Bucyrus [snip] 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.
- Paul North.
RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR and COMMON SENSE people, that's what it will take to stop most of these needless incidents...RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR and COMMON SENSE!
Drivers and Companies are on their own mounting Cameras that record What goes on to the front of OTR trucks in the 20 seconds before an accident to prevent Lawsuit Losses. When you cut off a truck stop in front of them get hit by the truck and it is on tape the tape is shown to a Jury or Your Lawyer Guess what your Case gets VERY weak for any personal injury case. I know of one person that won a Civil case with Zero liability when he haqd on film what the other party in the case had done right before the accident. Semms they did not like the fact that he was weaving in and out of traffic andthen had to stand on the brakes at a point were the truck had no chance to even slow dwn before the accident.
eolafan RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR and COMMON SENSE people, that's what it will take to stop most of these needless incidents...RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR and COMMON SENSE!
Unrealistic. If you are counting on changing that, it will never happen and these incidents will continue. Perhaps to some, that is an acceptable trade off in the risk-cost equation.
Here is a famous and horrible (11 killed) example of human error by the driver, in this case an "idiot" truck driver:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Bourbonnais,_Illinois_train_accident
We all know whose fault this was, yet to follow the line of reasoning of some, we don't need to do anything serious and costly to try to prevent incidents like this in the future?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The remedy for that one is more in the nature of 'soft' improvements in driver licensing, training, screening, photo-cameras at the grade crossings, truck equipment and driver license and log book inspections at both fixed locations and by 'surprise' roving teams, and especially concerted enforcement actions against those with bad records, etc. - than extensive and expensive 'hard' improvements to the locomotives, cars, or the grade crossing itself, such as eliminating/ relocating them. Careless/ slob drivers like that will always be willing to take chances - not only at grade crossings, but elsewhere on the road system, too. Sure, if there were no more crossings, then there could be no more accidents of that kind - but we could get most of the way to that same end result a lot faster and cheaper by the kinds of measures listed above, instead of $Billions and many years to eliminate all grade crossings - which I'm in favor of, too - but in the meantime we should be taking those other steps as well.
I agree that lack of driver knowledge is a major contributing factor in accidents. Take the RR - how much training did you have to go through in order to be able to safely operate those trains? Now take driver's ed - which is pretty much a joke. If we actually taught people concrete things in drivers ed and had real standards to whom we gave drivers licenses I strongly believe that the roads would be a lot safer, but they there would be a lot fewer people on the road then! Oh well, maybe they will have to take Amtrak then! :)
Cameras are starting to find their way into emergency vehicles as well. And for the same reasons.
True, sometimes the bad apple turns out to be the driver of the vehicle with the camera, but at least there's more than "he said, she said" to go on when it comes time to deal with the problem.
Of course, there's the "story" that one of the SUV manufacturers installed "cockpit voice recorders" in a number of their vehicles. A random sampling of the last few seconds before collisions found that in most cases the driver reaction just before impact was "Oh, &%!@." However, in certain areas of the country, the last thing heard was often "Hey, y'all hold my beer and watch this!".....
Just the messenger.... Just the messenger....
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
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...
It's a shame that OLS isn't a more visible entity.
Dan
So, getting back to the subject of this thread:
Who was at fault for these two run-into-train crashes?
Bucyrus So, getting back to the subject of this thread: Who was at fault for these two run-into-train crashes?
Personally, I think that both parties have dirty hands. The accident could never have taken place with one if not for the other, and there is wrongdoing on both parts. And to blame it all on the auto for a "lack of common sense" or "over driving their headlights"...just isn't realistic. If one goes over to youtube and looks at the MULTITUDE of police squad car dash-cam accidents, you can see that even professionally trained safety officers are not above the experience. Even good drivers can become distracted, under the right (wrong) circumstances.
So, it'll be a hybrid solution. Just as an illustration, and using arbitrary numbers to paint the picture. Here's what I think would be equitable:
Let's presume that the railroad incurred $100,000 in damages due to the accident, while the streetside component suffered $600,000 in medical bills and other damages.
Award the difference ($500,00) to the survivors
Convicted One Bucyrus: So, getting back to the subject of this thread: Who was at fault for these two run-into-train crashes? Personally, I think that both parties have dirty hands. The accident could never have taken place with one if not for the other, and there is wrongdoing on both parts. And to blame it all on the auto for a "lack of common sense" or "over driving their headlights"...just isn't realistic. If one goes over to youtube and looks at the MULTITUDE of police squad car dash-cam accidents, you can see that even professionally trained safety officers are not above the experience. Even good drivers can become distracted, under the right (wrong) circumstances. So, it'll be a hybrid solution. Just as an illustration, and using arbitrary numbers to paint the picture. Here's what I think would be equitable: Let's presume that the railroad incurred $100,000 in damages due to the accident, while the streetside component suffered $600,000 in medical bills and other damages. Award the difference ($500,00) to the survivors
Bucyrus: So, getting back to the subject of this thread: Who was at fault for these two run-into-train crashes?
