I'm going to guess that drivers don't head for the ditch in such a situation since it's a guarantee that some damage will occur. Staying in the lane is based on the very thin hope that the other guy will get back where he belongs and nothing bad will happen. Also, few of us are trained to constantly consider alternatives when and where such a situation occurs.
Another reason an OTR driver is less likely to swreve is this reason any manuver we do when someone is in our lane makes that accident NON Preventable. That plus if we are moving towards the ditch when we get hit we are more likely to ROLL OVER and possibly get killed.
greyhounds [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
"Why do people consistently choose or do nothing and stay with a status quo which involves some risk of a disaster, instead of taking a specific action that certainly leads to much lesser damage ?"
(This could also be applicable to living in a flood plain, living dangerously, climate change, etc., etc.)
I don't know. I don't think it's consciously accepting a known risk, like gambling. Instead, it may be more like hoping that the odds will work out in their favor. But we need a psychologist to explain it to us.
- Paul North.
Probability theory dealing with irrational choices has been explored for many years in psychology with much of the research conducted by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the late 1960's. Loss and risk aversion heuristics as a area in behavioral economics to explain irrational behavior would seem most salient here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
greyhounds Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
Unless you can head off into a level field without much of a ditch, going into the ditch with a big truck at 70-mph is the certain disaster once you decide to do it. Whereas, sticking with the long skid may not be a disaster at all if you get stopped in time. And you won’t know whether or not you will be able get stopped in time in the first half or so of the skid.
If it then becomes apparent that hitting the train is inevitable, there may only be 150 feet left to go. At that point, if you take the ditch, you will still probably hit the train anyway if the ditch does not kill you before you get to the train. I don’t know what the ditch looks like at the Nevada site, but there was one reference to the shoulders being only about three feet wide.
I think most drivers can and do instantly weigh the pros and cons of trying to dodge a collision.
We take the actions we have been programmed through years of repetition to take...unless we have been practicing 'unorthodox' avoidance maneuvers we don't possess the idea of something unorthodox let alone the skills necessary to pull it off. Additionally, after the event is over, and damages have been done, those who attempted the unorthodox will generally be punished for it in the courts.
This same line of thought applies to the engineer of the train, placing the train in emergency, even though he FULLY knows that this is a frivolous action when it comes to avoiding the collision and he would be better served by advancing the throttle to Run 8 (probably with the same ultimate results).
Paul_D_North_Jr greyhounds: [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils. A great question, esp. if we reframe it in slightly broader terms (and note that I've attempted to chose each word carefully and deliberately - THOUGH EDITED A LITTLE BIT LATER ON): "Why do people consistently choose or do nothing and stay with a status quo which involves some risk of a disaster, instead of taking a specific action that certainly leads to much lesser damage ?" (This could also be applicable to living in a flood plain, living dangerously, climate change, etc., etc.) I don't know. I don't think it's consciously accepting a known risk, like gambling. Instead, it may be more like hoping that the odds will work out in their favor. But we need a psychologist to explain it to us. - Paul North.
greyhounds: [snipped] Why do drivers (including myself) insist on staying on the road and in their lane when doing so is disaster in the making? Instead of turning the wheel and taking the lesser of two evils.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What about the possibility of sun glare?
How about a medical problem?
Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck?
Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of?
It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
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
BaltACD We take the actions we have been programmed through years of repetition to take...unless we have been practicing 'unorthodox' avoidance maneuvers we don't possess the idea of something unorthodox let alone the skills necessary to pull it off. Additionally, after the event is over, and damages have been done, those who attempted the unorthodox will generally be punished for it in the courts. This same line of thought applies to the engineer of the train, placing the train in emergency, even though he FULLY knows that this is a frivolous action when it comes to avoiding the collision and he would be better served by advancing the throttle to Run 8 (probably with the same ultimate results).
And the last line of the first quoted paragraph is the other reason.
(With apologies to Shakespeare) "To dump or not to dump, that is the question" is a decision that an engineer has so short a time to decide, that if you take the time to think about it, it is already too late.
