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.
BucyrusThat 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.
Gates cannot extend across both travel lanes unless the crossing is equipped with "clear-out loops" that detect the presence of a motor vehicle in the crossing and hold the exit gate up until the vehicle clears the crossing, because otherwise a vehicle on the crossing when the signals activate is trapped on the crossing. With rare exception, clear-out loops are only done in quad-gate installations, because in a twin-gate installation both gates are exit gates as well as entrance gates. Also, the gate arms get very long when trying to span both travel lanes and aren't practical.
Copy & paste from the 2003 report.
Following the accident, a test was conducted on the crossing arms, and both the lights and arms were working, according to both Anoka police and BNSF officials.
It was later determined the Cavalier had been going southbound.
One of the officers at the scene reported seeing several scratches on what was left of the Cavalier that, he said, were inconsistent with a car being dragged along the railroad tracks.
chatanuga Bucyrus 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. 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. Kevin
Bucyrus 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.
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 was able to find a reference that does indeed confirm that the crossbuck constitutes a yield sign. I was aware of this in regard to “passive” (un-signaled) crossings, but had not given it any thought regarding “active” crossings with signals and sometimes gates. Since these active crossings also have a crossbuck, the yield law would apply to them if a train were approaching regardless of whether the signals were activated or not. Therefore, under the terms of the traffic laws, the Anoka crash would have been the fault of the driver for not yielding to the train even if the signals and/or gates had failed to activate. Yet I see nothing in the news reports at the time of the crash or in the wake of this judgment that mentions this issue of failing to yield.
But aside from that point, I would say that the principle of a crossbuck-imposed yield requirement at a signalized crossing raises some interesting issues. On one hand, it is redundant, but the redundancy is justified as a backup measure in case the signals fail to activate.
On the other hand, the authority of the yield message inherent with the crossbuck is diluted by its redundancy with the lighted signals and gates. I would submit that most drivers rely on the safety system of the signals and gates and correspondingly reduce their natural wariness of the grade crossing hazard that the yield message of the crossbuck demands. In other words, drivers are less careful in looking for trains at a signalized crossing than they are at an un-signaled crossing, even though the crossbuck in each application requires the same amount of care. So, due to it being used as a backup in case of signal failure, a crossbuck is compromised by its redundancy to that signal when the signal is working.
But there is another, more dangerous, unintended consequence arising from the crossbuck being applied to active crossings as a backup against possible signal failure. Because the crossbuck is compromised by its redundancy to the signals at active crossings, that compromise also carries over to the identical crossbucks that are applied to passive grade crossings. And often with these passive crossings, a crossbuck is the only warning mechanism, so its role is crucial, and it can’t afford to be compromised.
Drivers get comfortable relying on the seemingly infallible protection of the elaborate system of automatic electric signals and gates. They see these systems working and probably never even expect that they could fail. With these signalized crossings, drivers perceive the crossbuck as merely being a symbol identifying the existence of the crossing, rather than being a dire warning to look for trains in case the signals and gates fails to activate. In other words, drivers come to associate the crossbuck as a symbol of provided protection rather than a message to protect themselves. And they apply this association to crossbucks wherever they encounter them, no matter whether the crossing is active or passive.
My conclusion: The diluting of the crossbuck warning that results from its use at active grade crossings raises the likelihood of train-car collisions at passive grade crossings.
I can't indict the nuts-and-bolts of the whole American tort (civil-suit) system, though I suppose there were cases in the past something very like this that the judge would have thrown out due to lack of evidence.
Clearly, the real nuts were the "jury of your peers." (Frightening description in this case IMHO) Yes, it's possible for a crossing signal to be out. It's possible for a train to not sound horn (or bell) properly. It's possible for the gates not to come down. All three at once?? IIRC the "Stop, Look and Listen" crossbuck still means that literally -- or at least to slow way down.
The jury had to make all sort of assumptions contrary to any evidence in order to hold BNSF 90 percent liable. The jury apparently chose not to assume that a car packed with people being driven at speed after dark in a small town is not the safest way to go over a grade crossing; Or no more than 10%. This is casuistry on the order of "No witness actually saw the bullet leave the gun."
Personally, I hope the RR appeals.
BucyrusIf 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.
If you read the original story, BNSF apparently did produce the recording that the signals were working during the trial. It appears they did not, however, provide it to the police at the scene. I have no way of knowing if it was in the form of a trace graph, or digital storage. Presumably a smooth lawyer convinced a gullible jury that since an opportunity may have existed, the big bad railroad had taken advantage of the gap to tamper with the recording. Digital raw data is often not user friendly, a great advantage when it comes to confusing the ignorant.
It also tends to highlight the reality that the police can be unwilling to admit their own limitations when it comes to investigating accidents. I am not another cop-basher, merely observing that they sometimes don't have all the specialized knowledge required, and certain arrogant ones refuse to acknowledge this. Obviously they should have immediately asked the railroad personnel on the scene for the recording, but like many in the general public, didn't realize such a thing existed. Meanwhile the local signal tech followed normal procedure and forwarded it through internal railroad channels to the Claims department. No doubt the scene was gruesome enough that not many people were thinking in dry legal terms at the time.
John
I have often thought of a long pointed wedge car mounted at the front of each train. Maybe with this wedge, cars and other obstructions on the tracks would be pushed aside or up in the air over the loco instead of being impacted by the loco like a giant sledgehammer. I think more and then I wakeup back to reality. You can't fix stupid.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
cx500 Bucyrus 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. If you read the original story, BNSF apparently did produce the recording that the signals were working during the trial. It appears they did not, however, provide it to the police at the scene. I have no way of knowing if it was in the form of a trace graph, or digital storage. Presumably a smooth lawyer convinced a gullible jury that since an opportunity may have existed, the big bad railroad had taken advantage of the gap to tamper with the recording. Digital raw data is often not user friendly, a great advantage when it comes to confusing the ignorant. It also tends to highlight the reality that the police can be unwilling to admit their own limitations when it comes to investigating accidents. I am not another cop-basher, merely observing that they sometimes don't have all the specialized knowledge required, and certain arrogant ones refuse to acknowledge this. Obviously they should have immediately asked the railroad personnel on the scene for the recording, but like many in the general public, didn't realize such a thing existed. Meanwhile the local signal tech followed normal procedure and forwarded it through internal railroad channels to the Claims department. No doubt the scene was gruesome enough that not many people were thinking in dry legal terms at the time. John
Bucyrus 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.
John,
What you are suggesting does seem like the most plausible explanation of what happened in the trial. I assume that BNSF presented the data that proved that the signals were working. The families’ lawyers pretended that they doubted the accuracy of the evidence. Then they charged that the inaccuracy was motivated by BNSF trying to cover up the truth about the signals not working. This charge fell on very fertile ground with general societal perception these days that large corporations are evil and greedy. They simply buried BNSF with the stigma of dishonesty, and then the premise that the signals did not work was the only explanation for the crash that fit the picture.
Re: "Then they charged that the inaccuracy was motivated by BNSF trying to cover up the truth about the signals not working. This charge fell on very fertile ground with general societal perception these days that large corporations are evil and greedy. They simply buried BNSF with the stigma of dishonesty, and then the premise that the signals did not work was the only explanation for the crash that fit the picture."
I think you're right. Lawyers have a term for this kind of verdict: the railroad got "hometowned." - a.s.
Revenge was looked for---and achieved---by lawsuit.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
On appeal the ENTIRE verdict will be thrown OUT. In the END the Family will get NOTHING.
In this Anoka case, it is ironic that the BNSF lost the case because of the signals and gates, when those safety measures are expected to prevent crashes and lower the railroad company’s liability compared to their liability for passive or un-signalized crossings.
Could the families have won this case if there were no signals and gates at this crossing?
Is a signalized crossing with failed signals more dangerous to drivers than a crossing that is not equipped with signals?
the key is that nobody carries a desk top into the field and most officials are not carring laptops into the field either, with out these you will not see what is recorded. and the police does not have the soft ware to run the programs for reading the tapes. hence they wont get a copy of this. Now if they want to go to the yard office they will get to see all they need to see. The truth is someone made it sound like they would not give up the info, when they really dont have the means to read it. the card readers are totally differant from what the public gets in older engines its a 8 track tape cartage. and in the newer engines its the size of a credit card and in the bungalo its the same size if i recall as the newer engines( same type) and for the railveiw cameras they just bring a new box out and swap them. The law says that you are innocent til proven guilty in a court of law ( exception is unless your a railroad or employee of railroad then your guilty automaticly, )
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to criminal law. This was a civil case.
The plaintiff's lawyers poisoned the evidence pool through the media and then whined and played the equity card. Nothing new - sad to see they found a judge gullible enough to go along with the jury. As for the appeal, hope they can find a flaw to appeal on. (We saw the same outcome with the assinine Missy Martin/Castle Rock court case here.)
It is interesting to consider that in the final analysis, according to traffic laws, a driver would be at fault in any collision with a train at an active grade crossing, even if the signals had failed to activate. But I guess that, in a civil case, the negligence of a failed signal can outweigh the failure to obey the traffic law.
Bucyrus It is interesting to consider that in the final analysis, according to traffic laws, a driver would be at fault in any collision with a train at an active grade crossing, even if the signals had failed to activate. But I guess that, in a civil case, the negligence of a failed signal can outweigh the failure to obey the traffic law.
The reality of it is if somebody does something stupid at a railroad crossing such as drive around gates never stop walk down the tracks with headphones on or jump on a moving train and fall under it and in any of these or countless other ways to get hurt or killed by the railroad it is not their fault it is the railroads fault. at least in the eyes of the court system
wabash1 Bucyrus It is interesting to consider that in the final analysis, according to traffic laws, a driver would be at fault in any collision with a train at an active grade crossing, even if the signals had failed to activate. But I guess that, in a civil case, the negligence of a failed signal can outweigh the failure to obey the traffic law. The reality of it is if somebody does something stupid at a railroad crossing such as drive around gates never stop walk down the tracks with headphones on or jump on a moving train and fall under it and in any of these or countless other ways to get hurt or killed by the railroad it is not their fault it is the railroads fault. at least in the eyes of the court system
The onus is now on the corporate side to prove their case. The unfortunate thing is that we are now seeing the result of what happens when we turn everything up on its ears. Common sense no longer is here--it is in the shadows, in the underground now----
Bucyrus In this Anoka case, it is ironic that the BNSF lost the case because of the signals and gates, when those safety measures are expected to prevent crashes and lower the railroad company’s liability compared to their liability for passive or un-signalized crossings. Could the families have won this case if there were no signals and gates at this crossing? Is a signalized crossing with failed signals more dangerous to drivers than a crossing that is not equipped with signals?
Could we see a return to "Stop, Look, Listen"? Imagine the ears being part of that sensory field we would use to protect us" If Only We Had A Brain". Imagine the possibility that we could use the dang thing for more than a hat rack----
I really think the problem comes back to the issue that we give up responsiblity when we come to rely on equipment to the work for us. The crossings were only as good as the protecting devices were used as an adjunct to, and not the replacement of, self discernment.
I can understand the reason why railroads would be a tempting target for lawsuits. They have deep pockets, and everybody on a jury knows they are notoriously dangerous. So all the plaintiff has to do is convince a jury that a little bit of that danger was negligence. But surely the industry does not lose every case to grade crossing violators, do they?
When I suggested that railroads might need a different kind of presentation to convince a jury that the signals were working, I was thinking of a video recording. It seems to me that if BNSF could have gone into court with an unambiguous video showing the gates and lights working, the car maneuvering around the lowered gates, and the point of impact, I don’t think a jury could be persuaded that it was the railroad company’s fault. Does every locomotive have a video camera recording the track ahead these days that would make such a crash witness video possible?
I have never seen crossing signals fail to activate, but I have seen them falsely activate many dozens of times. But I do understand that is it possible for them to fail to activate even though it is apparently rare. It would be interesting to know the specific instances where signals have been known to fail to activate. But there are reasons why this information is not forthcoming. Victim advocacy groups would have you believe that failure to activate happens very often, and often leads to grade crossing crashes. Are they exaggerating for their own interest? Does the railroad industry exaggerate the infrequency of crossing signal failure to activate?
I can certainly understand the motive of victims to falsely claim that the signals had failed to activate. But in this day and age, you would think that signal activation could be clearly established by either a trackside or locomotive mounted device or a combination of the two. For as important as the signal activation event is, it ought not be left to accounts from eyewitnesses who have a stake in the legal outcome.
I have read an article in the NY Times that discusses failure to activate as being a big problem nationwide. They cite several cases of complete failure and also something they call “short signal,” meaning failure to provide at least 20 seconds of warning before the train reaches the crossing. They concentrate a lot of scrutiny on Amtrak trains, and make the case that their different type of braking can render the locomotive incapable of activating grade crossing signals.
Here it is, but the link may not work for long unless you register:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
BucyrusThey cite several cases of complete failure and also something they call “short signal,” meaning failure to provide at least 20 seconds of warning before the train reaches the crossing
I have observed a short signal several times on Miami's Tri-Rail between Metro - Rail and Airport station.
blue streak 1BucyrusThey cite several cases of complete failure and also something they call “short signal,” meaning failure to provide at least 20 seconds of warning before the train reaches the crossing I have observed a short signal several times on Miami's Tri-Rail between Metro - Rail and Airport station.
Generally the design requirement for crossing circuits is that the flashing lights and bells be activated at least 20 seconds before a train traveling at the maximum permitted speed fouls the crossing. Another couple of seconds are added to allow for the system to activate. The gates start dropping several seconds after the lights.
So if there is less than 20 seconds, it may mean the engineer was speeding. Some crossings have speed prediction (with various levels of intelligence) so that slow trains are not triggering the system too far in advance, or so a stopped train will release the warning system. In this case I suppose it is possible the designers may not have properly allowed for an accelerating train.
And another time when the warning could be short is if a train reverses direction before completely clearing the end of the circuit. Simple circuit logic doesn't realize the train is not going away and will only activate the warning system when the lead car reaches the insulated joint right by the crossing. But in this case speeds are usually slow and there should be a crew member protecting the point.
Single RDCs were sometimes unreliable when it came to triggering CTC track circuits, especially when travelling fast. Dispatchers didn't like it when they failed to drop an OS circuit and they had to wait for it to time out, or the train disappeared for a while on their board. I suspect that certain CTC installations may have had lower sensitivity, since the problem did not seem to be universal.
On very rarely used lines, rusty rails can prevent the system sensing the presence of a train and crews are ordered to be prepared to stop and flag the crossing if necessary.
Complete failure is generally due to a major blackout that lasts longer than the back-up batteries can handle. But anything built by man can fail although the safeguards built into railroad signals make such incidents vanishingly rare (I know of none). Such safety does not come cheap, and the cost of even a simple crossing warning system is many, many times that of a traffic light.
Quick question:
In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?
Bucyrus Quick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?
al-in-chgo Bucyrus Quick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings? Routinely? Just a WAG: The Acela in Connecticut, 125 mph. - a.s.
Routinely? Just a WAG: The Acela in Connecticut, 125 mph. - a.s.
Yes, there is trackage in CT that the Acela and Regionals travel on that has crossings, but I think the speed there is (only) 90 MPH...
BucyrusQuick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?
124 mph is the legal maximum speed. See 49CFR213.347 and 49CFR213.307
Al, Tyler, and RWM,
Thanks for your input on maximum speeds over grade crossings.
Regarding your point about the signal triggering problems with RDCs, I have heard of this. Not only were the problems due to relatively lightweight of RDCs, but also due to the fact that they have disc brakes. Without brakes acting upon the wheel treads, a buildup of dirt and oil would develop. The self-cleaning nature of the wheel running on the rails was not sufficient to prevent this buildup.
The article linked above, refers to signal triggering inadequacy that seems to be associated with Amtrak locomotives, and specifically related to the braking systems on those locomotives, which is said to be different than on other locomotives. But they stop there and don’t describe the difference in braking systems. Do some Amtrak locomotives have disc brakes?
