A BNSF track worker was struck and killed today in Anoka County, MN, by a North Star commuter train. Apparently, he was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and he stepped into the path of the commuter train.
The article refers to the victim being part of a crew of a test train that was stopped while waiting for another employee. The victim stepped out from behind the test train while talking on a cell phone, and he stepped into the path of the commuter train, which was running 80 mph. There was a grade crossing nearby, but there was a no horn zone in effect there, so no horn was sounded by the commuter train for that crossing.
However, the North Star engineer did sound several warning toots of the horn to alert the worker who was ultimately struck and killed. So apparently, the victim did not hear that warning.
Is the use of cell phones against the rules for this type of employee?
http://www.startribune.com/local/north/101967018.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU
From the description in the article I am unable to tell what class of employee the individual that was killed was. If he was a member of the T&E crew for the test train or a member of the test trains own operating crew. The test train sounds like a Track Geometry measurement train.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
He was the Roadmaster.
Then, if he was the roadmaster, the FRA "cellphone rule" did not apply to him.
Opinion only, but it should apply to all officers who are out on property near live track.
23 17 46 11
Does the cell phone rule prohibit MOW workers from using cell phones while working on track?
Link to the next proposed amendment to EO 26, (the cell phone rule)
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/204.shtml
Note it uses the term Operating employees, which is generally interpreted to mean T&E employees or train crews.
Each railroad can of coarse, adopt more restrictive rules which can include MOW and company officers if they choose to, but not all do.
edblysard Then, if he was the roadmaster, the FRA "cellphone rule" did not apply to him. Opinion only, but it should apply to all officers who are out on property near live track.
Ha! It should apply to all persons that are in control of their own motion, whether driving a plane, train, car, motorcycle, bicycle, tricycle, skateboard, roller skates, surfboard or on foot! PERIOD! Humans that are pretending to chew gum cannot control anything else at the same time. If your mouth is engaged, you should pay attention to that activity ALONE and not attempt to engage in the control of any thing else. (Too many people cannot even control their mouth, anyway!)
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable.
That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however.
As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
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...
Now this is interesting:
The radio news just reported that the victim did not hear the train because the engine on his test train was running, and because the North Star train did not sound its horn for the nearby grade crossing because it is in a no-horn zone. No mention of a cell phone.
I suspect the facts of this accident are being manipulated as they are being fed to the news media. There was another report this morning that said the engineer did not sound the horn because of the no-horn zone, and this was a probable reason why the victim did not hear the approaching train.
Yet other reports specifically stated that the engineer sounded several horn toots in rapid succession as a warning when he approached the standing test train at 80 mph. So, of course, this makes the report of not sounding the horn because of the no-horn zone seem like an incredibly red herring.
The no horn rule has a clause that states the engineer can/ should sound his horn if he feels a imminent danger exists...and the sounding of several rapid horn toots is the correct signal to alert people on the ground to an approaching train, and as a general warning of danger.
So both reports may be somewhat correct, if not entirely accurate.
He may not have sounded his horn in the traditional crossing sequence, but he may have given several rapid toots....given the quality of most newspaper and TV reports on train accidents, it is entirely feasible that none of the reporters are aware of the entire rule, its use, and its intent.
As for him standing next to a running locomotive, I personally have found it almost impossible to have a radio conversation when next to a running motor, much less a cell phone conversation...cell phones pick up a tremendous amount of background noise....and being next to a running locomotive makes it very, very hard to hear approaching trains, this too from personal experience.
edblysard The no horn rule has a clause that states the engineer can/ should sound his horn if he feels a imminent danger exists...and the sounding of several rapid horn toots is the correct signal to alert people on the ground to an approaching train, and as a general warning of danger. So both reports may be somewhat correct, if not entirely accurate. He may not have sounded his horn in the traditional crossing sequence, but he may have given several rapid toots....given the quality of most newspaper and TV reports on train accidents, it is entirely feasible that none of the reporters are aware of the entire rule, its use, and its intent. As for him standing next to a running locomotive, I personally have found it almost impossible to have a radio conversation when next to a running motor, much less a cell phone conversation...cell phones pick up a tremendous amount of background noise....and being next to a running locomotive makes it very, very hard to hear approaching trains, this too from personal experience.
Well I think both reports are accurate as far as they go. It is just that one of them does not go far enough, and thus implies the opposite of what actually happened. I don’t see anything that looks like the news media getting their facts messed up as they often do with railroad reporting or why it would matter how much the media understands the cell phone rule or the horn rules.