Bucyrus: Primary responsibility seems to be the neglect of the railroad to properly guard the crossing at night, knowing the gates and lights were disabled. Often in tort cases, a determination is made of percentages of contribution to neglect. The larger percentage would seem to fall on the railroad, a lesser (but certainly some) percentage falls on the two drivers.
Convicted One Personally, I think that both parties have dirty hands. The accident could never have taken place with one if not for the other, and there is wrongdoing on both parts.
Personally, I think that both parties have dirty hands. The accident could never have taken place with one if not for the other, and there is wrongdoing on both parts.
You say there was wrongdoing on both parts. What was the wrongdoing on the part of the railroad? They took a signalized crossing out of service, and it became a non-signalized crossing. With either type of crossing, the crossbuck alone still means YIELD.
However, as a concession to the fact that many drivers were familiar with the crossing being signalized, and had no way of knowing that it was no longer signalized; the railroad initiated flagging protection rules as required. The flagging protection rules do not require flag protection once the train occupies the crossing.
schlimm Bucyrus: Primary responsibility seems to be the neglect of the railroad to properly guard the crossing at night, knowing the gates and lights were disabled. Often in tort cases, a determination is made of percentages of contribution to neglect. The larger percentage would seem to fall on the railroad, a lesser (but certainly some) percentage falls on the two drivers.
Crossing was protected as per rules (which cover head end only). The larger percentage should go to the drivers that hit the damned train.
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
Bucyrus You say there was wrongdoing on both parts. What was the wrongdoing on the part of the railroad? They took a signalized crossing out of service, and it became a non-signalized crossing. With either type of crossing, the crossbuck alone still means YIELD. However, as a concession to the fact that many drivers were familiar with the crossing being signalized, and had no way of knowing that it was no longer signalized; the railroad initiated flagging protection rules as required. The flagging protection rules do not require flag protection once the train occupies the crossing.
Ultimately, I believe that the fact that the railroad knew that the active crossing protection was inoperable, and did nothing to provide obvious and adequate notice to passers by, will outweigh the fact that the railroad flagged (only) while entering the crossing...and the train sitting there for longer than a passing train would have required will only aggravate the situation. A jury is likely to be made to believe that the railroad should have done something more, given it's extended stay in the crossing.
The railroad's efforts, in other words, (regardless of the railroad's internal "rules") will be found deficient. Don't forget, the railroad is (supposedly) professional, so there will be an assumption of responsibility and competence....to handle things like this properly. ie They're SUPPOSED to know what they are doing.
That's what I believe. anyway
For that matter, who's to say that the rules requirement for what the employee's are expected to (minimally) do under said conditions, necessarily satisfy the railroad's responsibility to the rest of the world?
Are you trying to establish that since the employees fulfilled their responsibility to their employer, that this somehow negates the railroad's further responsibilities to the outside world? I don't buy that.
The fact that that the crew flagged while entering the crossing means that the railroad cannot blame the employees for rules infraction, it DOESN'T mean that the railroad handled it's obligations fully,
Too bad we don't expect drivers to exhibit any type of responsibility and competence.
I'm not sure that's the case, in all honesty.
Flip the roles, suppose the car is stopped on a railroad crossing, and a train hit's it? Do you think the railroad would be blamed for that?
Train has the right-of-way; car doesn't. Apples and oranges, sir.
Of course if the train is operating under restricted speed rules, then it is another issue.
Convicted One I'm not sure that's the case, in all honesty. Flip the roles, suppose the car is stopped on a railroad crossing, and a train hit's it? Do you think the railroad would be blamed for that?
Well, no. There is no rule or law requiring the train to yield. On the contrary, a driver is required to yield to trains.
The example I provided was intended to address the " why no expectations that auto drivers should be responsible and competent" component. Clearly there is such an expectation.
let's not get distracted here, I'm anxious to know why you believe that since the crew flagged as required, how this in any way negates the railroad's liability to the outside world?
Because the crossing was protected by a couple crossbucks? And that drivers have a responsibility to not crash their cars into stuff?
Or is that asking too much?
If I'm shoving cars into a siding, I am operating at a speed so that I don't hit stuff (doors, trucks, cables, or anything else that may be int he track). So pardon me if I don't get all upset that drivers were operating their vehicles that they could not stop for an object in their line of sight.
zugmann Because the crossing was protected by a couple crossbucks? And that drivers have a responsibility to not crash their cars into stuff? Or is that asking too much?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
One of the problems on this discussion and others is a confounding of legal responsibility for rail crossing accidents with problem solving. The rail advocates' position is that they are not at fault and the responsibility is a human error on the part of drivers or pedestrians who get struck by or run into a train. Even if that is true, should that be the end of the discussion? Should the public not demand better safeguards? Or is it only about the money? Who should pay, or no one?
Problem is that we keep trying to invent a better mousetrap. All we end up with are smarter mice.