Railway Man Bucyrus Quick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings? 124 mph is the legal maximum speed. See 49CFR213.347 and 49CFR213.307 RWM
Yesterday I was in Davenport IA, crossing the Iowa Interstate tracks at Marquette St, when I saw a distant grade crossing lights activate. Having my camera with me, I drove around the block to get my first pic of a IAIS train at that location. Then I saw it was a false activation. I waited around for a few minutes, then another activattion for about a minute. During that time, some drivers drove through without stopping, sight lines are good. Two city buses stopped & proceeded. Then later, false activation happened again. After I left, a car was hit by a train, & that was the third accident at that location recently. Luckily, no fatalities. Comments in the local paper suggest that faulty activations are common. I have no idea if IAIS is aware of the problem. A question. May school buses stop & proceed through false activation of lights? How about gates?
Here's what we were told in driver's ed back in 1990. If you come up to a crossing that just has lights (no gates), the lights are flashing, and no train is approaching or is stopped, you can proceed across after coming to a complete stop and determining that no train is approaching. If you come up to a crossing that has gates, the lights are flashing, the gates are down, and no train is approaching or is stopped, you cannot go around the gates unless flagged around by a railroad employee or law enforcement.
When we were doing the driving part of driver's ed, I was driving, and we came up to a crossing that just had lights and no gates. The lights were flashing, and I stopped the car. Our instructor told me to go across once we turned off the radio, rolled down the windows, and determined that no train was approaching. I was hesitant to go across since it was just a few months after a friend of mine was killed on his way to school when he ran the stop signs at an unprotected crossing south of our high school and went into the side of the westbound Capitol Limited (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html).
spokyone Yesterday I was in Davenport IA, crossing the Iowa Interstate tracks at Marquette St, when I saw a distant grade crossing lights activate. Having my camera with me, I drove around the block to get my first pic of a IAIS train at that location. Then I saw it was a false activation. I waited around for a few minutes, then another activattion for about a minute. During that time, some drivers drove through without stopping, sight lines are good. Two city buses stopped & proceeded. Then later, false activation happened again. After I left, a car was hit by a train, & that was the third accident at that location recently. Luckily, no fatalities. Comments in the local paper suggest that faulty activations are common. I have no idea if IAIS is aware of the problem. A question. May school buses stop & proceed through false activation of lights? How about gates?
That is the hidden danger of false activation. That is, that it is like crying wolf. It does not justify or excuse ignoring the signals, but it does encourage it. I would suggest that a crossing signal that commonly false activates has a relatively higher probability of being ignored or violated than a signal that operates properly most of the time.
I don’t know what the rules are pertaining to school buses needing to cross against signals that are falsely activating. The rules for this may be different than for cars, and those rules probably vary from state to state. Likewise, there may be special rules for trucks carrying flammable materials in the same circumstances. However, as Kevin has mentioned above, cars are permitted to proceed through a crossing against the flashing signals, after stopping, if there are no trains approaching, or if a train is stopped clear of the crossing, in some, if not all states.
But if there are gates, and they are down, the road is considered to be closed. It is not permissible to go around the gates in many, if not all states.
Bucyrus That is the hidden danger of false activation. That is, that it is like crying wolf. It does not justify or excuse ignoring the signals, but it does encourage it. I would suggest that a crossing signal that commonly false activates has a relatively higher probability of being ignored or violated than a signal that operates properly most of the time.
For me I have seen a couple of false activations near where I work but due to background noise of the area and the fact to track curves on either side, I won't risk crossing. However I did get out of my car once after waiting 15 minutes and no sign of train (I always have an "emergency" train camera available) walk up to the gate (I was the first car in line) to get the 800 number and called them. They asked for the gate designation and my phone number, and then called me back in ~2 min to tell me no train was in the area. Whether you would consider this smart and/or legal or not is debatable but at least people get notified of a possible gate malfunction and I felt safe driving across without getting killed.
PS if I do see someone driving around gates when I am also waiting I sometimes get a good picture just in case. My work depends on the railcars getting through to/from my place of employment so I have a vested interest in not having a branchline get shut down due to lawsuits.
Bucyrus I have read an article in the NY Times that discusses failure to activate as being a big problem nationwide. They cite several cases of complete failure and also something they call “short signal,” meaning failure to provide at least 20 seconds of warning before the train reaches the crossing. They concentrate a lot of scrutiny on Amtrak trains, and make the case that their different type of braking can render the locomotive incapable of activating grade crossing signals. Here it is, but the link may not work for long unless you register: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I have never in my life read an article more filled with outright lies. I sent the NY Times ombudsman several letters at the time expressing my dismay but none were answered.
cx500Generally the design requirement for crossing circuits is that the flashing lights and bells be activated at least 20 seconds before a train traveling at the maximum permitted speed fouls the crossing. Another couple of seconds are added to allow for the system to activate. The gates start dropping several seconds after the lights.So if there is less than 20 seconds, it may mean the engineer was speeding. Some crossings have speed prediction (with various levels of intelligence) so that slow trains are not triggering the system too far in advance, or so a stopped train will release the warning system. In this case I suppose it is possible the designers may not have properly allowed for an accelerating train.And another time when the warning could be short is if a train reverses direction before completely clearing the end of the circuit. Simple circuit logic doesn't realize the train is not going away and will only activate the warning system when the lead car reaches the insulated joint right by the crossing. But in this case speeds are usually slow and there should be a crew member protecting the point. Single RDCs were sometimes unreliable when it came to triggering CTC track circuits, especially when travelling fast. Dispatchers didn't like it when they failed to drop an OS circuit and they had to wait for it to time out, or the train disappeared for a while on their board. I suspect that certain CTC installations may have had lower sensitivity, since the problem did not seem to be universal.On very rarely used lines, rusty rails can prevent the system sensing the presence of a train and crews are ordered to be prepared to stop and flag the crossing if necessary.Complete failure is generally due to a major blackout that lasts longer than the back-up batteries can handle. But anything built by man can fail although the safeguards built into railroad signals make such incidents vanishingly rare (I know of none). Such safety does not come cheap, and the cost of even a simple crossing warning system is many, many times that of a traffic light.John
In the U.S. the standard warning time is 25 seconds. To this we add 5 seconds for equipment activation times, 1-5 seconds for vehicle clearance times if more than one track is inside the signals (depending on # of tracks and track centerline spacing), and additional time for traffic signal intertie pre-empt time, if such is included. The approach circuit is established at the distance calculated for that total time for the maximum authorized train speed limit on the subdivision. Thus, if the warning time is less, it is because the train is either in excess of the maximum authorized subdivision speed, or the train did not shunt the circuit, or the equipment malfunctioned.
There are few remaining signalized crossings in the U.S. without a Grade Crossing Predictor (GCP), which provides a constant warning time regardless of the train speed, direction, acceleration, deceleration, or reversal of direction. Similarly, there are few remaining crossings without event recorders that provide information about the warning time, the apparent speed of the train entering the approach circuit and any train speed changes, battery health, and so forth.
Railway Man I have never in my life read an article more filled with outright lies. I sent the NY Times ombudsman several letters at the time expressing my dismay but none were answered. RWM
Back around 1994, I wrote a letter to CBS regarding their clip on "Eye to Eye" with Connie Chung about railroad crossing accidents. They basically made it look like crossing accidents were the fault of the railroads, showing people going around lowered gates as well as telling about and showing accidents. They even had a camera crew on a crossing as the gates were coming down so they could film a train coming at the camera. I think my letter wound up at seven pages long with everything I had issues with on the show.
Re: " Here it is, but the link may not work for long unless you register:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D61739F933A05751C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "
I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece. Superior journalism at the NY TIMES, huh...
If you'll p-m me your contact at the paper, I'll give him/her a piece of my mind, too.
- a.s.
PS: I was able to read the article without logging in or registering at the site.
I had the link open for a while when I first looked at it, but after some time, it went away and said that I had to register in order to see it. That is why I was not sure if it would hold up here.
The piece seems targeted to people who might end up on juries like the one in the Anoka crash. The theme is that there are far more signal failure-to-activate incidents than are officially tallied. I cannot pick out and verify the lies, but I have no doubt as to their existence. But aside from lies, the article seems like it is advancing an agenda when it mentions that MOW equipment fails to activate crossing signals, but fails to mention that such equipment is supposed to yield to motor vehicles at grade crossings.
Also indicative of an ulterior motive is the fact that the article cites the total number of phone calls about crossing malfunctions, which includes false activation as well as failure to activate, while the actual problem that is the subject of the article is only related to a failure to activate.
It mentions that many grade crossing signal failures are hard to confirm, leaving the impression that the only way to confirm them is to test the equipment after a crash, and discover that it fails again upon testing. This reinforces the impression that signal failure-to-activate cases occur often, but are not confirmed or counted in many cases.
The NY Times says they found, within a 4-year period, 400 grade crossing crashes where the signals either did not activate or were alleged to have malfunctioned. Yet the statistic is meaningless unless we are told how many of the 400 cases involved signals that did not activate, and how many involved signals that were alleged to have malfunctioned. The truth might be that one case involved a signal that did not activate, and the other 399 cases involved signals that were alleged to have malfunctioned. And all of the allegers may have lied for all we know. And even with those loopholes in the evidence, the Times admits that they don’t know what role the alleged malfunctions played in the crashes, it any. And finally, they do not tell us how many of the 45 deaths arising from this 4-year analysis were caused by signal failure-to-activate, yet that is the theme of the article.
There are a few things that have not been brought out in this discussion. The BNSF and Ferry Street in Anoka Minnesota do not cross at right angles; seeing an oncoming train is difficult in both directions. The BNSF tracks run Northwest Southeast while Ferry street runs North and South. The BNSF track is double track and has 30 plus freights and Amtrak which would be doing 90 crossing Ferry Street.
BNSF approaches Anoka through Coon Rapids which has several grade crossings.The suburb and its residents have had a less than cordial relationship over train noise. Train whistles are forbidden at many crossings in Coon Rapids. BNSF lawyers should have checked the jury pool to see if jurors lived in Coon Rapids and how they felt about BNSF and train noise.
BNSF has had at least three incidents in which one of their trains has hit a tresspasser resulting in death.The Twin Cities media has been very sympathetic to the victims.They seem anti-train. I notice that BNSF special agents have zero tolerence for tresspassers on the tracks out of Northtown.
I think most of the general public who lives near or commutes over a crossing has at one time or another observed a false activation of the crossing signals. Having personally seen one failure mode, a false activation; they then assume the opposite failure mode, a failure to operate, occurs with the same frequency. Presumably the railroads have the data that would refute the same frequency idea, but to present it in court they would have to admit failures to operate do happen.
As video becomes increasing standard in locomotives, one would assume this problem would tend to be minimized.
al-in-chgo I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece.
I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece.
You've obviously never watched the "fair and balanced" (?) news on Fox. Also keep in mind that the Chicago Tribune is regularly accused of having a liberal (!) bias.
aricatThere are a few things that have not been brought out in this discussion. The BNSF and Ferry Street in Anoka Minnesota do not cross at right angles; seeing an oncoming train is difficult in both directions. The BNSF tracks run Northwest Southeast while Ferry street runs North and South. The BNSF track is double track and has 30 plus freights and Amtrak which would be doing 90 crossing Ferry Street. BNSF approaches Anoka through Coon Rapids which has several grade crossings.The suburb and its residents have had a less than cordial relationship over train noise. Train whistles are forbidden at many crossings in Coon Rapids. BNSF lawyers should have checked the jury pool to see if jurors lived in Coon Rapids and how they felt about BNSF and train noise. BNSF has had at least three incidents in which one of their trains has hit a tresspasser resulting in death.The Twin Cities media has been very sympathetic to the victims.They seem anti-train. I notice that BNSF special agents have zero tolerence for tresspassers on the tracks out of Northtown.
In my experience, it's communities like this that jump up and down until their community is labeled a quiet zone, and then something like this happens, and still, they scream about how it's the railroad's fault. Quiet zones are counter-productive, and only cause more problems. If you don't like the noise, move somewhere away from the tracks. Problem solved. People don't seem to realize that the railroads didn't come up with the concept of a horn or whistle to annoy the general public, but to protect them from getting killed.
The vast majority of all grade level crossings were build after the railroad was already there.
When are we going to start a program to eliminate those crossings?
Phoebe Vet The vast majority of all grade level crossings were build after the railroad was already there. When are we going to start a program to eliminate those crossings?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are numerous facts that have not been brought out in this discussion. I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial.
The physical evidence did prove (beyond any reasonable doubt), that the vehicle was in the proper lane (all physical evidence supported and proved this), and was traveling under the posted the speed limit. The train on the other hand, was traveling above the posted limit, and the engineer did not blow the horn as required, and did not apply brakes until at least 7 seconds after the time of impact with the car (despite having testified that he watched the car drive around the gates). By the way, he also got the color of the car wrong, and identified the wrong victim as the driver. He was absolutely certain in his testimony of the driver and certain placement of the victims within the car. He got it all wrong! This was later proved through painful testimony and graphic images of injuries suffered by the occupants of the vehicle.
BNSF did in fact, abuse the legal process and WILL be sanctioned for their outrageous behavior in this case. BNSF abused the rules of discovery, destroyed critical evidence (including signal diagrams and event recorder data; contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident), altered electronic signal data, failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, and generally misled the court throughout the entire proceeding. I've not even begun to address all the issues and outright unethical behavior within the context of this post.
The comments made about the jury by some who posted comments, are simply wrong. This jury sat through weeks of lies, contradiction, and altered data offered by the railroad. They made a good and just decision.
I realize this forum is biased on the side of the railroad, but I would suggest trying to put yourselves into the same position that these kids were in the night of the accident. Until this railroad starts taking responsibility for the action and/or inactions, our rail crossings will not be safe.
Informed There are numerous facts that have not been brought out in this discussion. I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial. The physical evidence did prove (beyond any reasonable doubt), that the vehicle was in the proper lane (all physical evidence supported and proved this), and was traveling under the posted the speed limit. The train on the other hand, was traveling above the posted limit, and the engineer did not blow the horn as required, and did not apply brakes until at least 7 seconds after the time of impact with the car (despite having testified that he watched the car drive around the gates). By the way, he also got the color of the car wrong, and identified the wrong victim as the driver. He was absolutely certain in his testimony of the driver and certain placement of the victims within the car. He got it all wrong! This was later proved through painful testimony and graphic images of injuries suffered by the occupants of the vehicle. BNSF did in fact, abuse the legal process and WILL be sanctioned for their outrageous behavior in this case. BNSF abused the rules of discovery, destroyed critical evidence (including signal diagrams and event recorder data; contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident), altered electronic signal data, failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials, and generally misled the court throughout the entire proceeding. I've not even begun to address all the issues and outright unethical behavior within the context of this post. The comments made about the jury by some who posted comments, are simply wrong. This jury sat through weeks of lies, contradiction, and altered data offered by the railroad. They made a good and just decision. I realize this forum is biased on the side of the railroad, but I would suggest trying to put yourselves into the same position that these kids were in the night of the accident. Until this railroad starts taking responsibility for the action and/or inactions, our rail crossings will not be safe.
As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident.
You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings.
As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case.
As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened.
I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded.
BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit?
CSSHEGEWISCH al-in-chgo I don't know when I've seen such bias and illogic in a "news" piece. You've obviously never watched the "fair and balanced" (?) news on Fox. Also keep in mind that the Chicago Tribune is regularly accused of having a liberal (!) bias.
I don't really think of TV news as news. I was especially appalled a couple of nights ago in Elkhart when I turned on the cable TV (at home we don't have cable), landed on "Fox News" and saw a clearly opinionated show by a conservative talk-show host who used news only to editorialize upon it and harangue people who didn't hold his own right-wing views.
