There is a reason that some states prohibit young drivers from having other youngsters in the car - because they are talking to their friends and not paying attention to their driving.
While both cell phones and two-way radios can interfere with hearing, so can the HEP generator on our trains and the bell on the locomotive. The difference is that we recognize that and compensate for it.
The difference between cell phones and two way radios, as I see it, is exactly what I mentioned before - it's where your mind is during the conversation. If I'm talking to my locomotive or my crew on my radio, my focus is on them, not the color of the new curtains or the new dent in the car.
If there is other traffic on the same channel, I could be distracted by that conversation, but I'm still not focusing on the color of those curtains. I may be considering whether our movements might conflict, but I may also simply tune their transmissions out.
The problem with cell phones (or a wired phone, for that matter) is that you tend to focus on the conversation, often visualizing what you are discussing or else multi-tasking (trying to remember the shopping list to pick up on the way home), so your focus is far from the task at hand.
As I said before, I've been there.
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...
The issue seems to be centering around the distraction factor caused by cell phones or two-way radios. In Ed's case, he's using the radio as part of the job so he has to be aware of what's going on since he has to pass that information to his engineer or other crews. In some of the other cases, the use of the phone or radio is not strictly job-related so it becomes a distraction, same as a conversation with a co-worker on the misfortunes of the local hockey team. It's not the use of the phone or radio in and of itself, it's how it's being used.
Larry and Paul got what I was driving at..
First, BNSF and most Class 1 roads require anyone working on or near live track to wear a bright safety orange vest, and all employees who work around any machinery are required to have hearing protection on their person, (note on their person, not absolutely in use, varies by carrier)...every terminal has a huge box of disposable ear plus near the exit towards the track/ yard and they are all over the diesel shop and rip track.
My engineer uses ear plugs, so he is by rule "impairing" his hearing in that he is muting the decibel impact from the diesel engine...but he is concentration on my and my helpers voice over the radio.
Phillips plastic has a contractor switch crew that works inside their Pasadena plant switching out the pellet facility and their yard, they wear head sets with built in microphones and ear phones because they are working in an environment that is loud to begin with and adding in the sound of their locomotive and the associated noise from their work would destroy a persons hearing in a few weeks without some form of protection.
These are not the el cheapo sets either, while waiting to pull the plant I looked over a guys head set, its made by Sony, and when you put it on, the outside world, sound wise, goes away.
Now, we are talking about a plant that runs 24/7, is so loud you can stand next to each other and scream at one another and still not hear...imagine a jet engine at take off throttle and you would be close.
But put these on and the most you hear sounds like...well, you really don't hear anything but the light static from the head set...they can be set up as PTT, (Push To Talk) or open mic...they use the PTT of course.
So here we have a railroad crew with all external sound blocked out, yet they work safely, zero injuries for the last 400 plus day.
My point is, it is not the device that is dangerous, but what we use it for.
I have found myself having a discussion about yard work, building up a track, and during the course of talking to the yardmaster on the radio, I realized I had ended up standing in the middle of a live yard track with my back to the lead, all because I was talking about something other than the immediate situation at hand.
As long as we use the device to talk about what we are doing at that exact moment, switching and such, the device becomes secondary to what we are doing, it is part of what we are doing right then, and which device we use, cell phone, Motorola radio or a Sony headset becomes moot, it is the use we put the device to, not the device itself.
I can use the DTFM function of my radio and turn it into a "phone" of sorts, and call my wife to talk about what's for dinner...I can do the same with a cell phone of course.
Right now, we are basing all of this on a report from a media outlet, and a BNSF Safety Brief, which I can assure you went through a spin doctor first, to avoid any liability for the carrier, so we have no proof other than the witness saying so that he was on a cell phone when he was struck.
The FRA report will clear that up, and hopefully we will find out who he was talking to and what he was talking about, another railroad employee discussing the work he just finished, or his girlfriend about their date the follow day.