The report that did not go far enough clearly implied that the victim did not hear the approaching train because it did not blow the horn because of the no-horn zone. In that report, there was no cell phone, and no horn to warn the victim.
Now it is true that there was a no-horn zone, and also true that the train did not blow for the nearby crossing because of that no-horn zone. However, the engineer did blow the horn right there, perhaps right on that nearby grade crossing; for the specific purpose of warning the personnel of the test train.
The reports that mention the engineer blowing the horn said that he did not blow for the crossing because of the no-horn rule, but that he did blow a succession of horn toots as a warning to the test train despite it being a no-horn zone. And they also said that the victim apparently did not hear the warning because of being on the cell phone. I don’t see anything wrong with that report.
Of course the cell phone can produce audible interference with ambient sound just like an I-pod. And it can produce outright distraction, thus taking attention off of ambient sounds that would otherwise still be audible. But even with a loss of audible warning, an employee is supposed to expect trains on any track at any time, and act accordingly. I would say that would require looking for trains as well as listening for them.
tree68 Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
TomDiehl tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train. Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn't drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place.
Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it's just a fact of life - if someone gets hit by a train because they are on a cell phone, have headphones in, or just aren't paying attention, it's nobody's fault but their own and trying to litigate to make it any better has no effect. The only thing, in my opinion, that would have any effect is education, like Operation Lifesaver. The law is useless in this case!
Sawtooth500 TomDiehl: tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train. Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street. I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn't drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place. Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it's just a fact of life - if someone gets hit by a train because they are on a cell phone, have headphones in, or just aren't paying attention, it's nobody's fault but their own and trying to litigate to make it any better has no effect. The only thing, in my opinion, that would have any effect is education, like Operation Lifesaver. The law is useless in this case!
TomDiehl: tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train. Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
People still rob banks whether or not there are laws against it. People still commit murder whether or not there are laws against it. Laws are not necessarily a deterant, but the do define what is acceptable in a society. Thus the law is not useless in any case.
While speaking with one of the yard crew members at Eola yesterday about yard work rules he mentioned this incident and made a comment about members of management now "kissing their cell phones goodbye" as a restult.
Semper Vaporo Sawtooth500: TomDiehl: tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train. Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street. I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn't drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place. Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it's just a fact of life - if someone gets hit by a train because they are on a cell phone, have headphones in, or just aren't paying attention, it's nobody's fault but their own and trying to litigate to make it any better has no effect. The only thing, in my opinion, that would have any effect is education, like Operation Lifesaver. The law is useless in this case! People still rob banks whether or not there are laws against it. People still commit murder whether or not there are laws against it. Laws are not necessarily a deterant, but the do define what is acceptable in a society. Thus the law is not useless in any case.
Sawtooth500: TomDiehl: tree68: Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable. That doesn't exclude him from common sense, however. As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train. Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can't regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the "Stop, Look, and Listen" rule before crossing the tracks, or the street. I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn't drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place. Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it's just a fact of life - if someone gets hit by a train because they are on a cell phone, have headphones in, or just aren't paying attention, it's nobody's fault but their own and trying to litigate to make it any better has no effect. The only thing, in my opinion, that would have any effect is education, like Operation Lifesaver. The law is useless in this case!
Yes, and I would speculate that people would rob banks more often if there were not laws against it.
Cell phones are distracting, and the distraction comes mostly from the conversation, not from dialing and fiddling with the phone. So, hands-free phones do not do much to reduce distraction. Some people can easily perform a task with some level of distraction, while others cannot.
If the railroad industry believes that the level of distraction from cell phone use rises to a safety hazard when around trains, and they therefore ban cell phone use around trains, the rule ought to apply to everybody.
Bucyrus Cell phones are distracting, and the distraction comes mostly from the conversation, not from dialing and fiddling with the phone. So, hands-free phones do not do much to reduce distraction.
Cell phones are distracting, and the distraction comes mostly from the conversation, not from dialing and fiddling with the phone. So, hands-free phones do not do much to reduce distraction.
I agree that they can be distracting, but I don't think the distraction is talking. By that l;ogic, me talking to the guy riding shotgun while I drive is a distraction. (Though for some people, it is)
Dialing IS a problem, because you are not looking at the road. With Bluetooths, the hand can go instictively to the button in your ear, because it doesn't change. The buttons for your home number however, are different than the ones for your spouse's cell.