To dump, or not to dump, that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous lawyers,Or to take logic against a sea of idiots,And by opposing end them?
Well done !
THe following quote from a website I monitor from time to time is in answer to the question about how many trucks were "apparently running together(?)" prior to the AMTRAK collision.
[I am not going to post the URL here, as I do not feel it is relevant at this time. If there is a need to know PM me for a response.]
"The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Six people were killed and 28 remain unaccounted for in the fiery collision of a semi-trailer and an Emeryville-bound Amtrak train in the Nevad desert, officials said late Saturday. It wasn’t until Saturday afternoon that the wreckage was safe enough to allow search teams to enter the burned-out hulks of two passenger cars in the 10-car train that exploded in a fireball on Friday. A team of 18 investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board is examining the wreckage, but they don’t yet have a full explanation of why the crash occurred. Two other truck drivers watched in horror and disbelief as the lead semi-tractor trailer in their convoy failed to stop for flashing warning signals and plowed into the train, the federal investigators said. ” The two other trucks noticed the signs and took action,” NTSB member Earl Weener said at a briefing. “The lead truck did not stop..". (added emphasis is mine.Sam)
Six people were killed and 28 remain unaccounted for in the fiery collision of a semi-trailer and an Emeryville-bound Amtrak train in the Nevad desert, officials said late Saturday.
It wasn’t until Saturday afternoon that the wreckage was safe enough to allow search teams to enter the burned-out hulks of two passenger cars in the 10-car train that exploded in a fireball on Friday.
A team of 18 investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board is examining the wreckage, but they don’t yet have a full explanation of why the crash occurred.
Two other truck drivers watched in horror and disbelief as the lead semi-tractor trailer in their convoy failed to stop for flashing warning signals and plowed into the train, the federal investigators said.
” The two other trucks noticed the signs and took action,” NTSB member Earl Weener said at a briefing. “The lead truck did not stop..". (added emphasis is mine.Sam)
Another Fourm I am a member of has had a Driver of the Company involved comment on the accident. Their trucks are all governed out at 60 MPH Max Speed. Also they only have 400 HP and can not maintain road speed even Empty pulling a grade. Lastly he stated that the driver in question had asked for his truck to be cut back further to 55 MPH max.
After hearing this I am thinking Electronic Failure in the Computer. Pulling the Johnson/trolley bar back will give you 300 feet of skidmarks from the trailers alone.
samfp1943 [I am not going to post the URL here, as I do not feel it is relevant at this time. If there is a need to know PM me for a response.]
You really should give the URL here. It is bad form to quote from an article and not give proper citation.
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
Headlights can glare at night. The sun can glare shortly after sunrise or shortly before sunset. This accident occurred shortly before local noon four days after the summer solstice: the sun was about as high as it ever gets at that location.
That does not rule out glare caused by a dirty windshield or dashboard top.
I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake. I would probably look left first which would have required I turn my head, then turn it back when I saw nothing. That might have been a fatal delay in this case.
Note that there was a prior accident at this crossing, reported by the Reno Guardian-Journal:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110630/NEWS/110630006/Amtrak-train-crash-DNA-sample-used-try-identify-last-passenger
"Dave Fyfe of Shelly, Idaho, was pulling a loaded flatbed at 7 a.m. on U.S. 95 in the September (14, 2010) near miss as an Amtrak train approached. He slammed on his brakes and crashed into the railroad crossing guardrail and tower, which landed on the train.“It was early in the morning and the sun was in my eyes,” he said. “The train track is not parallel to the road and you have to look a bit behind you to see if the train is coming.”
The truck was southbound in the September incident.
David K. Wheeler
WMNB4THRTL What about the possibility of sun glare? How about a medical problem? Could there have been a mechanical problem with something on the truck? Maybe there are other factors we aren't aware of? It will be interesting to see what the final report shows.
So true -- so many possible factors. The final report will indeed be most intersting. And yet ...
I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser.
