zugmann I do not think that a reflective stripe transfers liability. If anything, it may reduce liability as just about every other transportation mode uses the concept with regularity.
I do not think that a reflective stripe transfers liability. If anything, it may reduce liability as just about every other transportation mode uses the concept with regularity.
I agree on that point, but it is not the reflectors that I disagree with. What I disagree with is the reason for them as stated by the FRA. Their words have meaning, and I don't think they have thought it through.
Bucyrus I agree on that point, but it is not the reflectors that I disagree with. What I disagree with is the reason for them as stated by the FRA. Their words have meaning, and I don't think they have thought it through.
Ok, now that you explain it that way, I actually agree with you. It may have been simpler for the FRA to tell the carriers/owners to add stripes "because they said so". But then they'd ask "why?"
But what is done is done.
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
Easy does it with the infighting amongst us posters, guys...we don't want to bring down the "wrath of the administration" on us now do we?
Yea, we've all ready had the censors (or is that sensors ) kick in on a post, at least the email version of it.
Nance-CCABW/LEI
“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” --Will Rogers
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right! --unknown
These accidents beg for a NTSB investigation. The NTSB is an indepenent agency and they may enlighten everyone incluing a jury as to all the safety aspects. Questions to be asked:
1. Were the reflective stripes located in a suitable location on the tank cars?
2, Are the stripes reflective enough?
3. Did the dispatcher know that the track ahead was occupied?
4. Is this a location where trains often stop?
5. Should the RR made provision for any train to stop short of that crossing if a stop was imminent?
6. Should the RR have a signal maintainer or crossing gate guard at that location since trains may be stopped?
7. What are the visibilities under the existing ambient lighting conditions?
8. What human factors if any were involved by the 2 drivers?
9. What recommendations to reduce the likely hood of this accident happening again?
Hey, we've come a long way, fellers! There wuz a dust-up in the corral and none of the mods came in slingin' lead. And it is almost put to bed, too.
Go easy, guys, please keep trying hard to understand each other.
Mod out.
Is the prevention of rail crossing accidents a worthwhile goal?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann Nope, I just get sick of your anti-police rhetoric that you feel the need to inject into every topic you post to.
Nope, I just get sick of your anti-police rhetoric that you feel the need to inject into every topic you post to.
Well, I hope you get to feeling better soon. It sucks to be under the weather. The interesting thing here is, that the party was referenced as being "an authority" so ostensibly their opinion should be more qualified and/or of more value than either mine, or yours?
schlimm Is the prevention of rail crossing accidents a worthwhile goal?
Yes it is, but keep in mind that people have been getting hit by transportation since the day someone figured out how to ride a horse.
A RR should take reasonable precautions to protect the public.
What it shouldn't do is have to take ridiculous precautions to protect every idiot out there with no common sense.
When it comes to safety, there is a point of diminishing returns. In my opinion, it is this point that is most commonly forgotten.
At what cost? (either in money, or in terms of railroad service and/or reduced street access)
eolafan Easy does it with the infighting amongst us posters, guys...we don't want to bring down the "wrath of the administration" on us now do we?
I still think that it's a matter that will ultimately play out where each party will be partially found at fault, with the final outcome determined based upon each party's resources, and their relative levels of suffering.
Typically this plays out as handing money to the common folk, since it is economically dangerous to be wealthy in America.
Common sense will play a very small part, as perhaps well it should since as we've seen here in this thread one man's idea of "common sense" can vary drastically from what another might see. Or,...some individuals can have a varying opinion of what constitutes common sense, from one scenario to another.
I need to clarify that my belief that these two crashes were 100% the fault of the drivers is based on my knowledge of Illinois law. It requires drivers to yield to trains under all possible conditions. These conditions include the following:
1) A crossing marked only by a crossbuck with no flashing lights.
2) A crossing marked by automatic flashing warning lights that are activated.
3) A crossing marked by automatic flashing warning lights that are inactivated either by failure to activate or by the lack of any train present.
To yield, a driver must slow down to the point of being able to stop short of a train that might happen to appear and move toward occupying a grade crossing To yield, a driver must look for trains by turning his or her head in each direction before reaching the crossing. A driver cannot possibly be said to have yielded if that driver gets hit by a train.
If you get hit, you did not yield.
So, if that is the proper interpretation of Illinois law, then I must also conclude that Katie Lunn was at fault for driving into the path of that Amtrak train in Chicago last April.
zugmann schlimm: Is the prevention of rail crossing accidents a worthwhile goal? At what cost? (either in money, or in terms of railroad service and/or reduced street access)
schlimm: Is the prevention of rail crossing accidents a worthwhile goal?