The NYT does indeed have a liberal, anti-private enterprise bias, in that it often takes the assumption that big companies are wrong from the git-go. This can be seen in the BNSF article which subtly downplayed any compliance the RR might have done, yet implied a lot (with no real evidence) what bad operators the co. is supposed to be (or perhaps better said, assumed to be). Little if any of this has to do with truth, logic or a coherent flow of ideas and information.
People say the TRIB is liberal? Who, Rush Limbaugh?? Most self-appointed conservative political pundits were pretty OK with the TRIB (as opposed to the rival SUN-TIMES), until the TRIB endorsed Obama in the presidential election. Ever since then, it has been a target for scorn. How does a mentality which sees only black-and-white (no pun intended) to which to subject its ideology -- how do they wind up on TV? Because people like it enough to watch it, I guess. - a.s.
Informed I sat through 5+ years of pre-trial motions, hearings, and discovery and then sat through every day of the six week trial.
Welcome to the forum. Thank you for sharing your point of view.
Welcome to the forum. I will gladly listen to and consider your account of the trial since you claim to have extensive experience with it. As I said in the first post, I have no idea what to make of the story, because I can only go by what was reported in the news, and that accounting raises many questions the go unanswered.
Reading your account and the news media’s account of the railroad’s behavior, I get the following perception: The jury concluded that the BNSF lied, destroyed incriminating evidence, were uncooperative, and generally so incorrigibly dishonest and deceitful that when they said the signals were working properly, that claim was outright rejected by the jury because the BNSF had no credibility due to their litany of bad behavior.
But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle?
The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit?
The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash?
So, what do you propose the railroad does to further crossing safety? Make trains go two miles per hour through a crossing? Seriously, though, what else can be done, and at what point is it the driver's responsibility to prevent accidents of this nature? Even if the signals aren't operating, it's must be assumed that a train may be approaching.
As for the engineer misidentifying the driver and color of the car, in traumatic events such as this, eyewitnesses generally don't give out entirely accurate info, simply because of the mind beginning to race. That doesn't prove any wrongdoing on the railroad's part. Put yourself in his position. You act as if he intended to plow through a car. This man has to go through the rest of his life with the events of that night running through his mind, and the eternal questioning of "What if?"
As for your claims of so-called "bias," it's not really that at all. As railfans, we have a general understanding of procedure, and through that, we have a hard time believing that it's completely the fault of the railroad.
Well, this certainly is interesting.
First, if you lost someone in the crash you have my condolences and sympathy.
But the railroad's highway crossings are safe. The BNSF operates from Birmingham, Alabama to Vancouver, British Columbia, from Chicago to Los Angeles, from Duluth to Phoenix, etc. They have thousands of highway crossings. Hundreds of thousands of autos cross the BNSF with safety every day.
Your understandably emotional posting focuses on irrelevent details. Why would the engineer be able to place the deceased in their proper positions in the vehicle? I think trying to get him to do so was a lawyer's trick to discredit all his testimony. That the judge allowed it speaks volumes.
You say evidence was destroyed "contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident." I don't know if evidence was destroyed or not, but by your own words you acknowledge such action would be contrary to the railroad's policies and instructions. You can't accuse the railroad of destroying evidence when senior management had policies in place and gave instructions to preserve the evidence. Maybe some employee went off on his/her own and behaved irresponsibly by loosing or destroying evidence. But that's not "The Railroad" destroying evidence.
The fact that the auto was in the "right" lane is not relevant. The driver would have had to manuever to return to the "right" lane in order to exit the crossing since the gates were down. Otherwise he would have had to intentionally crash through the lowered gate protecting the auto traffic crossing from the other direction.
One thing that is certain. The railroads do need to mount video recorders on every leading locomotive.
ungern:
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it.
I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident.
In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads.
Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time.
With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that.
I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
Thanks for the warm welcome
Bucyrus But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle? The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit? The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash?
To your point, all of the physical evidence put the vehicle in the correct lane of travel. The physical evidence included scrap marks on the pavement, fluid splatter, skid marks, and other debris. Further tests and analysis, including use of an exemplar vehicle, proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the exemplar vehicle around the gate and put it in the place that the vehicle was impacted by the locomotive. Simply put (I'm not an accident reconstruction expert), the vehicle could not have been impacted where it was, if the gates were down as originally claimed.
With respect to the assignment of fault, the jury's decision was that 90% fault was assigned to BNSF, and 10% fault was assigned to the driver. I'm not qualified to speculate on the legal question that you pose above with respect to failure to yield.
Informed Thanks for the warm welcome
WELCOME! WELCOME! WELCOME!
BNSF & DMIR 4Ever So, what do you propose the railroad does to further crossing safety? Make trains go two miles per hour through a crossing? Seriously, though, what else can be done, and at what point is it the driver's responsibility to prevent accidents of this nature? Even if the signals aren't operating, it's must be assumed that a train may be approaching. I don’t pretend to have all the answers with respect to ensuring the safety of the motoring public at rail crossings. Furthermore, while it would be my hope that we could somehow prevent these accidents from occurring, I know that it is an impossibility. Signal systems and crossing protection devices/systems can and do fail in an unsafe way, and drivers don’t always anticipate the potential dangers inherent with rail crossings. As for the engineer misidentifying the driver and color of the car, in traumatic events such as this, eyewitnesses generally don't give out entirely accurate info, simply because of the mind beginning to race. That doesn't prove any wrongdoing on the railroad's part. Put yourself in his position. You act as if he intended to plow through a car. This man has to go through the rest of his life with the events of that night running through his mind, and the eternal questioning of "What if?" I in no way, shape, or form intended to attack the Engineer. In reflecting on my own words, I now realize it may have appeared that way. Apologies all the way around in that regard. With so much of the facts presented from the eyewitness testimony later being proved inaccurate, it becomes extremely difficult to sort out what was accurate and factual. Since the railroad took the position that another victim was the driver, and the supporting evidence was the eyewitness account of the Engineer, these seemingly small details become very important. As for your claims of so-called "bias," it's not really that at all. As railfans, we have a general understanding of procedure, and through that, we have a hard time believing that it's completely the fault of the railroad. Again, no willful intention on my part to offend anyone (if I did so, apologies for that). I read every post on this thread of discussion and appreciate the insight that this group has provided. I thought long and hard about even posting my initial response. I just wanted to ensure that the full story was being represented.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers with respect to ensuring the safety of the motoring public at rail crossings. Furthermore, while it would be my hope that we could somehow prevent these accidents from occurring, I know that it is an impossibility. Signal systems and crossing protection devices/systems can and do fail in an unsafe way, and drivers don’t always anticipate the potential dangers inherent with rail crossings.
I in no way, shape, or form intended to attack the Engineer. In reflecting on my own words, I now realize it may have appeared that way. Apologies all the way around in that regard. With so much of the facts presented from the eyewitness testimony later being proved inaccurate, it becomes extremely difficult to sort out what was accurate and factual. Since the railroad took the position that another victim was the driver, and the supporting evidence was the eyewitness account of the Engineer, these seemingly small details become very important.
Again, no willful intention on my part to offend anyone (if I did so, apologies for that). I read every post on this thread of discussion and appreciate the insight that this group has provided. I thought long and hard about even posting my initial response. I just wanted to ensure that the full story was being represented.
greyhounds Well, this certainly is interesting. First, if you lost someone in the crash you have my condolences and sympathy. But the railroad's highway crossings are safe. The BNSF operates from Birmingham, Alabama to Vancouver, British Columbia, from Chicago to Los Angeles, from Duluth to Phoenix, etc. They have thousands of highway crossings. Hundreds of thousands of autos cross the BNSF with safety every day. Your understandably emotional posting focuses on irrelevent details. Why would the engineer be able to place the deceased in their proper positions in the vehicle? I think trying to get him to do so was a lawyer's trick to discredit all his testimony. That the judge allowed it speaks volumes. You say evidence was destroyed "contrary to documented policies and against specific direction from senior management of BNSF the night of the accident." I don't know if evidence was destroyed or not, but by your own words you acknowledge such action would be contrary to the railroad's policies and instructions. You can't accuse the railroad of destroying evidence when senior management had policies in place and gave instructions to preserve the evidence. Maybe some employee went off on his/her own and behaved irresponsibly by loosing or destroying evidence. But that's not "The Railroad" destroying evidence. The fact that the auto was in the "right" lane is not relevant. The driver would have had to manuever to return to the "right" lane in order to exit the crossing since the gates were down. Otherwise he would have had to intentionally crash through the lowered gate protecting the auto traffic crossing from the other direction. One thing that is certain. The railroads do need to mount video recorders on every leading locomotive.
Thanks for your concern. I think I addressed most of your questions through the responses that I provided in earlier posts.
WTR to placement of victims in the vehicle, BNSF argued and maintained a diferent victim involved in the accident was driving (for reasons only known to the railroad). In fact, this was one point that the jury was required to deliberate against and find judgement. While I can't crawl inside the head of the judge in this case, I'm quite certain that she was requried to hear the testimony at the urging of the railroad and the legal staff that represented them.
I'm not certain how to respond to your legal question regarding destruction of evidence. That question will have to answered or pondered by someone with much more experience in the law than I currently possess.
Lastly, the car could not have been impacted where it was, if the crossing arms were in fact, in the down position. It was physically impossible and that fact was proven during the trial.
Once cameras are in all locos 90% of all litigations will be eliminated and the very few that can be traced to a RR fault will be settled out of court.
blue streak 1 Once cameras are in all locos 90% of all litigations will be eliminated and the very few that can be traced to a RR fault will be settled out of court.
Informed ungern: Thank you for the thoughtful response. you're welcome. As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident. I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it. Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials. You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings. I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident. From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond? As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case. In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads. As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened. I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded. Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time. I'll let the engineers here respond to this. BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit? With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that. I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test.
you're welcome.
Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials.
From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond?
I'll let the engineers here respond to this.
I know that the the wonderful world created by lawyers these days that 62 vs 60 is the end of the world. With similar thoughts about sounding the horn. Where I work there are grade crossings after grade crossings for at least to miles with the crossing less then a quarter mile apart so sometimes I do hear not completely correct horn signals but usually I know if there is something and heavy coming and I pay very careful attention aroung these tracks because a bad day is any day that I lose my life or limb. Otherwise, I have a good day no matter how awful it my get.
PS Welcome to the forum. I hope you like trains or just want to learn to learn more about them because there are lots of knowledgable people here.
Informed Bucyrus But what was the actual direct evidence that the signals were not working? I want to know exactly how the physical evidence supported and proved that the vehicle was in the proper lane when it was hit. Was there fresh damage to the roadway or crossing surface that was within the proper lane for the vehicle? Were there tire skid marks running parallel with the tracks, and beginning within the proper lane for the vehicle? The news report linked with this thread says that the police said that the evidence at the scene was consistent with a vehicle running around the lowered gate. What evidence were they talking about? How do you reconcile their conclusion with your contention that the evidence showed the car to be in the proper lane when hit? The traffic laws state that the crossbuck at the crossing constitutes a yield sign that requires a driver to look for trains and yield if any are approaching whether the signals are activated or not. The driver failed to yield. Doesn’t that place him at fault for the crash? To your point, all of the physical evidence put the vehicle in the correct lane of travel. The physical evidence included scrap marks on the pavement, fluid splatter, skid marks, and other debris. Further tests and analysis, including use of an exemplar vehicle, proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the exemplar vehicle around the gate and put it in the place that the vehicle was impacted by the locomotive. Simply put (I'm not an accident reconstruction expert), the vehicle could not have been impacted where it was, if the gates were down as originally claimed. With respect to the assignment of fault, the jury's decision was that 90% fault was assigned to BNSF, and 10% fault was assigned to the driver. I'm not qualified to speculate on the legal question that you pose above with respect to failure to yield.
Thank you for that information. I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements. As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train. It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact.
I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate. If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate.
But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. Did you witness this test? When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.” By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean?
1) The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate.
2) The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community.
I assume that it would be item #1. I would like to know who did the test. Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train? Who was driving the vehicle? Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible. How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks?
It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates. If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks. But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate. If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over.
After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll? If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered.
This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down.
However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks. I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday. If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline. It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph. The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move.
Bucyrus Sorry for the delayed response to your post. Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked. Thank you for that information. I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements. As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train. It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact. I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate. If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate. Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both. Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts. But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. Did you witness this test? When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.” By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean? 1) The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. 2) The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community. Please appreciate that there has been considerable time that has passed since some of these events have taken place and the subject matter is very technical. That said, I will endeavor to respond with as much accuracy as possible, but I’m certain that I won’t recall every significant detail.There were two separate and distinct rounds of testing that occurred. In both scenarios, identical vehicles; right down to the pin striping, were used within the testing. The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident. As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive. The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact. In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle. The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location. The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane). Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.The second round of testing happened just before the railroad modified the configuration of the crossing. In this case the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses (certified accident reconstruction experts that had previously been retained by the National Transportation Safety Board – NTSB), conducted a series of tests to determine if it was possible to maneuver the vehicle around the gates and place it at the point of impact. I did witness some of this testing, but had no real understanding of the test at the time (i.e. the test methodology wasn’t clear to me at the time). The testing again proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the vehicle around the gate and place it at the point of impact (as determined by the physical evidence). The vehicles turning radius would not permit this to happen. In both test scenarios, recognized processes and test methodology were employed, which I’m quite certain were scientific and would stand up to peer review. These points were clearly argued and heard by the court in numerous pretrial motions filed by both sides. In my mind, my definition of “proven” would satisfy both criteria that you cited above. First, the jury did in fact accept the test and reconstruction results consistent with their finding that BNSF was negligent. Second, the test methodology and findings would in fact, stand up to peer review, were clear, and were compelling. I assume that it would be item #1. I would like to know who did the test. Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train? Who was driving the vehicle? Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible. How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks? It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates. If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks. But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate. If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over. After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll? If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered. This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down. As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed. The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.). There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me. However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did. Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact. The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers". Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph. However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks. I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday. If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline. It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph. The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move. Clearly, it is my belief that the gates and signals did not activate and this was in fact, the major contributing factor of the accident. I believe this point was clearly proven and that all of the physical evidence supports this conclusion. At this particular crossing it is difficult to see trains approaching from the Northtown yard, as there are buildings and trees which obstruct the view. If a train is approaching that crossing at 62mph and a vehicle is attempting to cross that intersection at a speed of 28mph in roughly a perpendicular direction (this crossing was not a perfect 90 degree intersection), the vehicle is nearly directly in the path of the oncoming train in less than 2 seconds before you see it. The human reaction time, as presented in trial, would not allow a normal person to react in time to prevent the accident if the signals were not functioning as designed.
Sorry for the delayed response to your post. Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked.
Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both. Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts.
The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident. As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive. The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact. In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle. The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location. The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane). Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.
As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed. The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.). There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me. However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did. Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact. The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers". Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph.