And regarding cell phones, they DO have a place in railroading. Some relevant conversations, do NOT need to be had over the radio, where people with loud mouths and scanners can go and start things.
Actually, I can think of another one. How do you contact your roadforeman if he's in an area not covered by a repeater (not major Class 1) or is not on a clear channel?
-Morgan
Flashwave Bucyrus: Cell phones are distracting, and the distraction comes mostly from the conversation, not from dialing and fiddling with the phone. So, hands-free phones do not do much to reduce distraction. I agree that they can be distracting, but I don't think the distraction is talking. By that l;ogic, me talking to the guy riding shotgun while I drive is a distraction. (Though for some people, it is) Dialing IS a problem, because you are not looking at the road. With Bluetooths, the hand can go instictively to the button in your ear, because it doesn't change. The buttons for your home number however, are different than the ones for your spouse's cell. And regarding cell phones, they DO have a place in railroading. Some relevant conversations, do NOT need to be had over the radio, where people with loud mouths and scanners can go and start things. Actually, I can think of another one. How do you contact your roadforeman if he's in an area not covered by a repeater (not major Class 1) or is not on a clear channel?
Bucyrus: Cell phones are distracting, and the distraction comes mostly from the conversation, not from dialing and fiddling with the phone. So, hands-free phones do not do much to reduce distraction.
Part of being distracted is not realizing you are distracted. Studies have found that most of the cell phone distraction comes from the conversational engagement and not the manipulation of the phone as was previously believed. Although phone manipulation can also be distracting.
Consider this:
People on cell phone or even just a cordless phone tend to do other things while talking simply because of the freedom of not being tied to a line. When I am talking to someone on a cell or cordless phone, I can instantly tell when they do something else. What they are doing can be almost nothing, and yet I can instantly hear their attention drain away from our conversation. It could be something as minimal as them pouring a cup of coffee, or looking out the window to see if the mailman is coming, yet the distraction is as clear as could be.
Of course the person doing the task in addition to the phone conversation has no idea that they are distracted, and they will always tell you that talking on the phone never distracts them.
So I conclude that if a simple task is capable of distracting from a phone conversation, it works the other way around. People on phones are distracted. It used to be that they sat in a chair and did nothing else but have a phone conversation, so the attention absorption of the conversation did not matter. In fact it made for better communication. Now they drive cars while having their phone conversations.
Of course, it is a matter of degrees. Distraction can be large or small, and the attention needed for a concomitant task can be large or small. I see plenty of people talking on cell phones while driving, and their driving seems fine.
Quite true. One (but many show impairment with cell phone use) research study shows:
"When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk." (Strayer, Drews, Crouch, 2006).
If one applied the idea mentioned by a prior poster, that laws have little impact on behavior, we logically shouldn't have DUI laws either.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I can assure you that that train does nowhere near 80mph. We topped out at about 60mph today. The engines have exhaust silencers also.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
A large part of the distraction with any electronic communications (and this could happen with the railroad radio, too) is that your "minds eye" pictures what you are talking about, and not what's actually in front of your eyes.
If your significant other is describing what color curtains should go in the den, you're picturing those curtains, not the road in front of you.
On the train, a railroad radio discussion about an upcoming move/activity/meet may well be as distracting as a call from home.
I've had this happen when I was a fire chief - focused on the scene I was responding to and not necessarily as closely as I should have been on the road.
If the PDF won't work, here is the text rom BNSF Safety Brief.
Incident Description
On September 1, 2010, at approximately 6:50 a.m., Central Time, Roadmaster Andrew K.
Weaver, 53 years old with 31 years of service, sustained fatal injuries when he was struck by
a Northstar commuter train at a road crossing on the Staples Subdivision at Milepost 21.86,
Twin Cities Division.
Background and General Information
Roadmaster Weaver had just completed an inspection trip over his assigned territory on the
Staples Sub and had dismounted the geometry car on the field side at a road crossing. He
intended to cross over to the opposite side of the tracks to meet a fellow employee. The
inspection train he had been riding started moving west on main track 1 as Roadmaster
Weaver began moving toward the road crossing walkway.
Roadmaster Weaver crossed main track 1 behind the inspection train. As he began to cross
main track 2, he was struck by an eastbound Northstar commuter train approaching on that
track and was thrown into the area between the two main tracks. The crossing gates remained
in the down position throughout the time Roadmaster Weaver approached and began walking
over the crossing.