We keep trying to use technology to replace basic common sense. We are getting so many flashing lights, buzzers, bells, that no one bothers to think anymore when one of these high-tech gizmos fails. People are so reliant on the *** gates and lights, that they can't even fathom that there might be a train sitting on the tracks. They don't see any flashing lights, so they blissfully drive at a high rate of speed, more focused on their blackberry than what may be in the road ahead. Hey, if there is something, I'm sure there will be pretty flashing lights....
I was reading this planning book a while ago. It talked about some intersections that were "improved" for safety. The intersection may have been partially blind, roads at odd angles, maybe even a RR track thrown in for good measure. What happened after they "improved" it? Accidents increased. Why? The reputation of an intersection being dangerous actually caused people to pay attention! Fancy that....
zugmann Because the crossing was protected by a couple crossbucks? And that drivers have a responsibility to not crash their cars into stuff?
Personally, I doubt that it will ultimately play out that way. The inoperative crossing protection will be regarded as a smoking gun.
I've tried to put myself in the driver's position, and while I don't want to over represent myself, I find it hard to believe that someone could hit something as large as a train, and claim they could not see it. I just don't see myself making the same mistake....but maybe I shouldn't be so boastful?
there has been considerable study done on human perception, and it is believed that we don't really process all the available information when we 'paint our picture" of reality in our minds' eye. We sense stimulus of aspects, conditions, and unique factors, and our brain assembles the final picture. This is because only so much uptake is possible in a given timespan. Which is one of the things that make hallucinations seem so real for some people. The reason why I bring this up here, is that the brain might possibly have processed the 'signals not working' information, and believed that the roadway was clear, thus ignoring all information to the contrary?
Convicted One The reason why I bring this up here, is that the brain might possibly have processed the 'signals not working' information, and believed that the roadway was clear, thus ignoring all information to the contrary?
The reason why I bring this up here, is that the brain might possibly have processed the 'signals not working' information, and believed that the roadway was clear, thus ignoring all information to the contrary?
Bet they won't make that same mistake again...
For that matter, there is no requirement that motorists stop at a yield sign. I sure don't. I slow down and look for approaching, conflicting traffic, and IF I DON'T SEE ANY, i continue on...
Frequently I've seen rail sidings with standing cars... adjoining mains near crossings. I suppose it might be possible to look towards a rail line, and see a standing rail car, and mistakenly assume that the car must be sitting on an adjacent siding. ESPECIALLY if the crossing ahead was protected by a set of flashers/gates and they were not activated.
Regarding the suggestion that both the railroad and the drivers were partly at fault:
There ought to be clear rules governing the use of grade crossings for both trains and motor vehicles. With clear rules, there is no way that both parties of a collision can be at fault. However, the problem is that there is some degree of muddled thinking surrounding the rules of grade crossings arising from how the rules are written and what they mean. The muddle is also partly the result of the evolving types of crossing protection over time, and evolving rules that governed them
When the railroads used train orders, all they had were words to prevent collisions. Words mean things, and if there happened to be a collision, the railroads did not decide that both trains were sort of somewhat at fault.
A train parked on a signalized crossing where the signals are not activated is far more likely to be run into than a train parked on a non-signalized crossing. This is because drivers may be familiar with the signalized crossing and know it to be signalized, and they may not know that the signals have been de-activated. Therefore, they let their guard down and mistakenly rely on the signals to warn them.
Yet both signalized and non-signalized crossings are protected by the un-illuminated crossbuck alone. Operation Lifesaver will tell you that the crossbuck alone has the same meaning as a YIELD sign. Therefore, there can be no excuse for driving into a train on the crossing. If you run into the train, you broke the law by not yielding.
I've come upon large tree limbs in the road already. Now these limbs are usually attached to trees, but yet I have found them in the road. Did I crash into them? Nope. Why? Because I wasn't out-driving my headlights. There wasn't even a sign saying "trees alongside road". So I stopped, and removed said limb from road.
Amazing. I must be a superhero.
Convicted One For that matter, there is no requirement that motorists stop at a yield sign. I sure don't. I slow down and look for approaching, conflicting traffic, and IF I DON'T SEE ANY, i continue on...
But if you merge onto a highway and right into the side of an 18-wheeler - you failed to yield. Same applies to rail crossings. If you smash into the side of a car, you failed to yield.
But you know this. You are just arguing for arguing sakes.
zugmann But you know this. You are just arguing for arguing sakes.
No, not really. I'm more trying to understand how this scenario played out as it did. I don't think that most drivers anticipate a "stop" at a yield sign, they anticipate having to look for approaching traffic.
Likewise, I think that a person's first inclination on approaching a flashing guard that is not activated, is to believe that the road ahead is clear.
Whenever I cross a railroad crossing, I always look upstream on the rail line, both ways. But that's because I'm nosey, not an act of caution (I'm looking for a train, in the hobbyist's perspective).
Wouldn't it be interesting if the drivers in this scenario believed that the road ahead was clear due to the condition of the flashers, and were pre occupied looking upstream on the rail line for headlights while they drove into the stopped train? I can see how such might happen, in a "can't see the forest for the trees" fashion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.