His own train would have masked the sound of the approaching passenger train, he could have assumed the gates were down because his own train was in the circuit, and to top all of that, he committed one of the deadly sins that are drilled into us every day, he failed to look first, and fouled live track.
Cell phone or no cell phone, this is what got him killed.
Sad day for the BNSF.
23 17 46 11
tree68 There is a reason that some states prohibit young drivers from having other youngsters in the car - because they are talking to their friends and not paying attention to their driving. NPR had a report the other day that shed some light on the above. Paraphrased it was when an adult in in the car talking to you they are paying attention to the driving. When either the driver or passenger perceives a problem in the road ahead they either shut up or point out the problem. When talking on the phone the person on the other end has no idea what is occurring on the road ahead there by distracting the driver. So with the above idea neither the teen driver or his/her passengers are paying attention to the road ahead even worse. Interesting??
NPR had a report the other day that shed some light on the above. Paraphrased it was when an adult in in the car talking to you they are paying attention to the driving. When either the driver or passenger perceives a problem in the road ahead they either shut up or point out the problem.
When talking on the phone the person on the other end has no idea what is occurring on the road ahead there by distracting the driver.
So with the above idea neither the teen driver or his/her passengers are paying attention to the road ahead even worse. Interesting??
With the above in mind I now more than ever cut short a conversation when I am talking to someone on the their or mine cell phone when either of us is driving.
edblysard Larry and Paul got what I was driving at.. First, BNSF and most Class 1 roads require anyone working on or near live track to wear a bright safety orange vest, and all employees who work around any machinery are required to have hearing protection on their person, (note on their person, not absolutely in use, varies by carrier)...every terminal has a huge box of disposable ear plus near the exit towards the track/ yard and they are all over the diesel shop and rip track. ...My point is, it is not the device that is dangerous, but what we use it for.
...My point is, it is not the device that is dangerous, but what we use it for.
Ed,
I understand the points you are making. And I want to clarify that I do not believe that the sense of hearing is essential for a person to ascertain whether it is safe to cross a track. You bring up a good point about hearing impairment caused by hearing protection.
However, what I do believe is that the rule cited in the BNSF accident report is defectively written where it requires a person crossing a track to not be carrying a tool that impairs hearing. I believe the author of that language did not realize the entire scope of its meaning, and therefore did not intend it to mean everything it says. This defect in that rule language greatly surprises me because I have found railroad rules to be some of the clearest language ever written.
So, as I mentioned previously, I am curious as to the source of this rule that is quoted in the BNSF accident report.
All the rule needs to say is that an employee must know that a track is clear of any movement that will interfere with him or her if he or she fouls that track.
An employee must rely on the senses of hearing, sight, and touch in order to determine whether it is safe to cross a track. However, these three senses need not be functioning to 100%. For instance, the sense of hearing and touch could be completely absent and the determination of whether it is safe to cross could still be made with vision alone. All five senses are somewhat impaired all the time to various degrees.
The rule must require an employee to not only make sure a track is clear to cross, but also to evaluate his or her senses before crossing to make sure that they not impaired to the point of making it impossible to determine whether the track is clear to cross. In order to evaluate his or her senses, an employee must not be distracted from that task.
At the risk of provoking someone's wrath, I'll say it. The bigger picture I take away from this incident is that: 1. Being around tracks is dangerous. 2. Even experienced railroad employees can get hurt or killed in spite of their being very responsible. 3. Given that, it seems rather inconsistent to be judgmental and harsh when "civilians" run afoul of moving trains, especially some of the incidents involving pedestrians.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This gives better info on the study on hands-free cell phone distraction.
http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2010/phones/?utm_source=streamsend&utm_medium=email&utm_content=12590989&utm_campaign=LAS%20News%20Online
edblysard My point is, it is not the device that is dangerous, but what we use it for.
Just adding "and how we use it." says it all.
I agree with you fully, the rule is worded in such a manner as to prohibit use of any communication device while crossing tracks, although it only takes a second or two to step across...
But again, in this instance, it was not as much of the phone distraction as it was his failure to follow protocol and look both ways before fouling that killed him.