How much is a life worth to you? Why would rail service need to be compromised with a program to implement grade separation and crossing reductions, depending on traffic levels of rail and road?
schlimm How much is a life worth to you? Why would rail service need to be compromised with a program to implement grade separation and crossing reductions, depending on traffic levels of rail and road?
Human life has a cost, Schlimm but you know that.
I have no problem with crossing reductions - but I do not think we can feasibly achieve total elimination. Does some 10mph industrial track crossing the middle of a small town need grade crossing separation? Either half the town will have to be torn down, or the rail line removed. That is my point...
As I said before, the beauty of the rail industry is that it can co-exist with roads though the use of crossings. That has enabled more access than can be achieved without said use.
Obviously a matrix for determining whether a crossing gets blocked or gets a grade separation, over a period of time, would take into account both vehicle traffic and rail traffic. For example: a busy rail line intersected by rural one-mile section roads would probably see many of those crossings blocked. For example: a busy highway crossed by a lightly-used rail line (one move per week) might get an interlocking for the rail line which would totally block the crossing for the highway through barriers.
Interestingly, I could not get a clear reading from the Minnesota Highway Patrol about how this yield requirement applies. I took the question up the ladder, and I concluded that it was something that they had never thought about, and did not have an answer.
The first officer I asked did not believe that drivers were required to yield at signalized crossings when the signals were inactive. After all, it does seem counterintuitive. If you drive across a drawbridge, you don’t worry about whether the bridge is locked in and ready for traffic if all the lights say it is clear. You believe in the lights. And that is what drivers do at signalized grade crossings.
At grade crossings; if the lights are out, it means go.
My basic inquiry to the MHP was this:
There are grade crossings with signals that are on fast highways and offer little visibility for drivers to see approaching trains. In order for a driver to yield to these crossings might require a driver to nearly stop before proceeding across the crossing.
Therefore, is there any concern about the potential for rear end crashes resulting from drivers slowing or stopping to make sure a signalized crossing is clear; and being rear-ended by drivers who believe that if the signals are clear, it is okay to keep going?
I am surprised there doesn't appear to be any effort by the RR company to warn motorists that the alarms are disconnected and out of use, at least nothing is visible in the photos. Here in New Zealand if alarms are disconnected, even for a short time, it is practice to bag each warning light in a sack, to tie the barriers up so they can't accidentally fall and attach prominent reflective "Alarms out of use" signs on each mast.
Now there's a sensible idea ! Particularly since it appears that the signals had been deactivated for several weeks beforehand. Thanks for sharing that information and insight - even though it was "not invented here" - we in the US don't have all of the wisdom in the world (yet) . . .
- Paul North.
After losing a friend in high school to a car-train crash, I would have to say yes.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Pretty sad that the only way to prevent crossing accidents is to eliminate the crossings.
But then how do we keep all people off, and away from, the tracks at all times?
WMNB4THRTL But then how do we keep all people off, and away from, the tracks at all times?
Don't have to keep them off the tracks at all times - just when a train comes. That's why we have signs..
It was a lot worse in the past. People living near the tracks had so much faith in the railroads that they used the passage of trains as a time regulator. If a passenger train were scheduled to pass at 9:00AM, people would make sure their clocks said 9:00AM when the train passed.
One problem was that these people tended to only look for trains at the crossing if it were around 9:00AM.
Bucyrus It was a lot worse in the past. People living near the tracks had so much faith in the railroads that they used the passage of trains as a time regulator. If a passenger train were scheduled to pass at 9:00AM, people would make sure their clocks said 9:00AM when the train passed. One problem was that these people tended to only look for trains at the crossing if it were around 9:00AM.
James
zugmann WMNB4THRTL: But then how do we keep all people off, and away from, the tracks at all times? Don't have to keep them off the tracks at all times - just when a train comes. That's why we have signs..
WMNB4THRTL: But then how do we keep all people off, and away from, the tracks at all times?
Really? What signs are those? Do they work any better than the crossbucks, pavement markings, presence/visibility of gates (whether the lights were on or not), round yellow & black ones, the tracks themselves, etc, etc, that people insist on driving through anyway, which is why we're on this thread in the first place?
My point is that we have more than just the crossings themselves to worry about. Yes, they are important but so is every inch of track that the public can possibly figure out a way to gain access to. It's a problem, and it will be until either: 1) people wake up and obey the laws and respect the danger of trains, or 2) the penalties for trespassing so are so stiff and enforced so strictly that folks are unwilling to deal with the penalties and/or pay the fines.
