Slope has already been started years again. Been started by the Canadien roads, reflective stripes on engines, and even the trucking industry.
This just puts some kind of standard to it all.
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
Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...I don't know about how rigorous rail enforcement of reflective safety markings is; however, trucking regs are enforced rigorously...reflective material that isn't of the right type or which isn't placed properly, or which is damaged, frayed, or obscured by dirt may result in a fine and even an out of service violation.
Ulrich Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...
Reflectors are a good idea...anything that makes it easier to see is a help...
The point I made at the end of the previous page is one that I have made here before. However, I am not sure if it has ever been clearly understood. What always gets in the way is the obvious conclusion that reflectors can prevent crashes, and how can there be anything wrong with that? I agree with that. In fact, I put up a big reflector today to keep my neighbors from running into my mailbox. I understand that benefit of reflectors. But the larger point that I have made has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
When a car and driver gets hit by a train, the train bears no fault. Unless there is some unusual aberration such as grade crossing flashers failing to activate, the car/train crash is always 100% the fault of the car driver. Railfans and railroaders all know this, and they shout it from the mountaintop all the time.
It used to be the same with run-into-train crashes, but no more. Now, R.I.T. crashes can be the fault of the railroad because a driver might not see the train in time to stop. It amounts to a moron pardon for a particular type of grade crossing sin, whereas before, there was zero tolerance. This is an amazing sea change, and even more amazing that nobody seems to recognize it.
Maybe it is not recognized because the safety benefit of reflectors seems so obvious, and the pardoning by the FRA of drivers failing to yield, as the rationale for reflectors, is not widely known.
Yes, it is almost always the motorists fault if they run into the side of a train. But I don't WANT them to run into the side of a train, no matter who is at fault. And I suspect my feelings are in common with any other sensible railroader.
I don't think the stripes pardon the driver in as so much may give them those few extra seconds to see the train to hopefully avoid the "oh ---- !" moment. Plus those reflectors can come in handy for train crews as well (as I have already pointed out).
The only explanation that a driver can give for running into the side of a train is that he did not see it. So either it is the driver’s fault for not paying attention or it is the railroad’s fault for putting the train in the driver’s way. It can’t be both.
Look at it this way: At night, a driver is suppose to have his headlights on, and not exceed the speed limit. In clear weather, if the driver complies with those requirements, and pays attention, the driver will be able to stop short of any obstruction that lies ahead. In limited visibility, the driver is supposed to drive slower than the speed limit to compensate for the lack of forward visibility. In such cases the proper legal speed must be slow enough to prevent the driver from over-driving his headlights. These rules are intended to prevent drivers from running into objects that lie ahead on the open road, such as boulders, trees, stopped vehicles with no lights, etc.
Now consider a passive grade crossing with just a pair of unlighted crossbucks. They require a driver to yield, and their presence alerts the driver that there may be a train either fouling the crossing or about to foul it. The driver has to look for trains in order to yield. The driver has to know that no trains are present in order to yield. Even if a train is not there, if the driver does not look and verify that the crossing is clear, the driver did not yield. If a driver runs into a standing train, the driver did not yield. No matter how dark a train is, the driver’s headlights will illuminate it sufficiently for a driver to see it in time to yield to it. There is simply no excuse for running into the side of a train at night.
That is there was no excuse until the FRA declared that trains can be hard to see at night, so the railroads must make them easier to see. Hard to see? Only if the driver is distracted, asleep, or impaired. Why should that be the railroad’s responsibility?
It is true that actively warning drivers of a train blocking a crossing will cut down on crashes that do result from drivers being distracted, asleep, or impaired. And there is great benefit in preventing a crash. Certainly that benefit would justify much stronger measures than just reflectors. For that matter, the FRA could just as well conclude that locomotives are hard to see at night, their horns can be hard to hear when drivers have their windows up and music playing, and locomotive headlights can be mistaken for fixed lighting. So by the logic of the FRA, motorists might be excused from the blame of getting hit by a train at a passive crossing.
It has always been a casual amusement to me that the very same people who rail viciously here about graffiti defacement of rolling stock , can at the same time have such antipathy for the tree huggers of Abo canyon and the sorts
Yes, Bucyrus, in a perfect world drivers would not out-drive their headlights. But we do not live in a perfect world. First you have to consider the fact that probably 99%+ (my guess, not actual fact, but I'd be surprised if I'm mistaken) of crossbucks are reflective. Why? You shouldn't out-drive your headlights. But somewhere along the line, someone decided that punishment for out-driving your headlights should not involve slamming into a black LPG car (or an empty flatcar). Would it be the driver's fault? Yes. But so what? If someone can see a train before their headlights hit the actual car, it gives them just that more time to come to a safe stop. And hopefully the car behind them will see it and realize why the car in front of them is stopped.