Cell phone, radio, boom box, it would have made no difference, he was not "cut in" as we say, so....
Hearing protection is something I really don't like to use out in the yard.
I can tell more about where I am, and what is going to happen around me by the sounds I hear than by what I see.
Track joint ping, flange squeak/squeal, the noise cars make themselves, even ties groaning let me know what track has cars moving in it faster than my eyes, plus I don't have to turn my head to get an idea about my surrounding, I can "hear" the work happening..
There is no way to know why the victim did not look both ways before crossing. It might have been that he was either distracted from looking or simply forgot to look. But in either case, he also had to be distracted or impaired from hearing. With the train blowing the horn as it was, either sight or hearing would have alerted him to the danger.
It does appear to be an established fact that he was on a cell phone, and because cell phone conversations can be a distraction, it might have distracted him from looking and hearing. Or perhaps he simply forgot to look, and the cell phone distracted him from hearing as a backup.
Here is a report that raises a lot of questions:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/s1725870.shtml
It interviews an eyewitness who saw the BNSF employee get hit by the train, and reports that the victim was talking on a cell phone when he got hit.
There were two cameras onboard the two trains that recorded the images of the employee getting hit by the train. They recorded the images in sufficient detail to show the victims shuffling though a stack of papers.
An Anoka County sheriff’s spokesman said that the victim got hit by the train while talking on a cell phone.
Yet, BNSF says they cannot confirm that the victim was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident.
And then incredibly, BNSF says they are investigating whether the victim violated company policy by talking on a cell phone.
edblysard I agree with you fully, the rule is worded in such a manner as to prohibit use of any communication device while crossing tracks, although it only takes a second or two to step across... But again, in this instance, it was not as much of the phone distraction as it was his failure to follow protocol and look both ways before fouling that killed him. Cell phone, radio, boom box, it would have made no difference, he was not "cut in" as we say, so.... Hearing protection is something I really don't like to use out in the yard. I can tell more about where I am, and what is going to happen around me by the sounds I hear than by what I see. Track joint ping, flange squeak/squeal, the noise cars make themselves, even ties groaning let me know what track has cars moving in it faster than my eyes, plus I don't have to turn my head to get an idea about my surrounding, I can "hear" the work happening..
I'm guilty as the next guy of not wearing hearing protection as much as I should, even though I've been trying to more, lately. But yeah, you can hear cars, but I'm sure you encountered those cars that can run silent. And the first time one sneaks up on you - it's scary. I like the ear protection that isn't too strong. It's just enough to block out that far away noise, and allows you to concentrate on the closer noise (my yard is next to some other industries that can make a lot of humming industrial noise).
The problem with not wearing ear protection when you are required to - you end up damaging your hearing, so that works against you, too. We all know RRers that are deaf as posts.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Sorta a Catch 22. Sounds rough.
Last year I had one of those "stealth" earpieces for my radio when I worked on our Polar Express trips. It served two purposes - kept the passengers from hearing "behind the scenes" radio traffic regarding the progress of our honored guest, and allowed me to hear what was going on on the radio - not always easy given the noise 60+ people (including lots of kids) can make in a railroad car.
Of course, it was only in one ear, so my general hearing was only minimally affected, and the largest portion of the time I wasn't directly involved in any movements as such (ie, switching).
The problem with distraction is that you can’t see it coming, and by the time it arrives, you are too distracted to recognize it. So rules intended to prevent distraction must be confined to banning activities that commonly lead to distraction. But it is impossible to foresee all the possible roads to distraction as illustrated in this historical nugget from the Railroad Gazette:
October 1890
28th, on Baltimore & Ohio, near Barnesville, O., butting collision between passenger trains 103 and 46, wrecking both engines and several cars. One engineer and an express messenger injured. The engineer of train 103 heard that his son was killed in the collision at Black Hand, and was greatly depressed; at the next station he learned that the report was unfounded, and was then so overcome with joy that he forgot his train order.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.