P.S. You would have made a good juror in this case.
ungern Informed ungern: Thank you for the thoughtful response. you're welcome. As for an eyewitness not getting all the facts straight, I can understand that without accosing them of lying. We all pay attention to different things and I will always believe a photo over an eyewitness everyday. I would not expect the engineer or conductor to get everything straight during an emotional/streesful situation like a deadly grade crossing incident. I understand the point you are making here, and setting this situation aside, would generally agree with you. However, the testimony that was offered in this situation was clearly "coached", even to the untrained eye. In addition, so much of the testimony was later proven inaccurate that it becomes difficult to accept most of it. Aren't most witnesses coached before trial by their sides lawyers? I thought that was normal because when I have been stuck on jury duty that is the feeling I get from all of them. BTW it seems that I get stuck on criminal jurys after the defense has used all their preemptive challenges and since I am an engineer(industrial not train type), the prosecution types like me which means I get stuck in multiday/week murder trials. You say that the railroad should take responsibility for grade crossing. How about the communities that put the road in after the railline was there? I personaly believe that for every grade crossing that is installed after a railroad is laid then the city/county/state should accept 100% liability, because if the railroads would have their way there would be 0 grade crossings. I agree with the basis of your comments. The only safe crossing is no crossing. Currently, that's not possible. While I'm not entirely certain (in other words, I could be wrong), it is my understanding that tax monies fund the installation of the crossing and warning devices. However, the railroads maintain them and claim ownership of devices, data, and resulting evidence in a situation where an accident occurs. If the railroad is uncooperative in turning over the data, supporting the investigation, or otherwise provides false assumptions to accident investigation teams on the outset, it becomes extremely difficult to understand the true nature of the accident. From what I understand(and I am not an expert) the state/county/city tells the railroad this is what we'll pay for a crossing and the railroad supplies the protection that is within that price. Anyone on this forum to explain this in more detail who actually knows the details please? So unless I am wrong if a city will only pay for a crossbucks sign that is all they get. Conversely, if a city wants four quadrant protection that is what they get. Any railroad lawyers lurking around who want to respond? As about whether evidence was destroyed the question is whether there is a systematic destruction or just individual error. Sometimes things do inadvertently get trashed. I won't argue about whether evidence was destroyed because I do not know the specific facts of the case. In my humble opinion, there was a gross systematic failure on the part of the railroad to preserve the evidence. I realize this statement could be somewhat judgmental. However, in several cases the railroad clearly failed to preserve the evidence, and in others either hid or intentionally destroyed the evidence. There were also situations where the railroad presented human altered data as factual event recorder downloads. As for placing a train into emergency many engineers on this forum would say that until an actual collision takes place they do not simply due to the risk of derailments and if the car is not hit driver will just go along his merry way without any regard to the derailment that just happened. I'll let engineers on the forum answer about possible reasons why the horn would not be sounded. Not throwing the train into emergency immediately, still puzzles me (especially when the Engineer testified that he supposedly saw them driving around the gate). If you look at the second hand on your watch while you read this response and let it fully tick down seconds, that's a really long time. I'll let the engineers here respond to this. BTW, since you at the trial what was the engineer's response to not sounding the horn and/or exceeding the speed limit? With respect to the horn, I'm not completely certain that there was no horn. In this situation there are two crossings that are geographically very close to one another; just across the river from one another. I think the horn was sounded correctly at the first of those crossings, but was not quite right for the second one. I can't recall the exact details, but the horn should sound in a series of long and short blasts before and possibly thru, the crossing. I recall that there were issues with the sequence and/or timing of the horn, but can't recall the exact details. In fairness to the Engineer, I will leave it at that. I recall that the event recorders for the locomotive showed a speed of 62 mph with a speed limit of 60 mph at the time of impact. There was a "measured mile" just past the crossing where this accident occurred and the Engineer was trying to get the locomotive up to a speed of 60 mph for that test. I know that the the wonderful world created by lawyers these days that 62 vs 60 is the end of the world. With similar thoughts about sounding the horn. Where I work there are grade crossings after grade crossings for at least to miles with the crossing less then a quarter mile apart so sometimes I do hear not completely correct horn signals but usually I know if there is something and heavy coming and I pay very careful attention aroung these tracks because a bad day is any day that I lose my life or limb. Otherwise, I have a good day no matter how awful it my get. ungern PS Welcome to the forum. I hope you like trains or just want to learn to learn more about them because there are lots of knowledgable people here.
Thanks for the warm welcome, and apologies for the delayed response.
I fully appreciate your comments regarding jury duty. However, without dedicated and commited citizens such as yourself, our legal system would implode upon itself. I'm sure your community appreciates the sacrafices you have made in the past to sit on the jury.
Thanks for your comments regarding how crossings are funded. As time permits, I will be investigating this in more detail and will report back with any significant findings.
P.S. I do like trains, and understand that the railroads provide a vital function to National Security and every day commerce. I also fully appreciate the knowledge that exists within the members of this forum and hope to be a future contributor to other subject matters as well.
Railway Man BucyrusQuick question: In the U.S., what is the highest speed that trains pass over roadway grade crossings?124 mph is the legal maximum speed. See 49CFR213.347 and 49CFR213.307
I should add that the FRA will only allow 110 mph or greater at an at-grade if it is equipped with alternative safety measures equal to or better than a grade-separation. So far, no "alternative safety measures" have been proven to be equal or better. Thus, for practical purposes, 109 mph is at present the maximum speed, not 124.RWM
A 'partial' solution: Post "STOP" signs (y'know, the octagonal red thingies that you roll thru every day) at ALL railroad crossings. Then, enforce the law! It will cost you $80, here in Montana, for not coming to a complete stop. "Going Around the Gates" will cost you $20, if proven!
Well, the 'whackos', 'loons', and 'cuckoos' are alive-and-well in my little city (pop: 3,200). The mayor wants to make the city a "Quiet Zone". With 40+ BNSF trains (when the economy recovers) passing thru, at 'Track Speed' of 45 mph (restricted), the two body shops should prosper! Only $450,000 for the extra gates and roadway divider! What a deal! I don't want to get into the trespasser (pedestrian) bit. That is really scary! Saw a grade-school kid, on his bicycle, riding no-handed, texting across the tracks, a couple of weeks ago. Some sort of 'thingies' in his ears, too!!!
BNSFwatcherSaw a grade-school kid, on his bicycle, riding no-handed, texting across the tracks, a couple of weeks ago. Some sort of 'thingies' in his ears, too!!!
Yet if he got smacked, it would be "that big, bad train."
Sheesh!
Fun and games at Ferry street crossing in Anoka; last Saturday afternoon around 3PM I noticed a female jogger running on the BNSF bridge which crosses the Rum River. This is just east of the infamous Ferry Street crossing. There were also 3 young men on the bridge and in a few seconds they would be joined by an eastbound BNSF coal train. If these dingbats had looked at the signal they would have seen it was green over red which should translate to get off the tracks! If any of these jerks had been hit by this train I am pretty sure how the local media would have reacted; BOO HOO! poor babies the big bad railroad strikes again. To paraphrase the Trix commercial; railroad tracks are for trains not silly tresspassers.
In their defense, the signals mean nothing unless you know how to read them, which I can pretty much guarantee that they don't. Some railroaders have proven that they can't, either.
However, that doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have been there in the first place...
In my neck of the woods BNSF is going to be sued for wrongful death from 2 years ago.It isnt a question if the lights were working here so i have no idea whats going to happen.Happened in Colona Illinois, Lady got trapped on the tracks and left her car. All good so far. But as the train is approaching she runs back towards her car.It gets whacked and sent into the air striking and killing her. So why dear friends is the railroad at fault here? I give up if I hit someone now I am just ready to hear how its all my fault that they were killed when I couldnt swerve.
I will try to find out more and start a new thread on this.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
route_rock In my neck of the woods BNSF is going to be sued for wrongful death from 2 years ago.It isnt a question if the lights were working here so i have no idea whats going to happen.Happened in Colona Illinois, Lady got trapped on the tracks and left her car. All good so far. But as the train is approaching she runs back towards her car.It gets whacked and sent into the air striking and killing her. So why dear friends is the railroad at fault here? I give up if I hit someone now I am just ready to hear how its all my fault that they were killed when I couldnt swerve. I will try to find out more and start a new thread on this.
Was it because the engineer stuck his head out the window and hollered, "C'mon! I double-dog dare you!"
Sorry. I guess humor is inappropriate but some behavior is so grossly ludicrous that gallows humor is sometimes the only way out. .
Is there perhaps more than we've been told? Seems to me sometimes the "evil" RR co's look that way because of omissions, not always additions. This holds true for the "trusting" motorists going "home, as s/he had every day for the past twenty years." - a.s.
aricat Fun and games at Ferry street crossing in Anoka; last Saturday afternoon around 3PM I noticed a female jogger running on the BNSF bridge which crosses the Rum River. This is just east of the infamous Ferry Street crossing. There were also 3 young men on the bridge and in a few seconds they would be joined by an eastbound BNSF coal train. If these dingbats had looked at the signal they would have seen it was green over red which should translate to get off the tracks! If any of these jerks had been hit by this train I am pretty sure how the local media would have reacted; BOO HOO! poor babies the big bad railroad strikes again. To paraphrase the Trix commercial; railroad tracks are for trains not silly tresspassers.
Is there something in the water in Anoka?
I guess since these "victims" have no capacity for independent thought, everything will have to be thunk out for them. Kind of like birth control: "Don't, but if you do, wear a condom." The local RR: "You are never welcome to cross the track or walk down them or cross a bridge, and it doesn't matter if everyone else does." Followed by: "For heaven't sake! Don't you know a green light on top means a train is coming up behind you?" Notice that if the townies had stuck to their side of the bargain, such foreknowldge of RR operating practices would not be necessary. - a.s.
The one thing that I just don't get is a car full of teens and early 20's is actually doing under the speed limit, with a car full of beers that were not open before the crash, going to a party at 10pm and none of them had any blood alcohol level at all.
It is interesting the huge variance in what the police said at the scene (including noting that the gates were working) and at the trial. I suppose access to the photos of the scene would help understand where everything took place. Just reading it does not do it.
I am not surprised the engineer did not get basic facts right (just try to get 2 witnesses to give the same description of anything), nor am I surprised the witnesses seemed "coached" (they probably went over their testimony 100 times with the attorneys). It would be interesting to see the transcripts from the trial as well, just to get an idea of what was said when.
If, IF, the United States really wants fast train service, the best course is to pass a federal statute prohibiting lawsuits against railroads or their agents for injuries or deaths caused to non-employees by trains on railroad tracks; the basis would be that such lawsuits unduly burden interstate commerce. To alleviate howls from those who think otherwise, the feds could promote an insurance fund that the feds would administer to pay medical costs and other readily ascertainable costs to the victims. People who lack the sense to stay off railroad tracks are of course stupid beyond reform. Sadly, we let them vote.
If the United States really wants fast train service they will begin a program that over time will totally eliminate grade crossings.
Informed Bucyrus Sorry for the delayed response to your post. Wow, you have really put some thought into this post and my response will unfortunately not be as articulate with respect to many of the questions you asked. Thank you for that information. I appreciate the insight you have provided and the clarity of your statements. As I understand it, the crash scene evidence places the car within its proper lane of travel at the point that it was struck dead center by the train. It has been reported that the car was verified to have been traveling at 28 mph at the point of impact. I further understand that actual vehicle testing at the site proved conclusively that the car, when struck, was positioned in its own lane, parallel with it, and that it could not have gotten into that position had it run around the first gate. If that is true, I can see no explanation other than that the gates failed to activate. Your understanding is correct, based upon the testimony and evidence that was submitted at the trial along with the conclusions that were drawn from both. Furthermore, if the gates did in fact function correctly that night, there would have been proof of evasive maneuvering actions left on the road, and a very different debris field from what was catalogued, photographed, inventoried, measured, and analyzed by the State Patrol and other accident reconstruction experts. But since the whole case pivots on whether the gates and signals were activated, I have lingering questions about the demonstration that proved that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. Did you witness this test? When you say that this was proven, I have a question about the term, “proven.” By “proven,” which of the following two definitions do you mean? 1) The jury simply accepted the outcome of the test with the exemplar vehicle as proof that the car could not have gotten into the location where it was hit had it run around the first lowered gate. 2) The test with exemplar vehicle proved that outcome in a scientific manner that would with withstand the peer review of the scientific community. Please appreciate that there has been considerable time that has passed since some of these events have taken place and the subject matter is very technical. That said, I will endeavor to respond with as much accuracy as possible, but I’m certain that I won’t recall every significant detail.There were two separate and distinct rounds of testing that occurred. In both scenarios, identical vehicles; right down to the pin striping, were used within the testing. The first set of testing was conducted by the State Troopers and happened within days of the accident. As I understand it (I did not witness this testing), they were operating on the basis that it was a fact that the motorist had driven around the gates and was struck by the locomotive. The State Patrol was puzzled by the physical evidence and obtained an exemplar vehicle in an attempt to determine the point of impact. In short, they tried to match the vehicle and related gouge marks and skid marks on the road surface with that of the exemplar vehicle. The conclusion from that round of testing was that the vehicle could not be placed where the physical evidence remained, without placing the vehicle in reverse and the driver performing a series of maneuvers to place the vehicle in the proper location. The railroad and their expert witnesses later maintained that the locomotive magically lifted the vehicle at the point of impact and dropped it in the location where all of the physical evidence was found (in the proper lane). Again, there was no physical evidence of the vehicle ever being located where the railroad maintained, and the locomotive struck the vehicle above the center of gravity of the vehicle itself.The second round of testing happened just before the railroad modified the configuration of the crossing. In this case the Plaintiff’s expert witnesses (certified accident reconstruction experts that had previously been retained by the National Transportation Safety Board – NTSB), conducted a series of tests to determine if it was possible to maneuver the vehicle around the gates and place it at the point of impact. I did witness some of this testing, but had no real understanding of the test at the time (i.e. the test methodology wasn’t clear to me at the time). The testing again proved that it was physically impossible to maneuver the vehicle around the gate and place it at the point of impact (as determined by the physical evidence). The vehicles turning radius would not permit this to happen. In both test scenarios, recognized processes and test methodology were employed, which I’m quite certain were scientific and would stand up to peer review. These points were clearly argued and heard by the court in numerous pretrial motions filed by both sides. In my mind, my definition of “proven” would satisfy both criteria that you cited above. First, the jury did in fact accept the test and reconstruction results consistent with their finding that BNSF was negligent. Second, the test methodology and findings would in fact, stand up to peer review, were clear, and were compelling. I assume that it would be item #1. I would like to know who did the test. Was the exemplar vehicle identical to the vehicle that was struck by the train? Who was driving the vehicle? Any driver making this desperate maneuver while actually trying to beat a train is going to try as hard as they can to get back into their lane as quickly as possible. How do you know that the driver of the test vehicle made the maximum effort to get back into his lane before reaching the tracks? It would be possible to run the test where the only objective was to miss both gates. If you did that, the car would probably be straddling the two lanes as it crossed the railroad centerline between the two tracks. But still, it may be possible to get back into the proper lane earlier by steering into that lane tighter after going around the first lowered gate. If one were to steer tight enough, the car would go into a side skid or roll over. After going around the first lowered gate, did the test driver push this return steer tight enough to cause the car to go into a side skid, or begin to rise up on two wheels and begin to roll? If he did not, I don’t see how the test can conclude that the vehicle in the crash could not have gotten into that position if it ran around the first gate when lowered. This might seem like nit picking, but the outcome of this test would be riding a very fine line between proving that the gates were either up or down. As you can rightly conclude from my response above, this specific set of tests were not performed. The State Patrol testified that if a vehicle were to make evasive maneuvers of this type, there would most certainly be evidence of such (skid marks, braking, black box data from the vehicle, physical damage left on the vehicle, etc.). There was a technical term that they used to describe this scenario and that term now escapes me. However, they clearly stated that the driver did not perform these actions, and that no evidence was found to suggest that they did. Either way, the vehicle would still have to back up to properly place it at the point of impact. The State Patrol described these sets of movements as "parallel parking maneuvers". Clearly, this didn't happen while the vehicle was moving in the forward direction at a speed of 28 mph. However, in thinking about this further, if the car was southbound and the train eastbound as has been mentioned in this thread, then the car would probably have encountered the train on the first of the two tracks. I looked at some single-track crossings yesterday. If the distance between the gate and that first track at the Anoka crossing is similar to the gate-to-track distance in a single track crossing, I think it would be impossible to go around the lowered gate and get fully back into the proper lane and squared up with it upon reaching the track centerline. It might not be possible at the lowest possible vehicle speed, let alone at 28 mph. The steering geometry of the vehicle may simply have not permitted the move. Clearly, it is my belief that the gates and signals did not activate and this was in fact, the major contributing factor of the accident. I believe this point was clearly proven and that all of the physical evidence supports this conclusion. At this particular crossing it is difficult to see trains approaching from the Northtown yard, as there are buildings and trees which obstruct the view. If a train is approaching that crossing at 62mph and a vehicle is attempting to cross that intersection at a speed of 28mph in roughly a perpendicular direction (this crossing was not a perfect 90 degree intersection), the vehicle is nearly directly in the path of the oncoming train in less than 2 seconds before you see it. The human reaction time, as presented in trial, would not allow a normal person to react in time to prevent the accident if the signals were not functioning as designed. P.S. You would have made a good juror in this case.
