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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
http://m.kare11.com/news.jsp?key=121404&rc=top
I have no idea what to make of this. Does a railroad company have reference data that proves whether or not grade crossing signals were functioning when trains passed?
It seems like this trial found that the railroad failed to prove that the signals were working, and that onsite evidence proved that the car could not have been in the location in which it was hit if the gates were down.
But the difference in point-of-impact location between a car going around the gate and one passing straight through if the gate were raised is only 10-15 feet or so. The police said the crash evidence indicated that the car went around the gate. I did not see this story on Kare 11 last night, so I will see if I can find out more about it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.