If you're on RR tracks, legally or not, there's a really easy formula for not getting hit - it's called stop, look, and listen. Do that, and you'll be safe. But hey, if someone is dumb enough to be riding their bike down the tracks with cranked up headphones blaring music and they get hit - you know I don't really feel bad for them.
I've always wondered why crossing or just being on a railroad was really much different than crossing or just being on a busy highway. If I'm crossing a railroad, the crossbuck, etc. would be real similar to a yield sign in my mind. If I don't pay attention to the yield sign and the dangers involved in crossing a busy highway, I could end up as a hood ornament of a mack truck. Could I then complain that I didn't see the truck sneaking up on me, or that the yield sign didn't really mean yield? I feel it's probably the same type situation if I walk down the center of the highway and meet the same mack truck. Why is the game much different if it's a railroad instead of a highway?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding I've always wondered why crossing or just being on a railroad was really much different than crossing or just being on a busy highway. If I'm crossing a railroad, the crossbuck, etc. would be real similar to a yield sign in my mind.
I've always wondered why crossing or just being on a railroad was really much different than crossing or just being on a busy highway. If I'm crossing a railroad, the crossbuck, etc. would be real similar to a yield sign in my mind.
A route conflict between trains and motor vehicles seems more frequently to result in collisions than does a similar route conflict between motor vehicles. This is only my observation, and it would be interesting to learn of any research that happens to back it up. But assuming that it is true, I believe the reason is due to the general public perception that trains can cause a serious delay to drivers. So they take a greater risk to try to beat the train. The railroad industry will incredulously assert that drivers are idiots for trying to beat a train rather than wait a couple minutes for it to pass.
But they don’t all pass in a couple of minutes, and the driving public is fully aware of that fact. And the driving public is also aware of the fact that no such delay is possible while waiting to share the right of way with conflicting highway vehicles.
Coupled with the worry about unreasonable delays at grade crossing is the fact that there is a long history and tradition that allows drivers to use their own discretion in deciding whether or not it is safe to cross in front of an approaching train.
Further complicating the driver decision to wait for the train or try to beat it is the fact that trains always appear to be moving slower than they actually are.
Bucyrus A route conflict between trains and motor vehicles seems more frequently to result in collisions than does a similar route conflict between motor vehicles. This is only my observation, and it would be interesting to learn of any research that happens to back it up.
That's an interesting thought. I found auto-train crash data for the 4 year period 2007-2010 here:
http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/gxrtally1.aspx
I'm still looking for comparable data for motor vehicle -motor vehicle crashes.
Personally, I'd suspect that due to the greater population of auto intersections vs roadway/rail crossings, that the rail figure would be less, but that's just a gut hunch.
Convicted One Bucyrus: A route conflict between trains and motor vehicles seems more frequently to result in collisions than does a similar route conflict between motor vehicles. This is only my observation, and it would be interesting to learn of any research that happens to back it up. That's an interesting thought. I found auto-train crash data for the 4 year period 2007-2010 here: http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/gxrtally1.aspx I'm still looking for comparable data for motor vehicle -motor vehicle crashes. Personally, I'd suspect that due to the greater population of auto intersections vs roadway/rail crossings, that the rail figure would be less, but that's just a gut hunch.
Bucyrus: A route conflict between trains and motor vehicles seems more frequently to result in collisions than does a similar route conflict between motor vehicles. This is only my observation, and it would be interesting to learn of any research that happens to back it up.
I am not sure how one could gather the data to prove this out. It can’t be done by just comparing the number of vehicle/train crashes versus the number of vehicle/vehicle crashes in a certain area.
One would have to sample a number of incidences of car/train encounters at a particular grade crossing, and then sample the same number of incidences of car/car encounters in a yield situation of a road intersection. All circumstances such as speed, visibility, etc. should be a similar as possible between the two sampling sites, so the comparison is as apples-to-apples as possible.
Record say 10,000 encounters at each type of crossing and quantify the risk taking of the vehicle that is supposed to yield, the number of near misses, and the number of collisions at two sites. This could be done by video surveillance of the two sites. Broader sampling and more than just one set of comparison sites would yield better data. But the point is to compare the behavior of the driver who is supposed to yield in each encounter.
I am convinced that the sampling from car/train site would show far more instances of risk taking, near misses, and collisions than the data from the car/car site.
I have ridden on the head end of freight trains and have observed far more risk taking and near misses than I see while driving down the highway the same number of miles and encountering the same number of conflicting vehicles that are required to yield.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.