Thanks again for your response. I have as few other thoughts. From your description, I understand that the test was conducted by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol along with other independent experts, and that the test came to its own objective conclusion of proof that the signals had failed to activate. It was not a scenario of testing, then presenting the test results to the jury, and then the jury concluding the test result. From your description, I also conclude that the proper lane for the car was the second lane that the train would have crossed within the crossing.
You mentioned the contention of the BNSF that the locomotive lifted the vehicle upon impact when the vehicle was in the improper lane, and then the vehicle made contact with the roadway once it had been pushed into its proper lane. That alone strikes me as something that would hard to prove or disprove. I think that lift-upon-impact could very well occur notwithstanding the fact that the locomotive struck the vehicle above the vehicle’s center of gravity as you mentioned. In fact, I am skeptical of that claim about the center of gravity, and don’t see the relevance of the vehicle center of gravity in relation to the point of impact. The point of impact was higher than the vehicle contact with the roadway, so, no matter where on the vehicle, the locomotive struck the it, the force would tend to roll the vehicle forward ahead of the locomotive, thus pushing down hard on the two tires on the side opposite the impact point. This would of course conflict with the theory of lifting the vehicle.
But I am not sure how that plays out at a high-speed impact in which the effect might actually support the theory of lifting the vehicle. With many locomotives, the initial point of contact with the vehicle would be quite low on the vehicle, say about one foot above the pavement level. This general locomotive pilot configuration goes all the way back to the development of the cowcatcher, which was intentionally designed to lift the object being struck so it would not be drawn under the locomotive and thereby derail it. So, at first contact in this Anoka crash, depending on the locomotive type, much of the vehicle height would be one foot or so away from the higher areas of the locomotive pilot features. This would cause the vehicle to roll into the locomotive rather than away from it upon impact.
Therefore, I suspect that the impact could indeed lift the vehicle away from pavement contact initially as BNSF contended. You mentioned that their theory was disproved on the basis that there was no pavement marking evidence in the improper lane for the vehicle. However, that would be the point of the BNSF theory, which suggested there was no pavement evidence because the locomotive had lifted the vehicle off of the pavement. So the lack of pavement evidence in the improper lane would support the BNSF theory rather than refute it.
Also, the lack of the debris field existing in the improper lane for the vehicle would not refute the possibility that the point of impact was in that improper lane. The vehicle and all of the dislodged pieces would be thrown forward upon impact, so they would be expected to come to rest beyond the crash point. The whole case was only debating a crash location difference of about 30 feet or so. At an impact of 62 mph from a train, where the car takes 100% of the impact, it is hard to imagine any lose part of the vehicle coming to rest on the ground as early in the crash progression as the point of impact.
So regarding the theory of BNSF-- that the vehicle was lifted upon impact while in the improper lane, after having driven around the lowered gate, and thus made no marks on the pavement in the improper lane, I fail to see how their theory has been disproved
The conclusion by the State Patrol about the steering geometry of the vehicle not permitting the vehicle to have been driven around the gate and maneuvered back into the proper lane on the track center does seem compelling and conclusive in the context of its conclusion. However, it is irrelevant if the vehicle was actually struck while in the improper lane. And I don't see compelling evidence proving otherwise.
To sum up my thoughts, I do not believe that the beginning of the debris field or the marks on the roadway necessarily coincide with the point of impact. So I see no possible way of determining where the point of impact was. All that can be concluded for certain is that the beginning of the debris field and marks on the roadway could not have preceded the point of impact. But it seems perfectly plausible that the point of impact may have preceded those items of evidence by 30 feet or so.
When I began this thread, I said that I had no idea what to make of this case. Then poster, “Informed,” provided details about the Minnesota State Patrol conducting a test that proved that the gates had not been activated at the time of the crash. After reading all of the references that I could find and considering the information discussed in this thread, I still cannot conclude whether or not the gates failed. However, based upon the details of the test that have been given in this thread, I do conclude that the test was faulty and could not have proven that the gates did fail.
In the course of this accident reconstruction and proof test with a vehicle identical to the actual vehicle in the crash, there were two stages of conclusions that were reached. Together, they were accepted as proof of the gate failure. The two stages were:
1) The vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane as it was struck by the train.
2) The vehicle could not have gotten into that position if it had driven around the lowered gate.
From the explanation of the testing, the State Patrol proved item #2 beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regardless of variables such as road conditions or speed, the limitations of vehicle steering geometry alone meant that the vehicle simply could not have gotten into the correct position within its proper lane by the time the train struck it; if it had run around the gate.
However this irrefutable conclusion of item #2 is dependent upon the truth of item #1. And in the explanation of the testing, there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that proves item #1.
The State Patrol concluded that if the vehicle had run around the lowered gate, it could not have gotten into the proper position by the time the train struck it. However, another explanation could be that the vehicle may have run around the lowered gate and not gotten back into its proper position before the train struck it. I do not see how the test has proven either one of these two possible scenarios.
The State Patrol concluded that item #1 was proven by the following evidence:
The crash left a debris field that extended over some distance. The disintegration and sideways movement of the vehicle during the crash also caused the vehicle to leave skid marks and other road markings such as fluid wetting on the roadway and railroad tracks. These markings and debris field did begin at the point where the vehicle would have been in its correct position in its proper lane. Therefore, from this evidence, court concluded that the point of impact was located where the markings and debris field began.
However, this is a faulty conclusion. Simply put, the beginning of the debris field and markings on the pavement cannot be assumed to coincide with the point of impact. The point of impact might have coincided with the beginning of the debris field and pavement markings; however, it is just as likely that these items of evidence began a substantial distance after the point of impact. It is only about a fifteen-foot difference between the position of the vehicle if it had run around the gate and its position if it had not run around the gate. It seems absurd to conclude that the first item in the debris field marks the latter location and not the former.
I am not surprised that the jury or the judge bought into this faulty conclusion, but I am surprised that the State Patrol did.
I have no knowledge of any kind about this particular accident, however I have investigated hundreds of motor vehicle accidents. There is always some debris at the point of impact, and skid marks begin at the point that the tire began sliding.
People are still fighting the Grange War in Minnesota. Aside from the jury's disreard for the police report or any other facts, this is all the more reason for authority-witnessed downloading and preservation of event recorder evidence.
In a similar vein, the news photos of the Chatsworth crash showing a lone signal maintainer working on a signal at the scene was an appalling breach of evidence integrity.
HarveyK400People are still fighting the Grange War in Minnesota. Aside from the jury's disreard for the police report or any other facts, this is all the more reason for authority-witnessed downloading and preservation of event recorder evidence.
But the jury did not disregard the police. The Minnesota State Patrol concluded that the signals had failed to activate, and the jury agreed. However, according to the article linked below, just after the crash in 2003, the State Patrol concluded that the signals were working, and the driver went around the lowered gate. I have no opionion about whether the signals were working, but I fail to see the evidence for the premise that the signals failed.
Also, in 2003, the State Patrol said that no speed evaluation was possible for the vehicle that was struck. In 2009, they say that the vehicle had a black box that proved it was traveling 28 mph when hit.
Here is the 2003 article:
http://www.abcnewspapers.com/2003/blaine/december/18train.html
HarveyK400In a similar vein, the news photos of the Chatsworth crash showing a lone signal maintainer working on a signal at the scene was an appalling breach of evidence integrity.
You're inferring this? Or you have evidence in addition to the photo such as when it was taken, what was going on, who was present, etc?
Phoebe Vet I have no knowledge of any kind about this particular accident, however I have investigated hundreds of motor vehicle accidents. There is always some debris at the point of impact, and skid marks begin at the point that the tire began sliding.
I have seen that effect of debris deposited right at the point of impact, as you mention. In a collision between two cars, the impact energy is shared between them. If one vehicle is moving and the other stopped, the moving vehicle decelerates upon impact and the stationary vehicle accelerates upon impact. The collision therefore has some dwell time at the point of impact, allowing pieces to be shed right there. And pieces are shed from both vehicles.
When a train strikes a vehicle, however, there is no sharing of the impact. The vehicle absorbs 100% of the impact energy, and the train, for all practical purposes, absorbs none of it. The effect is like a bat hitting a baseball. With a train hitting a car directly broadside at about 60 mph, I would think that every element of the vehicle, whether attached or detached by the force of impact, would be propelled into forward motion, and not come to a stop until it was some distance beyond the point of impact. I would not be surprised if there were no debris whatsoever left within several feet of the point of impact in such a collision.
There may not be any skid marks at the point of impact either if the force of the train initially lifted the vehicle. According to poster, “Informed,” that was BNSF’s explanation for their contention that the point of impact occurred prior to the skid marks.
You are in error.
You are correct about almost the entire force of impact being transferred to the car, but that is not the case with 100% of the debris.
There will be debris and marks at the point of impact.
In this picture, notice that the train is a small dot in the background, an indicator of how hard it hit the truck.The tractor of the truck is down there with the train. Then notice that there is a substantial amount of debris on the ground over the entire crossing. What remains of the trailer is on the far side of the crossing, but the debris field starts at the point of impact.
There is a significant quantity of "stuff" clinging to the underside of a vehicle. It will be knocked off if the vehicle is suddenly accelerated by an impact and will fall pretty much straight down.
Phoebe Vet You are in error. You are correct about almost the entire force of impact being transferred to the car, but that is not the case with 100% of the debris. There will be debris and marks at the point of impact. In this picture, notice that the train is a small dot in the background, an indicator of how hard it hit the truck.The tractor of the truck is down there with the train. Then notice that there is a substantial amount of debris on the ground over the entire crossing. What remains of the trailer is on the far side of the crossing, but the debris field starts at the point of impact. There is a significant quantity of "stuff" clinging to the underside of a vehicle. It will be knocked off if the vehicle is suddenly accelerated by an impact and will fall pretty much straight down.
I see your point, but I am not sure that the collision you show is completely analogous to the Anoka crash. You show a semi trailer full of say 20 tons of relatively dense, tightly stacked, loose objects.
Because the trailer is perhaps 30 feet long, and the locomotive is only 10 feet wide, wherever the locomotive strikes the trailer, the majority of the trailer and its load will be not be in line with the impact. The acceleration of that part of the load that is not in line with the impact depends on the ability of the trailer to transmit the acceleration force to it from the part of the trailer that is in line with the impact. The trailer does not have that degree of structural strength, so it torn in two as the locomotive carries the part it strikes forward, and leaves the rest behind.
To look at it another way, say you have a stick of soft butter as high and wide as a semi trailer and 500 feet long, stalled on the track, and the train hits it dead center. Most of that butter on either side of the impact is not going to even move, so you could say that it is a part of a debris field that begins right at the point of impact.
I think you tend to get a different result when a train hits a car perfectly broadside and none of the car extends beyond the locomotive on either side. Even if debris is immediately detached, it is still in line with the locomotive, and being pushed forward by it.
Furthermore, I suspect that ability to withstand disintegration is greater (proportionately) with a car loaded with human occupants versus a semi trailer loaded with many tons of stacked, loose objects. If you had a semi trailer full of BBs for instance, I suspect that shock of impact would act like an explosion and throw BBs in all directions, so some of them might land in locations prior to the point of impact with respect to the train travel direction.
Certainly the Anoka crash left a debris field. Apparently it was something like 200 feet long, and it did begin on the crossing in the proper lane for the vehicle. The only question is: Was the vehicle actually struck in that lane or was it struck in the preceding lane. There is only 15 feet of difference between them.
I know your explanation seems to make sense to you, but it is just not supported by my training and experience.
Test your theory. Put a ripe peach on a T-ball stand and hit it as hard as you can with a baseball bat. See if you get splashed or if all the contents are accelerated along with the peach.
I have no desire to engage in a protracted argument, so this is my last post on the subject.
Phoebe Vet .......There is always some debris at the point of impact......
.......There is always some debris at the point of impact......
You could say it's inference.
No one else appeared to be around or taking any interest in the signalman as emergency personnel were bustling around the wrecked trains that was the focus of the news photos in the hours immediately following the crash.
One of the first things that needs to be done it would seem would be for a police officer to tape off, secure, and guard signal equipment consistent with protecting a crime scene until after investigators have a chance to inspect equipment and preserve evidence.
I'm a little leary ever since a crossing collision in Downstate Illinois was determined to be the failure of the signal maintainer to restore crossing signals to the operating mode after doing some work. Hearing about the collision, he had returned and was caught attempting to cover up his mistake.
The ruling came in spite of a police report that determined the accident scene was consistent with the driver of the car driving around the crossing arm.But so much of the case in the civil trial dealt with missing evidence that the jury was persuaded should have been maintained by the railroad.Mainly, there was a great deal of discussion about computerized data housed in a small metal shack by the side of the tracks which should have recorded precisely the position of the gates, the bells and lights of the crossing arm.Court evidence established the data was downloaded at the scene on the night of the crash by railroad employees. The police report indicated that data was never turned over to police.Copies submitted at trial were called insufficient by the families.
Ok, being a State Trooper I have investigated several train vs. auto crashes. You know a reasonable person can say. at 9 pm it is night time, BUT in court, can you actually say it is dark outside? A reasonable person will say ,"yes." Unfortunately, in civil trials, things like, "what is the definition of dark," or what is the definition of ,"is" can come into question and be spinned sufficiently enough to bring a reasonable person to doubt. Many of our community members have had the honor of performing their civic duty by being a juror in a civil case such as this, so you know precisely what I am talking about.
I once testified where person A ran a red light, thus striking person B broadside. Drive A sues driver B for being in the intersection. After several hours of testimony, I felt my judgement was being called into question because I didn't know how long the light had been red or know the mindset of driver A or even why I didn't feel empathy for driver A. I mean really, red means what? STOP. Not go faster, or slow down, but a complete cesation of movement STOP. I came under fire for this. What I found increasingly annoying was the fact that not only was my judgement called into question regarding what is supposed to transpire when faced with a red light at a stop intersection, but the fact that the Texas Department of Transportation had the "gaul" to control this intersection with a traffic light. I stuck to my guns and justice prevailed. Driver A failed to prove thier case. End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
All trains are equipt with safety features, a very bright lamp, and a very loud horn. Even IF the cross arms had not functioned properly (which I have no reason to believe they didn't), you may NOT cross the railroad unless safe to do so. It is technically a stopping point. 99.9% of the time crashes involving collisions between trains and vehicle, are die to vehicle driver negligence or the flagrant disregard of official traffic control devices.
I believe also that railroads go above and beyond to protect vehicle drivers and do everything within their power to protect us all. This reminds me of the person buying hot coffee from Macdonalds and sues after spilling it on themselves. <face palm>
Oh and regarding the "computerized data?" The railraod DID download the data and produced it in court. Ask yourself this question and use my driver A driver B scenerio...If the "black box" recorded the vehicles speed (driver B) at the time of the collision, should we award driver A, who was the primary causative factor of the collision a enormous amount of money because that "black box" did not record if driver B was wearing their safety belt? Sounds wierd I know, but that's how civil courts are.
This unfortunately is a case about "getting paid." I hate it that a life was lost, but I must not lose track of the fact that, if I do something that causes a crash, it is not the "other person" who sould have to pay due to MY negligence.
J&S RR End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
End result it was all about $$$ and not taking responsibility for ones own actions.
That's one of the big things that is so wrong with the world anymore. Nobody stops to think about how what they do affects others.