Roadmaster Weaver is survived by his sister who is currently living in Pasadena, Calif., and
his father who resides in Hawaii.
Preventive Measures/Actions
Fouling track during work or incidental fouling for crossing over track can never be taken as a
routine matter.
Associated MWOR Rules
1.1.2 Alert and Attentive
Employees must be careful to prevent injuring themselves or others. They must be alert and
attentive when performing their duties and plan their work to avoid injury.
1.20 Alert to Train Movement
Employees must expect the movement of trains, engines, cars, or other movable equipment at
any time, on any track, and in either direction.
Employees must not stand on the track in front of an approaching engine, car, or other moving
equipment.
Employees must be aware of location of structures or obstructions where clearances are
close.
Incident Briefing
EMPLOYEE FATALITY
11.3 Fouling the Track - (In Part)
... When this situation occurs incidental to the performance of his or her duties, such as when
walking across or adjacent to a track on which authority or protection has not been provided,
each worker must:
1. Assume individual responsibility to make the move safely.
2. Foul the track only after determining that it is safe to do so.
3. Move directly and promptly to a position clear of the track.
4. Not carry tools or material that restricts motion, impairs sight or hearing, or prevents
the rapid movement away from an approaching train or other on-track equipment on
the track being fouled.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL RULES AND POLICIES THAT ARE IN EFFECT AT THE
DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS SAFETY BRIEFING ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGE. PLEASE CONTACT SAFETY/RULES TO DETERMINE VALIDITY
BEFORE YOU USE THE INFORMATION IN THIS BRIEFING AT A LATER DATE.
REMEMBER -- All BNSF employees are empowered to work safely. If
you think a condition is unsafe, protect it, report it, assist in
correcting it, or use your expertise to provide a better and safer way
BNSF Safety
Assuming a cell phone actually was involved, it seems likely that a roadmaster might have legitimate Railroad reasons to own a cell phone and to use that cell phone while out on the track.
What I don't understand, even given cell phone distraction is how a roadmaster with 31 years experience who just completed an inspection and who, one has to assume, knows what trains are due on that section of track doesn't simply keep away or check status before crossing.
As humans we can be distracted by all types of things, even our own thoughts and emotions, this guy should have known that train was coming before he even stepped out of the geometry car. The level of distraction or dereliction of duty needed is almost unbelievable .
I have a question:
The report does not mention the use of a cell phone, which might have played a role in distraction. This information is apparently omitted because the cell phone rule does not apply to employees in the class to which the victim belonged. Instead, the report states the broader rules that apply, such as this:
"Each employee must foul the track only after determining that it is safe to do so."
Obviously the employee broke this rule, but the reason for doing so remains unknown.
However, the report also cites this rule:
"When this situation occurs incidental to the performance of his or her duties, such as when walking across or adjacent to a track on which authority or protection has not been provided, each worker must not carry tools or material that restricts motion, impairs sight or hearing, or prevents the rapid movement away from an approaching train or other on-track equipment on the track being fouled." (my emphasis added)
I think it is accurate to say that a cell phone is a tool that impairs hearing. So I would like to know if the employee broke this rule by using the cell phone while fouling a track even though the cell phone rule per se does not apply to employees of his class.
Ok,
Then substitute a Motorola JT 1250 radio for cell phone...
Why would one handheld communication device be more allowable/acceptable than another?
Two words.....Situational Awareness
edblysard Ok, Then substitute a Motorola JT 1250 radio for cell phone... Why would one handheld communication device be more allowable/acceptable than another?
Neither one of them are acceptable according to that rule cited in the report. Both the radio and the cell phone are tools that impair hearing. Of course, they have to be in use in order to impair hearing, so I assume that it is okay to carry them across a track or walking adjacent to a track if they are not in use. But phones and radios are tools that impair hearing when in use, so they certainly must not be carried while using them when walking across or adjacent to tracks on which authority or protection has not been provided.
But I use my Motorola constantly when riding a shove, walking across tracks, giving instructions to my engineer or switchman, talking to the yardmaster or trainmaster, all while in motion and around live track, up to and including walking between tracks, where one or both tracks are moving.
I have in fact, used my cell phone in lieu of my radio when the locomotive radio failed, we completed the movement via cell phone communication.