We now have some pretty cool technology in reflectorization. So why not use it? The lawyers will find a way to blame railroads no matter what. You can't keep hiding in the corner afraid to make a move that may benefit other people (even those out-driving their headlights) becuase it may start a slippery slope. EVERYTHING is a slippery slope. Headlights were a slippery slope. So were ditchlights. So were crossbucks, advanced warning signs, flashing lights, gates, bells, and every other innovation in crossing technology.
Bottom line is I don't want people hitting my train. Maybe that is selfish of me, but it is what it is.
zugmann Bottom line is I don't want people hitting my train. Maybe that is selfish of me, but it is what it is.
That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
Bucyrus That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
My feeling it is STILL the driver's fault, but I guess the courts get to settle that stuff out. I just rather not get into the whole situation to begin with.... hence my favor of reflectors.
zugmann Bucyrus: That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it? My feeling it is STILL the driver's fault, but I guess the courts get to settle that stuff out. I just rather not get into the whole situation to begin with.... hence my favor of reflectors.
Bucyrus: That is understandable, but if they do, who's fault is it?
I agree with you that it would be the driver’s fault. My only objection is to the FRA saying that trains can be hard to see at night, which has to mean that the driver is not entirely at fault. When you have the entire industry, its advocacy groups, the law, and even railfans drawing the clear line in the sand about the fault for grade crossing crashes, it amazes me that the FRA would contradict that position.
What the FRA should have said as justification for the reflectors is this: Motorists are not always paying attention to their driving, so the reflectors might help attract their attention to the presence of a train.
Well, trains CAN be hard to see at night. So can trees, deer, rocks, and anything else. My personal opinion is that it doesn't relieve the motorists of the responsibility to operate their motorcar in a safe manner.
Now be careful - many railroads have been using reflective material LONG before any FRA regulation. So that line in the sand isn't as permanent as you made it to be.
I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
And again, I am not disputing that reflectors can help prevent crashes caused by people driving outside of the law.
Some things can be hard to see at a distance.
Take a black tank car at night at a country crossing. That can be hard to see until your headlights hit it directly. Then it can be pretty easy to see. But until you get to that point, you can't see it from afar. Now if it has reflective stripes, they might pick up from the car's headlights long before you light up the actual car. Makes it easier to see sooner, in a sense.
Like road signs.Many are reflective. Of course they shouldn't need to be if you are driving within therange of your headlights. But having them reflective just lets you see them sooner... same deal with train cars.
Bucyrus I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
Rain? Fog?
Convicted One Bucyrus: I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me. Rain? Fog?
Bucyrus: I can't imagine a train being hard to see if you are driving according to the law. It is inconcievable to me.
Not even in rain or fog. The law requires you to slow down to the point where you can stop within the distance you can see.
Or simply a black car silouetted against a black sky.
At a particular place near where I used to live the grade crossing was elevated quite a bit from the approaching road and the road took a 60-deg (or so) turn just prior to the crossing. Trains at the time were few and far between, one or two per week (yes, that is no excuse, but not being used to them made for not expecting them like one would if they were very common at that place).
The only warning markers were the round RR sign a half block before the crossing and simple crossbucks at the crossing.
Due to the hill and sharpness of the curve one HAD to drive slow.
BUT, I came very close to hitting an empty flat car there one very dark night. If it had not been for a stark white hopper car moving toward me farther down the track I would not have stopped at all... well... at least not until the front of my car was wedged under the flat car! And I am probably like many railfans in that when I cross a RR track my head is swiveling back and forth madly, hoping to see a train.
Even after I had stopped, it was very difficult to see the flat cars ahead of the hopper. My headlights just did not illuminate the area enough to see them at the angles involved.
I appreciate the reflectors! I'd prefer the cars were painted something other than the dark browns and black used on so many of them.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
There is no question that reflectors can help attract someone’s attention if they are breaking the law by not paying attention. My only point is my dismay over the FRA shifting the blame from driver not paying attention to the railroad for placing a train over a crossing.
About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
Johnny
Deggesty About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
If it did not have reflector strips, and you ran into it, who's fault would it have been? If you could not have seen it, a collision with it could not have been your fault. So who's fault would it have been?