Just this morning on my way to work, I was stopped in the left turn lane of an intersection (left arrows were red). The other lights for the street I were on went to red, and the cross traffic got a green light. Just as traffic on the cross street was starting to move, some guy coming from the other direction from me came sailing through the red light yacking on his cell phone. It was the same light where a year ago I was stopped at a red light when a cell phone driver went under the back end of my Jeep.
People today don't seem to realize that when they are in a car they are supposed to be driving the car in a safe manner, not talking on the phone, text messaging, reading, putting on makeup, and everything else I've seen people doing at the wheel other than driving.
When it comes to safety at crossings, I always approach crossings prepared to stop, no matter if the signals are on or not. Even if the signals are malfunctioning, it is still my responsibility as a driver to drive defensively and make sure it is safe to cross before entering the crossing.
There was an episode of Rescue 911 in the first season where a man and his wife came up to a crossing in Michigan and were hit by two runaway boxcars. While the crossing signals in that incident did not come on, he still could have prevented the crash had he slowed up to check the tracks rather than just going by the signals. Unfortunately, his not checking the tracks cost his wife her life.
In my opinion, it's best to be safe than sorry.
Incidentally, I have lost somebody in a car-train crash. Initially, it was very difficult to deal with, and I, like others, blamed Amtrak/Conrail for what happened (http://chatanuga.org/HOL.html), not wanting anything to do with trains. After some time, I dealt with my grief and realized that had my friend simply stopped at the stop signs at the crossing he was killed at and obeyed the crossbucks and yielded the right of way to the train, he would be alive. Unfortunately, he didn't. Unfortunately, most people don't learn to be careful around crossings until it's too late.
Bucyrus When I began this thread, I said that I had no idea what to make of this case. Then poster, “Informed,” provided details about the Minnesota State Patrol conducting a test that proved that the gates had not been activated at the time of the crash. After reading all of the references that I could find and considering the information discussed in this thread, I still cannot conclude whether or not the gates failed. However, based upon the details of the test that have been given in this thread, I do conclude that the test was faulty and could not have proven that the gates did fail. In the course of this accident reconstruction and proof test with a vehicle identical to the actual vehicle in the crash, there were two stages of conclusions that were reached. Together, they were accepted as proof of the gate failure. The two stages were: 1) The vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane as it was struck by the train. 2) The vehicle could not have gotten into that position if it had driven around the lowered gate. From the explanation of the testing, the State Patrol proved item #2 beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regardless of variables such as road conditions or speed, the limitations of vehicle steering geometry alone meant that the vehicle simply could not have gotten into the correct position within its proper lane by the time the train struck it; if it had run around the gate. However this irrefutable conclusion of item #2 is dependent upon the truth of item #1. And in the explanation of the testing, there is no convincing evidence whatsoever that proves item #1. The State Patrol concluded that if the vehicle had run around the lowered gate, it could not have gotten into the proper position by the time the train struck it. However, another explanation could be that the vehicle may have run around the lowered gate and not gotten back into its proper position before the train struck it. I do not see how the test has proven either one of these two possible scenarios. The State Patrol concluded that item #1 was proven by the following evidence: The crash left a debris field that extended over some distance. The disintegration and sideways movement of the vehicle during the crash also caused the vehicle to leave skid marks and other road markings such as fluid wetting on the roadway and railroad tracks. These markings and debris field did begin at the point where the vehicle would have been in its correct position in its proper lane. Therefore, from this evidence, court concluded that the point of impact was located where the markings and debris field began. However, this is a faulty conclusion. Simply put, the beginning of the debris field and markings on the pavement cannot be assumed to coincide with the point of impact. The point of impact might have coincided with the beginning of the debris field and pavement markings; however, it is just as likely that these items of evidence began a substantial distance after the point of impact. It is only about a fifteen-foot difference between the position of the vehicle if it had run around the gate and its position if it had not run around the gate. It seems absurd to conclude that the first item in the debris field marks the latter location and not the former. I am not surprised that the jury or the judge bought into this faulty conclusion, but I am surprised that the State Patrol did.
I appreciate the discussion over the past several days regarding this subject. I think you raised some good questions, but likely came to the wrong conclusion. This doesn't surprise me as you were not privy to all of the evidence and details that were presented in this case. Worse yet, I'm certain that I didn't present the data and subsequent findings in the detailed manner that it should have been in order for you to find fact in this accident. Worse yet, you have effectively heard much of the detail in this case from myself, and I'm not qualified in this highly technical subject matter, to effectively communicate all of the facts.
However, the jury did get the benefit of reviewing all of the detail and physical eveidence that remained (minus that data and evidence that was either lost, altered, or destroyed by BNSF), and they've come to a different conclusion. Having seen the arguments on both sides, it is still my firm belief that the jury made the right call.
That's the great thing about living in America, you are entitled to your opinions. Even though they may be based upon partial truths, unrelated experiences, or misrepresentations. There is allot more detail around the State Patrol accident report that was initially produced, than what was presented within the reporting of this accident by the media. In fact, there was disagreement about the findings within the department and that was brought out within the trial.
Phoebe Vet I know your explanation seems to make sense to you, but it is just not supported by my training and experience. Test your theory. Put a ripe peach on a T-ball stand and hit it as hard as you can with a baseball bat. See if you get splashed or if all the contents are accelerated along with the peach. I have no desire to engage in a protracted argument, so this is my last post on the subject.
I realize that you have training and experience, and I appreciate your input on this matter, but I disagree with you on this one point.
You say the every vehicular crash leaves debris deposited at the point of impact (as opposed to the accident scene in general.) All I am saying is that I believe that is somewhat of a generalization, rather than a guaranteed consequence of every collision. Certainly it has to depend on the size, shape, and weight of the vehicles involved and other factors such as speed and the loads they are carrying.
And again, we are not just talking about leaving debris at the “crash site,” or “accident scene,” which is highly likely. We are talking about leaving debris right at the point of impact. And we are talking about reaching a conclusion that the point of impact could not have possibly occurred at a location that was fifteen feet away from the nearest debris.
Your analogy of hitting a peach is similar to your example of the semi trailer. The peach is relatively dense with little structural strength to withstand the acceleration. The concentrated force of the bat cuts right through it before it can accelerate. The peach explodes. An egg would explode as well.
Now try the same test with a baseball. How much debris is left at the point of impact?
Now go back to the peach, but instead of hitting it with a bat, hit it with something shaped like a big spoon the size of a tennis racquet. Will part of the peach drop straight down to the ground at the point of impact?
Now go back to the peach and hit it dead center with a locomotive at 60 mph. Every bit of that exploding peach will be carried forward before it can get beyond the face of the locomotive and drop to the ground. So even though the peach explodes as it does when hit by the bat, no debris will be left at the point of impact when the peach is hit by a locomotive.
Consider a bicyclist getting hit dead center by a locomotive traveling 60 mph. I doubt that will leave anything at the point of contact. There are plenty of videos on youtube showing trains hitting cars in tests and demonstrations. Most of them look a lot more like baseballs getting hit by bats than peaches getting hit by bats.
BNSF & DMIR 4Ever 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.
Uh, you are thinking of criminal law (and the standard there is actually "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Civil cases generally operate under a preponderence of the evidence standard. If the signals were not properly operational, that would constitute negligence.
Police on the scene are generally not trained in accident investigation. Police reports are also considered preliminary and are thus less persuasive (and can be totally discounted) if the later final investigation reaches the opposite conclusion - it sounds like that is what happened in this case is that the final investigation reached a different conclusion than the initial police report. That happens, especially when a police report may be based on self serving or incomplete information.
Just because the lights were observed flashing doesn't mean they were working properly - the lights and gates could have come on too late trapping the car for example. When lights and gates are posted the railroad has the duty to ensure they work properly and to post signs warning them if they do not work correctly or to post alternative means to stop traffic such as an employee. If there is no admissible persuasive evidence showing the lights were functioning properly, the railroad is liable period. Statements by railroad employees are considered self serving and thus properly accorded less weight than other evidence. The absence of evidence can be just as important as the evidence which is there. If you were charged with murder and you had a motive and means to commit, but you didn't do it and was home alone at the time, there is a good chance you are still going to prison even though you are innocent. And criminal cases require a much more stringent burden of proof.
In short, I think that you are misreading what happened - here the evidence suggested that the car did not go around the gates - no evidence was there that the gates were working properly other than the self serving statement of a railroad employee (which as I pointed out does not prove anything because it does not prove that the gates deployed at the proper time) and a preliminary police report that was later proven by subsequent investigation to be false. There is also the indication that BNSF may well have tampered with the evidence - at the minimum, they did not properly secure the evidence - both cases are absolute no nos. The only reasonable inference from that combination of facts is that the gates were not working properly. BNSF deserved to lose that case.
zardoz Phoebe Vet .......There is always some debris at the point of impact...... Which is why sometimes when a standing or walking pedestrian is hit by a train their footwear remains at the point of impact where the person was struck. They literally get knocked out of their shoes.
And what has always spooked me, the shoes are usually side by side (laced-up) like somebody just left them there for a moment.....
mudchickenAnd what has always spooked me, the shoes are usually side by side (laced-up) like somebody just left them there for a moment.....
Informed I appreciate the discussion over the past several days regarding this subject. I think you raised some good questions, but likely came to the wrong conclusion. This doesn't surprise me as you were not privy to all of the evidence and details that were presented in this case. Worse yet, I'm certain that I didn't present the data and subsequent findings in the detailed manner that it should have been in order for you to find fact in this accident. Worse yet, you have effectively heard much of the detail in this case from myself, and I'm not qualified in this highly technical subject matter, to effectively communicate all of the facts. However, the jury did get the benefit of reviewing all of the detail and physical eveidence that remained (minus that data and evidence that was either lost, altered, or destroyed by BNSF), and they've come to a different conclusion. Having seen the arguments on both sides, it is still my firm belief that the jury made the right call.
Well as I said above, I cannot reach a conclusion as to whether the signals failed, so I have no idea whether the jury made the right decision. And while you have provided some specific details about the crash reconstruction and conclusion that the signals had failed, there are also other sources providing details on that matter, and those details fit what you have described. However, in this entire body of information, I see no convincing evidence that the vehicle was correctly positioned in its proper lane when it was struck. So I see no basis to conclude that vehicle did not run around the lowered gate. That is my only conclusion.
Apparently the State Patrol agreed with me in their 2003 investigation when they found that the vehicle drove around the lowered gate, but reversed themselves for some reason and arrived at their conclusion today that the gates had failed to lower.
I don’t doubt that there is a bewildering amount detail that transpired in the trial and is not readily available to the public. If it was, it might take years just to read it and understand it. Some of that inaccessible detail and evidence may indeed prove that the vehicle did not run around the lowered gate. But since that is the pivotal point in proving signal failure, I would think the evidence for it would be highlighted and presented to the public as a key component of the news story detailing the result of the trial. But I don’t see it.
I suspect that the actual process of the trial’s conclusion is so complex that it can never be communicated to somebody after the fact. It may be so complex that it cannot be explained or even comprehended by those who participated in the trial. With what has been mentioned by others regarding the spinning and splitting of hairs in this type of trial, I am not sure that the outcome can be logically and factually analyzed. Maybe it just is what it is.
So the news reporting is hopelessly lost is a quagmire of conflicting information with missing pieces. The news reported that the initial police investigation concluded that there was no way to know the speed of the vehicle when it was hit. Today, they say the vehicle had a black box that proved it was traveling 28 mph when it was hit.
The crossing is elevated substantially with the road rising on each side as it crosses the tracks. I would not be surprised if a car crossing it at 28 mph became airborne. I would be very surprised if a car could run around the lowered gates at 28 mph because the gates are only about eight feet from the nearest rail of each track. It may be that the vehicle was traveling at 28 mph and ran around the first lowered gate. And then, at that speed, it was destined fail to return to its proper lane in time to avoid hitting the second lowered gate; but got hit by the train before it got to the second gate.
Something else occured to me as I have reviewed this thread. Aside from the obvious physical evidence left on-sceen, if the vehicle which was struck was a 2000 plus vehicle, the technology to remove the "black box" can indicate if the vehicle was in fact in motion. If that is the case, that would definitely throw a wrinkle in the testimony. Frankly I am half tempted to do a open records request and allow the community to view actual testimony. Would anyone be interested in this?
Fact of the matter is, we do not know the following:
What was the driver doing inside the vehicle when the crash occured? Were they texting, on the cell phone, fiddling with the radio, eating, or involved in some other distracting action while operating their vehicle. And most importantly, how much of a role, if any did this play if that is the case.
What was in the mind of the engineer? What were they doing? Was all safety features utilized and complied with? Were policy and proceedure followed?
What I hope is that all relevant facts were brought forth during this trial. Somehow I do not think we are getting the "rest of the story." to quote the legend Paul Harvey.
Hey, if the BNSF was negligent, they should do the right thing by the family of the deceased. But somehow, with all the safety features in place, I doubt BNSF was negligent on this occasion. We live in a fast food culture and are constantly steaming down the line at full speed. In my training and experience, this unfortunately sometimes ends with catastrophic results.
J&S RRSomething else occured to me as I have reviewed this thread. Aside from the obvious physical evidence left on-sceen, if the vehicle which was struck was a 2000 plus vehicle, the technology to remove the "black box" can indicate if the vehicle was in fact in motion. If that is the case, that would definitely throw a wrinkle in the testimony. Frankly I am half tempted to do a open records request and allow the community to view actual testimony. Would anyone be interested in this?
The article linked to the first post says the vehicle had a black box that proved that it was traveling at 28 mph when hit by the train. As I mentioned above, that speed raises questions in my mind. It seems like it would be impossible to dodge the lowered gates at that speed. However, the speed-sensitive part of dodging the gates is clearing the second gate. Dodging the first gate is easy because you can start a couple hundred feet back from the crossing if necessary. But you would only have about 30 feet to swerve back and clear the second gate. If a driver miscalculated, he or she might successfully dodge the first gate, and yet fail to swerve back quick enough to avoid striking the second gate.
So I do not believe that a vehicle speed too high to dodge the second gate proves that the driver did not dodge the first gate and intended to dodge the second gate. He might have successfully dodged the first gate, but miscalculated by driving too fast, and was therefore destined to hit the second gate. If so, he did not hit the second gate because the train hit him before he reached the second gate.
If this scenario is what happened, the car would have left no skid marks as evidence of swerving too hard to dodge the gates. Yet, as I understand it, the State Patrol concluded that the 28 mph was too fast to dodge the gates without leaving skid marks, and therefore, since no such skid marks were produced, the driver was not trying to dodge the gates. I think that is a false conclusion considering my above scenario.
Regarding the court records, if you know how to get access to them, I would indeed be interested in seeing them posted here if possible. We have had a lot of discussions on this forum about these type of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts with trains, and how the railroad is often blamed, even though they would appear to have no responsibility for the mishap.
Hello,
I have read this thread thoroughly and then done some research as to what has happened here in comparable cases. Also, I wondered what the road codes say and my findings so far were quite interesting. They may not apply to the U.S. but are general enough so I share them with you:
In most european countries rr crossings with roads are usually protected by (in ascending order):
a) Andreas' Crosses only
b) Andreas' Crosses plus red flashing lights
c) Andreas Crosses plus lights plus arms - arms are mostly covering the entire width of roads als long as they are not wider than 2 spurs. If that is the case you normally have quad arms, anyway in most cases the full widht of the roads are covered.
The way warnings are applied are: red lights start to flash anytime between 20 seconds (light rail only) and more than a full minute before a train comes (depending on type of rail line). When there is the additional protection of arms these get lowered after about 6 to 10 seconds flashing time. A policeman explained it like that: if flashing starts it will be compared with amber traffic light where you are usually given 5 seconds into the phase before stopping is absolutely mandatory. Then the arms come down which again takes about 4 to 8 seconds. This is assumed plenty of time to clear the tracks.