Not picking a fight, but both are handheld communication devices, both require you to use one hand to work them, both require you to devote some of your attention to the device and its use.
About the only real difference I can come up with is that when using a radio, most of us follow and use standard radio communication skills, with the almost universal radio language, where as with a cell phone, most folks simply carry on a conversation...but if you used the normal radio communication language on a cell phone, why would it be any different, especially if you used a blue tooth device that did not require you to press a button, or even handle the device?
Bucyrus edblysard: Ok, Then substitute a Motorola JT 1250 radio for cell phone... Why would one handheld communication device be more allowable/acceptable than another? Neither one of them are acceptable according to that rule cited in the report. Both the radio and the cell phone are tools that impair hearing. Of course, they have to be in use in order to impair hearing, so I assume that it is okay to carry them across a track or walking adjacent to a track if they are not in use. But phones and radios are tools that impair hearing when in use, so they certainly must not be carried while using them when walking across or adjacent to tracks on which authority or protection has not been provided.
edblysard: Ok, Then substitute a Motorola JT 1250 radio for cell phone... Why would one handheld communication device be more allowable/acceptable than another?
It's all about the above posted Situational Awareness. I would like to point out, the rules quoted are scripted, probably out of GCOR or BNSF's equivalent word for word. And by impairs hearing, the main culrprits are going to be headsets and earplugs. Now, those too are also used by crews working around the big noisy things. but in the roadmaster's case, he should not have had any on.
Going back to the cellphone distraction thing then, by the same toughts, I cannot talk to anyone in my car. I shouldn't even have a radio to listen too, lest I decide to sing along. Heck, even listening is too much of a distraction. You are absolutely right, that the laws should reflect changes in habit, but people talk. The day a police officer rights me a ticket for asking my passenger where ot eat lunch in a 50mph zone, is the day I move to Canada. At best,what we need is a variable reason reckless driving. That way, if an officer sees aproblem, then he can point out it needs to be corrected. And if something happens before he sees it, then it still comes down to commonsense.
edblysard But I use my Motorola constantly when riding a shove, walking across tracks, giving instructions to my engineer or switchman, talking to the yardmaster or trainmaster, all while in motion and around live track, up to and including walking between tracks, where one or both tracks are moving. I have in fact, used my cell phone in lieu of my radio when the locomotive radio failed, we completed the movement via cell phone communication. Not picking a fight, but both are handheld communication devices, both require you to use one hand to work them, both require you to devote some of your attention to the device and its use. About the only real difference I can come up with is that when using a radio, most of us follow and use standard radio communication skills, with the almost universal radio language, where as with a cell phone, most folks simply carry on a conversation...but if you used the normal radio communication language on a cell phone, why would it be any different, especially if you used a blue tooth device that did not require you to press a button, or even handle the device?
I understand what you are saying. There are several things to consider here. I know you routinely use the radio at work, and I am not really clear on what is allowed and not allowed regarding cell phones. I am only banning their use when crossing a track on the BNSF, based on the rule cited in the BNSF report you posted. I am assuming that that is a rule, and not just a memo or something. I do not know whether it was written intending it to apply to cell phones by its reference to “tools that impair hearing.” However, I cannot possibly see how the words would not apply to a cell phone or a radio. Both are tools, and both impair hearing. So I am focused on the impairment of hearing that communication devices can cause.
To be more precise, they don’t actually impair hearing at the level where the sense of hearing is activated and registered with the brain. Everything that enters the ears gets heard. It would be more accurate to say the devices add sounds that could interrupt or jam what is being heard otherwise. It is also true that an airplane could interrupt what is being heard otherwise, but to the wording of the rule, an airplane is not a tool that can be carried while crossing a track.
A cell phone could directly impair hearing by interrupting hearing by the sound it adds to what is being heard otherwise, or it could cause distraction that takes a person’s mind off of what is being heard. But in either case, the rules require an employee to know that it is clear to foul a track, and therefore the prudent thing to do would be to look for trains as well as listen for them. So, from a practical standpoint, something that interferes with hearing would not necessarily pose a practical danger to a person crossing a track.
But this all boils down to a very practical issue with this BNSF accident in Minnesota. The victim was talking on a cell phone as he stepped in front of the train, and the train sounded a rapid succession of horn toots as it approached the victim. Since the victim did not heed the engineer’s warning, I must conclude that he did not hear it. And he was carrying a tool that can impair hearing while he crossed the track on which authority or protection had not been provided.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.