Bucyrus Deggesty: About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit. If it did not have reflector strips, and you ran into it, who's fault would it have been? If you could not have seen it, a collision with it could not have been your fault. So who's fault would it have been?
Deggesty: About 1964, I was driving from Brookhaven, Miss., to Wesson, Miss., on Old 51. As I approached the Mississippi Central crossing, I noticed white strips crossing the highway, and was able to stop before I ran into the woodracks that were being pulled across the highway. Had it not been for the reflector strips, I might well have not seen the train before I ran into it. There was no backlight that would have made it possible for me to see the cars; the reflector strips made the difference. Yes, I was traveling at the speed limit.
The way the laws are written (as I understand them) it is almost always the fault of the motorist. There might be circumstances where it could be construed to be the RR at fault, but that is for the courts to decide.
In my case (related a few posts back) I'd say it would have been my fault if I had actually hit the train. Whether I would have felt that way from a hospital bed or if my heirs and assigns would agree or not is another matter, but again the courts would have to decide if it got to that point.
From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
Bucyrus Not even in rain or fog. The law requires you to slow down to the point where you can stop within the distance you can see.
Conditions can change rapidly. You've never been driving and suddenly found yourself engulfed in a fog? I have. Low spots, river valleys, etc.
Which brings me to a new addition, driving in unfamilair territory, the added visibility of reflectors might assist in rapid recognition when in new surroundings
In a perfect world, signs wouldn't be reflective, trash trucks wouldn't need amber lights, higway workemen woudln't neen reflective vests, cars wouldn't need tailights, we wouldn't need any type of crossing protection, what else..
I think the general consensus is that even though we shouldn't need the above items, we recognize their importance.
I like the stripes. I think they do more good than harm. Someone could receive a personal singing telegram that there will be a train at a certain grade crossing, and they will still hit it and try to sue everyone and their brother.
Semper Vaporo From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law.
If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
Bucyrus Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist).
Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. And even after I was stopped, bumper just a few feet from a moving train, I could barely see the dark color cars. I could not see it when I approached the crossing. Still, it would have been my fault if I had hit it.
Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door? Ya don't see it and flatten your nose! I have (both counts!).
I came around the corner at a store in a mall and about jumped out of my skin when this big ugly cuss came right at me! I had been in that store hundreds of times and I knew there was a mirror there, but I still provided a bit of mirth for the people watching me leap out of the way of my own image!
There are pretty decals that you can purchase to put on a patio door at about eye level to help warn you when the door is closed. Why else would those be made, except to help warn people that the door is closed? Whose fault is it if the decals are not there (or not seen) and someone flattens their face on the glass? The archetech that designed the door to be there? The carpenter that installed it? The last person that went through and closed it behind them?
No, it is the fault of the person that we all laugh at for walking into it.
We all make mistakes, sometimes because we are easily or momentarily distracted, sometimes because our eyes are fooled, sometimes because circumstances build up to a point where we cannot do otherwise, even when we are trying very hard not to make a mistake, But it happens.
As for me and my almost intimate encounter. I was obeying the law. I was going slow, I was actively looking for a train (like I said, I always look! ), I was even listening!, but I do believe I would have stuck my right front fender under a flat car if it were not for the hopper a hundred feet down the line. The train and I were going about the same speed and that had to be less than 5 MPH each (10MPH closing speed, max). I have often wondered what would have happened if that white hopper had not been there.
Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing. What could I have done different? Dunno. Never use that particular crossing? Always stop at all crossings? Maybe just at certain crossings? Maybe just under certain circumstances? I thought the crossing was clear until I saw the hopper moving and it concerned me to see a rail car moving toward me with no light on it (or engine ahead of it!). I did not see the flats until after I had stopped out of concern for that hopper moving, and even then they were hard to see.
So... much as I really do respect you, I refute your contention by experience and I get to call "idiot" because I have been one!
Semper Vaporo Bucyrus: Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see? Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door? There are pretty decals that you can purchase to put on a patio door at about eye level to help warn you when the door is closed. Why else would those be made, except to help warn people that the door is closed? Whose fault is it if the decals are not there (or not seen) and someone flattens their face on the glass? The archetech that designed the door to be there? The carpenter that installed it? The last person that went through and closed it behind them? No, it is the fault of the person that we all laugh at for walking into it. Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing. So... much as I really do respect you, I refute your contention by experience and I get to call "idiot" because I have been one!