Where there are no flashlights drivers are expected to heed the rr crossing by slowing down in a manner that they could stop in the event of a train approaching. Quite often there is a speed limit of as low as 20 or 25 mph posted 300 ft before the crossing. Also overtaking is prohibited within this distance to the rail tracks. The train in turn has to horn or whistle at least 3 times. The distance of the whistlepost to such a crossing usually is between 600 to 950 ft at secondary lines, less on light rail lines, the maximum speed on such lines usually is 50 mph and trains tend to be short (one or 2 RDC or loco plus 2 or 3 cars or 2 EMUs), so they can also stop rather quickly.
Where there are flashlights mounted there is an indication of their functioning towards the engineer of the approching train, by means of a sharp white light flashing. If it doesn't flash the engineer has to reduce the speed of the train immediately and also has to give long horn blasts, even at night in an urban area - safety first is the motto there.
At level crossings where there are no arms, additional STOP signs are mounted directly on the same post that carries the Andreas' Cross. This means an unconditional stop for all road traffic regardless of uncoming rail traffic. Failure to stop there will be fined when witnessed by a police officer (rather rarely) but if somebody runs a rail crossing and gets hit the fault is always with the road user.
Well, I am aware that the BNSF case is a little different because the railroads safety measures such as flashlights and arm may have failed. I tried to get hold of a similar case here but failed, it almost seems that there are no malfunctions, or at least there were none with major accidents documented. I am absolutely certain that if it happened here for as long as the engineer didn't speed or speeding wasn't the major cause of the accident a court here had not ruled in favor of the car driver.
Kiwigerd Hello, I have read this thread thoroughly and then done some research as to what has happened here in comparable cases. Also, I wondered what the road codes say and my findings so far were quite interesting. They may not apply to the U.S. but are general enough so I share them with you: In most european countries rr crossings with roads are usually protected by (in ascending order): a) Andreas' Crosses only b) Andreas' Crosses plus red flashing lights c) Andreas Crosses plus lights plus arms - arms are mostly covering the entire width of roads als long as they are not wider than 2 spurs. If that is the case you normally have quad arms, anyway in most cases the full widht of the roads are covered. Where there are no flashlights drivers are expected to heed the rr crossing by slowing down in a manner that they could stop in the event of a train approaching. Quite often there is a speed limit of as low as 20 or 25 mph posted 300 ft before the crossing. Also overtaking is prohibited within this distance to the rail tracks. The train in turn has to horn or whistle at least 3 times. The distance of the whistlepost to such a crossing usually is between 600 to 950 ft at secondary lines, less on light rail lines, the maximum speed on such lines usually is 50 mph and trains tend to be short (one or 2 RDC or loco plus 2 or 3 cars or 2 EMUs), so they can also stop rather quickly. At level crossings where there are no arms, additional STOP signs are mounted directly on the same post that carries the Andreas' Cross. This means an unconditional stop for all road traffic regardless of uncoming rail traffic. Failure to stop there will be fined when witnessed by a police officer (rather rarely) but if somebody runs a rail crossing and gets hit the fault is always with the road user.
Much of your traffic laws, protective devices, and signage pertaining to grade crossings sound quite similar to what we have in the U.S. You mention the need to slow down and be prepared to yield to a train at crossings marked only with an Andreas Cross, which I assume to be the equivalent of our “crossbuck.” Our crossbuck is equivalent in meaning to our YIELD sign, which is used in other traffic conflict situations. At our crossings marked only with crossbucks, motorists must look for approaching trains and be prepared to yield.
We also use the crossbuck at crossings with signals, and also at crossings with signals and gates. As some have pointed out in this thread, the crossbuck at signalized crossings still requires motorists to slow down, look for trains, and be prepared to yield to an approaching train. I confirmed this with the FRA and Operation Lifesaver. I guess the point of adding the redundancy of a full time yield requirement to a signalized crossing is to provide a backup in case the signals fail to activate. However, it does raise some interesting points and questions.
First point:
In order to yield, if a driver is to slow down enough to be able to stop short of an approaching train, the driver must know how fast the train is expected to be moving and reconcile that speed against the amount of visibility down the track the driver has while approaching the crossing. For example, if a driver somehow knows that a train on a given track will never exceed 20 mph, and the driver approaches a grade crossing on that track with a mile of visibility in either direction when the driver is a quarter-mile away from the crossing, then that driver can yield even while traveling at 65 mph.
But many crossings have quite limited track visibility for an approaching driver, and a driver has absolutely know way of knowing how fast a train might be approaching a grade crossing. So, a driver must anticipate the fastest possible train at every grade crossing, and be prepared to yield to it, even at crossings with automatic signals and gates.
That is why I asked the question earlier in this thread about the maximum speed of passenger trains in the U.S. that cross grade crossings. I understand the answer is 109 mph. At least that knowledge of practical top speed for trains would give drivers an idea of what to plan for. Many signalized crossings, in particular, have limited track visibility for an approaching driver. With these, in order for a driver to yield to an anticipated 109 mph train, the driver would have to slow down, pull up to the crossing, and stop to look as far down the track as possible. Yet, on a busy four-lane with closely spaced cars traveling at 40-50 mph, I wonder what the State Patrol would think about a driver who slows down and stops at an un-activated, signalized crossing with gates.
Second point:
With non-signalized crossings that happen to have limited visibility and/or see fast trains, planners compensate for the extra danger by adding stop signs to the crossbucks and/or adding LOOK FOR TRAINS signs in advance of the crossing to reinforce the need for the driver to yield to trains. Yet, I have never seen these signs added to signalized crossings that pose the same danger and yield requirement to drivers regardless of whether or not the signals are activated. That seems inconsistent to me.
Third point:
Stop signs added to non-signalized crossings impose a stop requirement that goes beyond a yield requirement, which might or might not require a driver to stop. However, sometimes a YIELD sign alone is added to the crossbuck at a non-signalized crossing. This is completely redundant because the YIELD sign means exactly the same thing as the crossbuck. So why do it? It almost seems like an acknowledgement that drivers often do not realize that a crossbuck means yield. Yet, if they don’t realize that a crossbuck means yield at a non-signalized crossing, they are certainly not going to realize that a crossbuck is telling them to look for trains and yield at a signalized crossing where they feel completely protected by the automatic warning system.
Fourth point:
Some have suggested that every non-signalized crossing should have a stop sign. Certainly this would reduce the possibility of a car-train collision by forcing the first element of the yield command, so why not do it? Planners will tell you that the reason they don’t do it is because any stop raises the danger of a rear end collision from a following vehicle, and they feel that extra risk exceeds the reduction of risk from getting hit by a train. The fact that stop signs are never applied to signalized crossings, even ones with short visibility, suggests to me that planners feel that the extra protection of the automatic warning system lowers the train collision risk to the extent that the addition of stop signs would create more risk from a rear end collision than the amount of risk they would reduce from a car-train collision. I have seen some non-signalized crossings with limited track visibility preceded with LOOK FOR TRAINS signs. I cannot see any reason why the same signs should not be applied to limited visibility signalized crossings. In fact, one could make the argument that all signalized crossings should be preceded by LOOK FOR TRAINS signs, because the legal requirement to yield at an un-activated signalized crossing is far from obvious to drivers.
Fifth point:
The Anoka crash occurred at a signalized crossing with gates and crossbucks. The crossbucks require a driver to look for trains and yield to any train that happens to be approaching, regardless of whether the signals are activated or not. The trial assigned most of the blame to the BNSF for an alleged signal failure, and yet apparently ignored the fact the driver broke the law by not yielding to the train.
If someone goes around a gate, that is NOT the railroad's fault and they should never be held liable for any accident of this type, unless there was a gate malfunction that they knew about and had not fixed.
My Dad always used caution at any crossing. Back in the day, only an engine could trigger the gate mechanism and a runaway freight car would not. He used to talk about one of Frisco's train crews letting a boxcar get away from them and they chased it around St. Clair, MO for a couple of miles, rolling through crossings until they caught up with it. We'd see people driving around gates sometimes as we'd wait and my Dad said they were stupid people in a hurry to get to their own funeral. It's sad but true, don't ever try to argue with a moving train-you'll always lose.
Yes, I agree with your points, particularly with your conclusion in the fifth point. Apparently the jurors found that the railroad has tempted with the proof in regard of the signals and thus saw it as evident that the gates weren't closed. If that were true indeed I would consider the judgement as valid. The same judgement would have been made here as well because the rr were clearly at fault.
So for the future the only certain method to prove this would be cameras in the locomotives themselves. I think that, following this, all rr will equip their locos now to have a clear proof in future.
[edited for content by selector...video link deleted]
penncentral2002 BNSF & DMIR 4Ever 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. Uh, you are thinking of criminal law (and the standard there is actually "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Civil cases generally operate under a preponderence of the evidence standard. If the signals were not properly operational, that would constitute negligence. Police on the scene are generally not trained in accident investigation. Police reports are also considered preliminary and are thus less persuasive (and can be totally discounted) if the later final investigation reaches the opposite conclusion - it sounds like that is what happened in this case is that the final investigation reached a different conclusion than the initial police report. That happens, especially when a police report may be based on self serving or incomplete information. Just because the lights were observed flashing doesn't mean they were working properly - the lights and gates could have come on too late trapping the car for example. When lights and gates are posted the railroad has the duty to ensure they work properly and to post signs warning them if they do not work correctly or to post alternative means to stop traffic such as an employee. If there is no admissible persuasive evidence showing the lights were functioning properly, the railroad is liable period. Statements by railroad employees are considered self serving and thus properly accorded less weight than other evidence. The absence of evidence can be just as important as the evidence which is there. If you were charged with murder and you had a motive and means to commit, but you didn't do it and was home alone at the time, there is a good chance you are still going to prison even though you are innocent. And criminal cases require a much more stringent burden of proof. In short, I think that you are misreading what happened - here the evidence suggested that the car did not go around the gates - no evidence was there that the gates were working properly other than the self serving statement of a railroad employee (which as I pointed out does not prove anything because it does not prove that the gates deployed at the proper time) and a preliminary police report that was later proven by subsequent investigation to be false. There is also the indication that BNSF may well have tampered with the evidence - at the minimum, they did not properly secure the evidence - both cases are absolute no nos. The only reasonable inference from that combination of facts is that the gates were not working properly. BNSF deserved to lose that case.
If what you say is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t), it certainly entirely explains the outcome of this Anoka crash trial. To me, the most surprising information that you have contributed is that the railroad company can be held liable for the crash if they cannot prove that the signals were working. If that is true, I am amazed that the railroads do not have a bomb proof, iron clad method of proving the signal functions. I would expect them to have a data line leading right into the police department or some similar witnessing vault destination.
This burden to prove that the signals are working would seem to mean that the railroad companies have a higher potential liability with signalized crossings that they do with un-signalized crossings per train event. I guess they can’t be blamed for signal failure or failing to prove that the signals worked, if there are no signals.
Although maybe they can be blamed for not providing signals at non-signalized crossings, since it could be argued that the hazard to drivers is the same, even though it occurs less frequently at those crossings that railroad companies typically decide do not warrant signals.
That was a long read. I share many of the above opinions, and I don't have any new ones to offer. But I would like to support two of them.
We, as a nation, should move more quickly to eliminate RR grade crossings. No crossings, no collisions!
The RRs should do whatever it takes to have forward-looking video cameras operating at all times. They should make up kits ASAP for locomotives that don't have them already installed. These days, video cameras and VCRs are relatively cheap. Insurance companies might well be willing to pay for them because of the protection they would provide against liability.
cordon That was a long read. I share many of the above opinions, and I don't have any new ones to offer. But I would like to support two of them. We, as a nation, should move more quickly to eliminate RR grade crossings. No crossings, no collisions! The RRs should do whatever it takes to have forward-looking video cameras operating at all times. They should make up kits ASAP for locomotives that don't have them already installed. These days, video cameras and VCRs are relatively cheap. Insurance companies might well be willing to pay for them because of the protection they would provide against liability.
I am afraid I must dissagree with this. Eliminating RR grade crossings will not completely eliminate collisions. I promise, just as sure as I sit here and type this, someone in their infinite wisdom will run directly into the side of a train. A perfectly functional car equipt with best safety equipment cannot compensate for a drivers inability to comply or react. That falls to the driver themself. It is like blaming the phone company for a driver who is in a collision when they are using their cell phone or texting while driving.
Regarding the video system, I do agree. There was once a time when I could testify in criminal or civil trials without the video system, the court and jurors assumption was always that what I said was factually accurate and truthful. That time unfortunately, in this day in age...has passed. I cringe at the thought of having to testify without it now. Yes, DVR systems are relatively creap and could very well protect the railroad industry.
A wise older Patrolman once told me a long time ago. (speaks in my best John Wayne tone) "Son, if there were only two cars in this great state, eventually they will run into each other."
Have a fantastic day you guys, this is a great conversation.
cordonThe RRs should do whatever it takes to have forward-looking video cameras operating at all times. They should make up kits ASAP for locomotives that don't have them already installed. These days, video cameras and VCRs are relatively cheap. Insurance companies might well be willing to pay for them because of the protection they would provide against liability.
The main point was to be able to apply them to existing locomotives with no modification to the locomotive, except for the addition of a small, exterior mounting bracket on the cab near the top. So the whole unit would be as independent of the locomotive as possible. This attribute would allow existing locomotives to be equipped with cameras as quickly as possible.
My concept would entail a battery powered, portable camera/recorder package about the size of a lunch bucket. It would be hung on the mounting bracket at the start of each run much like the official hanging of marker lamps on cabooses in the past. It would turn on automatically when plugged onto the mounting bracket, and an external indicator would light up to prove the unit is running. It would record in a continuous loop of some length. It would also have a STOP & LOCK button. In the event of a crossing crash or other major event, the stop & lock button would be pressed to cease operation and preserve the loop. Then the unit would be removed and processed to recover the data. Between runs, these units would be stored on a battery-charging stand.
Compared to a state of the art, comprehensive video surveillance system, this would have been relatively unsophisticated. But it would have been practical, simple, and capable of being quickly executed and applied at a relatively low cost. All you would need to do to the locomotives is screw the mounting bracket on to them.
Whether or not this concept could have been developed and marketed, I don’t know, since I never pursued it. I don’t know if any locomotives had video cameras in 1986, but with my concept, it seemed they could all have been equipped by 1990. Today, we have cameras gradually being applied to locomotives as an integrated system. From what I understand, though, we are still a long way from universal application to all locomotives. Considering the obvious financial benefit of reducing liability costs arising from crossing crashes, I would think that railroad companies would want to get their locomotives equipped as soon as possible. Maybe someone else here can explain how this is moving forward and some of the pros and cons.
One discouraging thought about this video idea occurred to me back in 1986. That was that the railroad companies might not want to have video evidence brought into the courtroom because the shear brutality of a crash may work against the company when it is processed by the jury.
Here is a link about the application of video cameras to locomotives:
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_trains14.43587e5.html
I just bought a fairly full-featured cam-corder - all solid state, including the memory - for less than $300. The 4 Gig memory card (I got 2 on sale for $4 each) provides an hour of recording. Considering that I just bought a 2 Gig MicroSD card for my cell phone for about $12 (MicroSD cards are about 1/3 the size of a postage stamp), and even considering some special processing considerations, the idea of a camera in each locomotive capable of several hours of recorded images isn't all that daunting.
Granted, $1000 to $2000 per times 9000 locomotives adds up, but if a recording were able to prove that the deceased had, in the case under discussion here, run the gates, the visual evidence would be irrefutable. The money saved from that payout would pretty much equip the entire fleet. Of course, the possibility that the gates may not have operated would also be plainly seen, thus proving the plaintiffs case.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12549663
There is hope out there. UP appealled the appalling Missy Martin case and the upper court accepted the case. Hopefully they look at the merits this time instead of the attorney theatrics and warped assertions of the plaintiff's so-called experts this time.
mudchicken http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12549663 There is hope out there. UP appealled the appalling Missy Martin case and the upper court accepted the case. Hopefully they look at the merits this time instead of the attorney theatrics and warped assertions of the plaintiff's so-called experts this time.