But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Dragoman I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Where is that thread and its title?
schlimm Dragoman: I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections. Where is that thread and its title?
Dragoman: I find it interesting that there appears to be a very different tone in these discussions, from those that are shared when the "incident" is caused by a pedestrian or other trespasser. But, I have started a different thread on those reflections.
Reflections on the responses to the Nevada Amtrak/truck tragedy , here on the General Discussion board -- thanks for asking!
I started as the response above, and as it spun out to other thoughts, it seemed more appropriate to its own thread.
David K. Wheeler I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake.
I can only speak for myself but when I see the flashing lights start, I look to find the train and try to determine if I should stop and how hard to brake.
(snip)
David K. Wheeler“It was early in the morning and the sun was in my eyes,” he said. “The train track is not parallel to the road and you have to look a bit behind you to see if the train is coming.”
Mr. Wheeler, once you specifically say, and the second time you suggest (through the voice of the other driver), that it's all right not to stop for flashing grade-crossing signals.
Guess what: it isn't! Ever.
If there's a question about how hard you should be braking when the flashers flash, you're probably moving too fast for conditions. Always move prepared to stop at grade crossings. Railroaders shouldn't even have to worry about whether that bloomin' idiot is going to think he can beat the train.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR Mr. Wheeler, once you specifically say, and the second time you suggest (through the voice of the other driver), that it's all right not to stop for flashing grade-crossing signals. Guess what: it isn't! Ever.
That is correct, but your mention of this has caused something to occur to me. It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights.
I don’t think the law is very clear about this issue. It speaks of exercising due care when approaching a crossing. The crossing gives you a warning interval between the start of the lights and the arrival of the train. But it gives you no warning about the starting of the lights. It is like a traffic signal with no yellow light.
So when the law says you have to exercise due care, that has to mean that you have to go slow enough while approaching a crossing to be able to stop short if the lights come on. Certainly that cannot be more than 10 mph. Crossing at 70 mph cannot possibly be using due care, so it would be breaking the law even if the lights don’t come on. Therefore everyone who drives across that Nevada crossing at the speed limit is breaking the law no matter whether a train is approaching or not.
Bucyrus That is correct, but your mention of this has caused something to occur to me. It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights.
The NP branchline to Red Lodge (Rocky Fork & Cooke City) was crossed by Highway 212 at grade in three places, one at Red Lodge in a 25 MPH zone, the next just southwest of Boyd in a 45 MPH zone and the last about 1 mile northeast of Joliet. My recollection was the crossing near Joliet had a flashing warning sign in addition to the regular flashing lights. Presumably the warning sign could be timed to start flashing a few seconds before the red flashing lights, so that cars and trucks would have a chance to slow down and stop before the red lights came on. Cars and trucks too close to stop when the warning lights came on would treat this similar to a yellow light at a road intersection (i.e. proceed only if it is unsafe to stop at the time the light turns yellow).
At 70 MPH, a 0.5g stop takes about 330 feet, which is equivalent to about 3.3 seconds of travel at 70 MPH, and a couple of seconds to allow the driver to see, process and start applying brakes would imply that you want at least 5.3 seconds between the warning lights coming on and the red lights coming on.
- Erik
Bucyrus, I think you, as well as others, know that highway traffic signals are designed with the road speed and sight distance being taken into account with a yellow warning before going to red. Likewise, a railroad grade crossing's bells and lights will engage before the gates come down or the lights and bells start in a time frame to allow those who cannot stop time to escape. But somewhere along the line it is also incumbent on the vehicle driver to have read the driver's manuel and to have passed a test in order to get a license to drive. Failure to have read the manuel or to have passed the test or to think they are above the law or can beat physics does not constitute my having to give one sympathy nor defend him.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry,
I understand your point, but I don’t think you understood mine. You are right to point out that the grade crossing signals give a timed warning ahead of a train’s arrival at the crossing. But they give zero warning before they activate. And yet the law says a driver must stop short of them if they activate.