Bucyrus: Semper Vaporo: From the standpoint of the RR's, I think it would make ecconomical sense to try to make the cars more visible because of the expense involved because one of us idiot motorists missed seeing a train and hit it. Not counting delays, there is the repair of equipment... (neither of which could be recovered financially by suing the average motorist). Well wait a minute. You are saying that motorists can run into a train because they don’t see it. I contend that it would be impossible not to see it if you are paying attention as the law requires. However some here are saying that you can fail to see a train even if you are obeying the law. If the latter is the case, how can you call a driver an idiot for running into a train they can’t see?
Easy. Because "I" (your's truely) felt like an idiot for not seeing a TRAIN right in front of me. Have you ever, personally, or seen someone else, walk into a glass door?
Maybe my term 'idiot' is a bit strong, but that is how I felt at that grade crossing.
I am not sure what you are refuting. Failing to see and an obstruction cannot be an excuse for driving into it. Failing to see a stop sign is no excuse for running it. Failing to see a red signal is no excuse for a locomotive engineer running by it. There is no gray area. Looking and seeing is the entire basis of the requirement to yield at un-signaled grade crossings.
I understand what you are saying about nearly running into that flatcar, and your comparison to running into glass doors. I have nearly run into glass doors. But I would not consider a glass door to be analogous to a freight train blocking a road. A glass door is probably the one perfect example of an obstacle in a path of travel that you cannot see. If there is no reflection and the glass is clean, the only way a person would know it is there is if he had prior knowledge of its existence.
I asked about who is responsible when a driver runs into a train that they claim they did not see. You asked who is responsible when a person walks into a glass door they claim they did not see. For the former, I would say the driver. For the latter, I would say the person who put the door there might be responsible. But that would need to be qualified. If a person put a sheet of glass across a corridor, and the glass had no frame to offer a clue of its existence, and if it presented no reflection, and if people who walked the corridor often did so for the first time--- then I would say that the person who put the glass there was criminally negligent. And the person who runs into the glass is certainly no idiot.
I think that, in a perfect world, both parties sharing an intersection where both have legitimate access and purposes, ought to look out for one another. The railroad provides the circuitry and the cross-bucks and whatnot, and the drivers should offer themselves due care and attention. The driver of a motor vehicle is always responsible for his own safety and for ensuring that others whose paths might intersect are safe.
Yet, the contest between rail traffic and automobile traffic is stacked heavily in favour of the rails when it comes to potential for catasrophic injury or death. if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility. The hogger is merely an agent with limited powers and autonomy, so the default, in my view, is that it falls to the railroads to make their cars less of a hazard. Drivers, in turn, must exercise proper restraint and caution when operating their motor vehicles in unfamiliar territory. Anyone who exceeds his night vision while driving, and who exceeds his ability to stop in a reasonable distance, is being reckless. His contribution to his own demise cannot be discounted by referring instead to the darkness of the rail traffic.
Crandell
Bucyrus,
I can see this scenario happening in a rural unlighted area with crossings marked only with cross-bucks.
For discussion purposes let's say you are using low beam headlights and a string of black tank cars without the newly required reflective striping is going over the crossing. The cross-buck may show in your headlights but the cars don't. The automobile is perhaps moving faster than it should be, and can't see the cars because of their color.
That brings up the question of whether it is wise to paint any rail car black. Almost any other color is more visible at night.
Just my thoughts for what they're worth.
Norm
selector if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility. Crandell
if rail cars are such that they blend into the gloom and present a real hazard that way at uncontrolled crossings, the railroad is the item that presents the hazard, not just the driver. The driver has no more control, or choice, about his direction of travel and along a given axis than does the hogger in the cab. They share a right of way that intersects, so they share the responsibility.
You have got to be kidding.
Nope. Ethically, each party that shares common ground bears a mutual regard for the other. At least, in civilized society they do. A crossing is common ground. Therefore both share the responsibility for the use of that crossing. The driver must exercise diligence and prudence, and so should the railroad. If an uncontrolled crossing is routinely crossed at night, and there is nothing except crossbucks, the prudent driver slows and prepares to stop. But if we have examples where even experienced drivers, those who know the terrain well, have nearly driven into the side of a flatcar, common dog says the flatcar can be subject to alteration in a way that renders it less of a danger. In this case, reflective panels can be added to make it more visible. An irresponsible driver who overdrives his ability to react to the reflective panel entering his headlight beam is on his own tab AFAIAC.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.