Well, at least in this case, the facts seem fairly well established. If I understand this, the plaintiff’s lawyers argued that Missy Martin's car was in harm’s way by being on the “crossing.” The conductor’s argument was that she was not actually fouling the train, so he did not set the brakes when he was still far enough away to stop short of the crossing. Then Martin’s boyfriend tried to push Martin’s car ahead to get it off of the crossing, and he pushed it into the path of the train, but could not push it further into the clear. By that time, the train was too close to stop, so it struck the car.
It would seem that the debate centers around the difference between the area known as the crossing, and the area fouled by the train as it passes over the crossing. I would think that if an engineer saw a car stalled within the fouling area, the engineer would make every attempt to stop short of the crossing, even though the car might move out of the way before the train would arrive at the crossing if the engineer did not attempt to stop. But what would an engineer do if he saw a car that was standing unusually close to the fouling area, but not inside of it? Let’s say the car was stopped three feet short of fouling the train. What would the U.P. have wanted the engineer to do in that situation?
I also looked at this link to the story, which also gives links to several previous stories that explain the progression from the crash to the conclusion of the trial.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4643603/detail.html
The jury in this Anoka crash case concluded that the crossing flashers and gates had failed to activate for the train that hit the car.
Would it be accurate to say that the flashers and gates could not have failed to activate because the FRA requires them to be fail-safe?
If that would not be accurate, why not?
Fail-safe does not mean "never fails." It means that certain failure modes are designed to fail to the safest possible condition.
Some common failure modes for grade-crossing signals that do not fail to a safe condition are:
The most useful fail-safe mode is the shunt-to-activate mode. That means, the signal system is designed so that any detectable occupancy of the track -- even a false occupancy -- activates the signal. The relays are arranged so that they need to be "picked up" -- against gravity to turn the signal system off. Thus, the relays are "normally on". And so forth. Any place where there is a reasonable and effective way to make the system fail to the safe mode, it's done. But as listed above, not all failure modes can be made safe.
Railway Man Fail-safe does not mean "never fails." It means that certain failure modes are designed to fail to the safest possible condition. Some common failure modes for grade-crossing signals that do not fail to a safe condition are: Vehicle runs over the mast and knocks it over. It does not re-erect itself. Utility power fails, and for various reasons no one is available to repair the utility power or recharge the batteries when they poop out a few days later. Think "Katrina." Lightning strikes the instrument house directly. The instrument house has lightning arrestors to prevent high-voltage transients from strikes to the power lines or nearby ground from entering the house, but they will be overwhelmed by a direct hit. Vehicle runs through the gates and breaks them off. This happens so frequently that every signal-maintainer's truck carries a spare gate or two on the rack. Rail vehicle does not shunt the track. A major problem with DMUs after a weekend when they only run on weekdays and it rains, and special measures have to be taken such as a light grind of the rail head early every Monday morning. The most useful fail-safe mode is the shunt-to-activate mode. That means, the signal system is designed so that any detectable occupancy of the track -- even a false occupancy -- activates the signal. The relays are arranged so that they need to be "picked up" -- against gravity to turn the signal system off. Thus, the relays are "normally on". And so forth. Any place where there is a reasonable and effective way to make the system fail to the safe mode, it's done. But as listed above, not all failure modes can be made safe. RWM
Given this, it would be interesting to know if "The Plaintiffs' Counsel" came up with a theory on just how the system failed in the Anoka incident. A lightening stike would certainly be evident. It would be a very interesting theory since it proposes that the crossing signals failed just for that one particular train.
They worked before the incident and they worked after the incident. But for that one train, they didn't work. Of course, "Plaintiffs' Counsel" may not have had to explain anything like this. The legal system dismissed the testimony of the crewmember who said the gates were down. He was just assumed to be a liar. If a legal system can do that it can certainly just accept a one time isolated failure with no explination required.
I don't buy the assertion that the crossing signals failed. But what I "buy" or "don't buy" doesn't count for anything here. I'm convinced that a clever legal team convinced a jury to accept an alternate reality. We've seen it before. O.J. walked on the murders. We'll see it again.
RWM,
Thank you for that insight. That is more less what I had concluded because I cannot see how any system could be perfectly infallible. So it would seem that “failsafe” is sort of a term of art that can apply to some individual components of a system, but may not apply to the whole system. One reference that I found describes the failsafe principle as being a design using the closed circuit principle. I believe that this is what you refer to as a “shunt to activate” system. But then the reference mentions the problem of there being no way to use a closed circuit design in the warning system without going to an open circuit design in the final stage that activates the signals. In other words, a power failure drops the relay, but the contacts of the switch controlled by the relay could fail to close the activation circuit due to a number of possible causes.
But here is why I asked the question:
During this thread, others had mentioned the driver’s responsibility to yield by slowing down, looking for trains, and stopping if necessary to avoid being hit by a train that might be approaching. That is the meaning of yield, and the crossbuck is equivalent to a YIELD sign. While most people are aware of this responsibility at passive or non-signalized crossings, what was claimed by others in this thread is that the same responsibility applies at signalized crossings when the signals are un-activated. This is because signalized crossings also have a crossbuck, and its meaning prevails whether the signals are activated or not.
I sought confirmation of the premise (that divers must yield at signalized crossings when the signals are un-activated) to Operation Lifesaver and the FRA, and they told me this:
The only point that is missing is whether the yielding at a crossing with warning signals is necessary if the signals are un-activated. Logically, it would be necessary because the crossbuck is there with its yield command no matter whether the signals are activated or not.
I was sent a publication showing the rules, signs, and signals at grade crossings. It clearly spelled out the meaning of the crossbuck at non-signalized crossings. However, it did not even mention the crossbuck at signalized crossings. Nor did it mention a need to yield at signalized crossings when the signals are un-activated.
I contacted a representative from the State Patrol about this question. He said that he did not know how the law would apply to the situation, but he seemed skeptical that there was a legal requirement to yield at a signalized crossing when the signals are un-activated.
I have learned of a recent comprehensive study that has concluded that motorists do not recognize the crossbuck as a YIELD sign. Therefore, there are plans to add YIELD signs to the crossbucks at non-signalized crossings. Based on this development, I ask this question:
If there is a need to add yield signs to passive crossings because much of the public does not understand that the crossbuck means yield, then why is there not the same need to add yield signs to signalized crossings?
I posed this question to the state D.O.T. and was told that there is no need to advise a motorist to yield/stop at a grade crossing with active warning devices because those warning systems are required to be failsafe. Basically, it was explained to me that the failsafe attribute meant that the gates and signals cannot fail to activate. I was told that adding a YIELD sign to a signalized crossing would not only be unnecessary, but it would also confuse motorists.
This response raises these issues:
1) If it is true, there is no need for crossbucks at signalized crossings.
2) It cannot be true because failsafe does not mean that the signals cannot fail.
And it raises this difficult question:
Why would a YIELD sign added to the crossbuck confuse drivers at a signalized crossing, but add clarity at a non-signalized crossing?
There is more news on this case today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about an attorney representing BNSF paying witnesses to testify in the case. It is written by Paul Levy and appears on page one of Friday June 26Th edition. Paul Levy is plevy@startribune.com. It is an excellent article.
Its really amazing,and sickening how people can blame the railroad, for the stupidity of their own actions.Gee seems to me,that these kids were in a hurry...oh God forbid if we can wait a few minutes for the train to pass.No they had to do the most stupid thing and go around the gates.As sad as it is......they got what they deserved.Gee does the same thing apply to 3 kids in Fond Du Lac,WI who went 65 over Lone Rock Road,and lost control of the car,which slammed into a tree nearby? Or better yet..a 17 year old in Birnamwood,WI is going 80 over hills,passes a slow moving pickup truck ,loses control,and slams into a 65 year old woman that instantly kills her.Guess what..that 65 year old WAS my great aunt !!!!!!!!!!!! Both of these incidents were for the what.... joy of it...and yet there were concequenses paid for it!!!!Anyone want to debate me on the fact that teenagers shouldnt get a drivers license,let alone dont know what a road is,or how to drive responsibly on one ?!!!! Better yet,how about the people already on the road, that dont care about the other drivers!!!!!Anyone..anyone that wants to be that stupid.....deserves to get what is coming to them.Gee im sorry ..YOU dont have the time to wait?!!! Yet you can wait for your fast food,or a stop light to change,yet you cant wait for a trian? HMMMM is the grim reaper gonna wait for you to decide when you are going to die?There is nothing, that is going to change from something like this to happen again,except common sense,responsibility,and the fact that people need to take the time and enjoy what they have.Some of us dont have the chance to live a second or third life. As upset as I am about this..I appologize for my outburst.Im just sick of people who dont care,and their own stupidity.
The article does not identify who these witnesses were nor what their testimony was. A very brief quote from the heart of the article:
"The two paid witnesses were paid $10,000 and $5,000, respectively, in what a St. Paul attorney representing Burlington Northern Santa Fe called a "reward" in court documents."
Without more information than is in the article, I don't think this advances either side's case very much.
cnwfan2 Its really amazing,and sickening how people can blame the railroad, for the stupidity of their own actions.Gee seems to me,that these kids were in a hurry...oh God forbid if we can wait a few minutes for the train to pass.No they had to do the most stupid thing and go around the gates.As sad as it is......they got what they deserved.Gee does the same thing apply to 3 kids in Fond Du Lac,WI who went 65 over Lone Rock Road,and lost control of the car,which slammed into a tree nearby? Or better yet..a 17 year old in Birnamwood,WI is going 80 over hills,passes a slow moving pickup truck ,loses control,and slams into a 65 year old woman that instantly kills her.Guess what..that 65 year old WAS my great aunt !!!!!!!!!!!! Both of these incidents were for the what.... joy of it...and yet there were concequenses paid for it!!!!Anyone want to debate me on the fact that teenagers shouldnt get a drivers license,let alone dont know what a road is,or how to drive responsibly on one ?!!!! Better yet,how about the people already on the road, that dont care about the other drivers!!!!!Anyone..anyone that wants to be that stupid.....deserves to get what is coming to them.Gee im sorry ..YOU dont have the time to wait?!!! Yet you can wait for your fast food,or a stop light to change,yet you cant wait for a trian? HMMMM is the grim reaper gonna wait for you to decide when you are going to die?There is nothing, that is going to change from something like this to happen again,except common sense,responsibility,and the fact that people need to take the time and enjoy what they have.Some of us dont have the chance to live a second or third life. As upset as I am about this..I appologize for my outburst.Im just sick of people who dont care,and their own stupidity.
Yes, but the jury found that the crossing gates failed to activate, and therefore, the jury found the BNSF to be at fault. Therefore, there is no basis that I know of to conclude that the kids were stupid, too impatient to wait for a train, lacked common sense, or were acting irresponsibly.
It is the jury’s job to find the truth, and they found the railroad to be at fault.
I don't know about the rest of you, but with the exception of our light rail I have never seen a train that didn't litterally make the ground shake under your feet. Even without a horn or a gate, it doesn't take a great effort to listen for an approaching train.
Phoebe Vet I don't know about the rest of you, but with the exception of our light rail I have never seen a train that didn't litterally make the ground shake under your feet. Even without a horn or a gate, it doesn't take a great effort to listen for an approaching train.
I would not expect a driver to feel the ground shake from an approaching train. However, I would expect them to hear the horn and see the headlights, although, considering the horn, I wonder if drivers are required to be able to hear. They don’t test for hearing in my state. Nevertheless, the horn is effective for warning everyone who can hear, and that is most drivers. So it is an effective backup warning.
According to the FRA, the crossbuck alone requires drivers to yield by slowing down, looking for trains, and stopping if one is approaching. This is required even if the flashers and gates are not activated.
Therefore, the driver in the Anoka crash failed to yield to the train. Since the train had the right of way, and the driver failed to yield as required, one would logically conclude that the driver was at fault.
But, apparently in a civil case, some other elements enter the picture. I cannot explain it in legal terms, but apparently, once the railroad adds an automatic protection system to the crossing, they are responsible to make sure it works even though trains still have the right of way no matter whether the flashers and gates work or not.
Re: "But, apparently in a civil case, some other elements enter the picture. I cannot explain it in legal terms, but apparently, once the railroad adds an automatic protection system to the crossing, they are responsible to make sure it works even though trains still have the right of way no matter whether the flashers and gates work or not."
-- Perhaps that's why RR companies so often fight "tooth and nail" to convert their clangers by adding auto. gates. When gates are added, it adds one more thing that can go wrong and increases the RR's responsibility (and therefore liablity). A decision against the RR company in court can cost many times the capital cost of putting in new crossing signals.
Al:The railroad doesn't decide to add or remove gates, only the ICC (Illinois Commerce Commission) does. Any change to the crossing after an ICC decision is material breach of contract, including widening or shortening the crossing
The railroad gets stuck with the maintenance and inspection costs for the life of the installation.
M.C.:
Thanks for pointing out my error. I had meant to say that RR companies fight tooth and nail against the addition of gates to their flashing crossings. I think we agree with each other that a regulatory commission gets to decide what goes where and that the RR must do as they say.
But of course the railroads can, and often do, complain and lobby against paying more.
Back in the day I worked for a regional planning commission, one of our functions was to prioritize crossing protection improvements with allocated federal (RRP) and state and local matching funds. These were largely county and local initiatives. The state would send a list of railroad protection and surface projects for the roads under their jurisdiction. Both were incorporated in the annual element, or work program for transportation projects in the 3-county region. Usually the railroads picked up the county or municipal jurisdiction share, 5% of the total, without too much complaint. Other programs were tapped from time to time. I was not aware that the state commerce commission had any hand in the process.
In ten years, the commerce commission never ordered improved protection for local roads; and they only acted to approve a number of crossing closings and open one new crossing. On these occasions, the commission served to arbitrate public and railroad concerns.
Maybe the tenor of discussions has risen; but I can't see how this would improve relations and lead to more mutually satisfactory resolutions of differences. Maybe gates are a headache to maintain and replace; but overall they had proven to be more effective than just flashers - even with a culture of beating the train.
I find it most interesting that this case found BNSF in fault because they failed to prove that the automatic crossing protection system was working during the crash. From this information, I conclude that if there were no automatic system of flashers and gates, but just crossbucks instead; then BNSF could not have been found at fault.
Generally I would think that automatic flashers and gates reduce liability because they reduce the chance of collisions. However, by the finding of this trial, it would seem that automatic flashers and gates raise the liability exposure and potential liability cost of a crossing because they can fail to function, or the railroad company can fail to prove that they functioned at a particular train event.
Is this correct?
Yesterday on the previous page, aricat mentioned the Minneapolis Star Tribune article about how an attorney for BNSF was paying for witnesses. I thought it was very strange, both in the way it was written, and in the way it analyzed the ethics and legality of paying for witnesses. It struck me as an advocacy piece intended to poison the atmosphere against BNSF. However, I have to wonder about the appearance of paying witnesses, no matter whether it is legal or not.
Today, a second article appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune revealing that yesterday, District Judge Ellen Mass denied the motion for a new trial by BNSF, apparently because the payment for witnesses “did not pass the smell test,” as the judge put it. The first article could not conclude whether paying for witnesses was legal or not, and today, in the second article, we learn that apparently the judge does not even know the answer to that question, instead relying on a “smell test.”
But, to me, the strangest thing revealed in both of the articles, but particularly in the first article is the nature of the testimony that would have been provided by the paid witnesses. I can’t tell whether it is just sloppy writing or weak legal theory. Look at page 2 and 3 of the first article. What the witnesses would have told the court is detailed in some of the most confusing, disconnected, and pointless construction that I have ever seen. The last five paragraphs of page 3 are just bizarre.
Here is the link to the first article:
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/49132697.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DU2EkP7K_V_GD7EaPc:iLP8iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Here is the link to the second article:
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/49284527.html?page=1&c=y
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.