. They didn't do that in any way whatsoever. They relied on non-existent evidence, and in spite of a police report and an eyewitness stating that the gates were down, they still prevailed. In the eyes of the judicial system, this shouldn't even be where it is now, and should have been dismissed years ago.
Bucyrus Kevin, That is an interesting point about the responsibility of a driver when driving through a signalized crossing. I have asked what that responsibility is on this forum in the past, and never gotten an answer. I have also not found that point laid out in the driving rules, but I do have a newer resource that I have not yet checked. I suspect that there is a big difference in the way most drivers react to an un-signaled grade crossing and the way they react to a grade crossing with gates and lights. In any case, I don’t believe that your analogy suggesting that the responsibility of a driver at a traffic light that is malfunctioning by failing to activate, is the same as the responsibility of a driver at a grade crossing signal that is unlit because no train is present. The expectation of a traffic signal is that it should always be lighted, so if it is not lighted, it can be concluded that it has failed and is not protecting the intersection. Whereas, no such conclusion can be drawn from a grade crossing signal that is unlighted because that is a normal phase of its operating cycle. But I definitely want to know whether or not a driver is expected to assume all responsibility for yielding at a signalized crossing if the signals fail to activate as a train approaches.
Well, when I made my analogy, I was basing it on personal experience from here in the Columbus, Ohio area whenever I've come up on traffic lights that are out. You'd be amazed at how many times people either nearly rearend me as I stop, often blowing their horns, or they swerve around me giving me the finger and flying through the intersection at the posted speed limit.
As far as my way of approaching signaled crossings goes, I just know what I've read and heard about the crossbucks at crossings actually being yield signs. I also always remember when I'd just moved to Bowling Green back in 1996 and was watching a train at a crossing near my apartment. About mid-train, the crossing gates went up, and the signals turned off. After the last car cleared, the signals came on, the gates came down for a minute, the gates went back up, and the signals turned off. I called the police right away after that to report the incident, and the next train through town made a brief stop just before the crossing to make sure the signals came on. After seeing that, I've never gone by the signals to determine if a train is approaching. Besides, not all hi-rail vehicles activate crossing signals. In one of my videos on YouTube from Fostoria, there's an NS hi-rail truck that comes past the station on Main Street. It didn't activate the crossing signals and slowed with its horn blaring to stop traffic before continuing through.
"Well of course people had to blame BNSF. It's the only major RR to use special "tippy-toe" trains that can silently leave the railroad track, hide behind helpless motorists, and then lash out like a scorpion, killing or maiming all. No advantage for the RR, just sheer, gory, sadistic fun. "
-This is where the clip gets inserted from a comedic movie where a prison bus ends up on the tracks, and a white-haired guy ends up being chased through the woods by the trains after throwing the other prisoners out to safety. Anyone got that clip conveniently handy?
And to the above poster, high rail trucks and many machines do not trigger crossing signals. This is why such equipment must yield to traffic. In this instance, the traffic has the right-of-way. Then the vehicles start across the X-ings with the horns sounding to warn traffic they're starting across.
Since the map failed to load for me, all I can do is assume that with multiple tracks, there was enough distance between gates for the driver to do 28 mph around them and not get thrown off the side. And if the gates were like others I've seen, and they only blocked the oncoming lanes, drivers easily can go around. Even if they blocked all areas, drivers can still go around on the side. I also find it hard to believe that the driver didn't hear the horn, even if he couldn't see the train, and that if people previously testified that the signals were working before, that the dirver somehow wouldn't notice the red flashing lights. Although I, too, find it odd that BNSF lost the recorder evidence, there are ways that can happen without them being at fault. This seems to be a failure of the legal system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.