The point I was making was not about giving the driver warning for the train. My point was about giving the driver warning for the absolute stop indication of the signals. The law is not clearly written in regard to driver responsibility when approaching a signalized grade crossing.
You make the analogy to a traffic light with yellow aspect giving warning to the red aspect. But there is no such warning in the grade crossing signals. They simply go from clear to stop instantaneously. So the grade crossing train-warning interval is not intended to give the driver time to stop. It can’t be, because a driver must be stopped before that interval begins.
So, for all practical purposes, to comply with crossing law, a driver must stop at all signalized grade crossings in order to be prepared to stop for an instantaneous signal change from clear to stop. Is that what the law actually intends? That is not what I was taught in driver training. It would be a great question for the Nevada State Patrol. I know of no other instance in highway or railroad signals where a signal changes from clear to stop with no advance warning.
Drivers can muddle by this ambiguity in the crossing law in city driving. A cop is probably not going to give a ticket if the signals activate and a driver closely approaching zips through rather than slamming on the brakes. Cops always like to cite common sense. But when you have a 70-mph highway grade crossing, this ambiguity in the law becomes much more significant. That is why Nevada should either drop the speed limit in advance of the crossing, or incorporate an active advance warning for the crossing. That would, in effect, provide the missing yellow light so to speak.
I understand there is no law. And I don't think a law could be written, implimented or enforeced either. It is a matter of engineering the timing and of the expertise and ability of a driver. If you see the warning and can stop, stop, if you can't stop, go through. It is the "yellow light syndrome", yes, but it is part of the design and if you are going the right speed, you should be able to make a safe judgement and either stop or clear with safety. And gates are usually down 10-15 seconds before the train enters the crossing. Of course, the assumption here is that there are gates in addition to lights and bells.
One of the ideas I've always thought of...I am not an engineer or inventor or whatever...is a strobe light curtain changing from clear to yellow to red as it "falls" across the roadway. Another would be a concrete and steel wall which sets in the roadway flush but pops up three or four feet (red lights and or reflective paints) to prevent a vehicle from entering the track. Or bigger and heavier "gate" drop to the roadway.
henry6 I understand there is no law. And I don't think a law could be written, implimented or enforeced either. It is a matter of engineering the timing and of the expertise and ability of a driver. If you see the warning and can stop, stop, if you can't stop, go through. It is the "yellow light syndrome", yes, but it is part of the design and if you are going the right speed, you should be able to make a safe judgement and either stop or clear with safety. And gates are usually down 10-15 seconds before the train enters the crossing. Of course, the assumption here is that there are gates in addition to lights and bells. One of the ideas I've always thought of...I am not an engineer or inventor or whatever...is a strobe light curtain changing from clear to yellow to red as it "falls" across the roadway. Another would be a concrete and steel wall which sets in the roadway flush but pops up three or four feet (red lights and or reflective paints) to prevent a vehicle from entering the track. Or bigger and heavier "gate" drop to the roadway.
I do not understand what you mean when you say there is no law.
Impassible solid barriers that rise out of the road have been considered quite extensively. It is costly, but certainly feasible. Believe it or not, the biggest official objection to the idea is the crash hazard it presents to drivers. They don't want drivers to get killed by trains, but they also don't want drivers to get killed running into a wall.
One thing I have thought about is locomotive-borne crossing signals. It would consist of powerful strobe lights in an array that would be programed to target a road approach to a crossing. They would adjust to the speed of the train so the lights would turn to shift their aim down the road as the train approaches the crossing. This would be primarily intended to protect non-signalized crossings at a lower overall cost than adding signals and gates to them.
BucyrusOne thing I have thought about is locomotive-borne crossing signals. It would consist of powerful strobe lights in an array that would be programed to target a road approach to a crossing. They would adjust to the speed of the train so the lights would turn to shift their aim down the road as the train approaches the crossing. This would be primarily intended to protect non-signalized crossings at a lower overall cost than adding signals and gates to them.
That would work fine if the track was straight for the required distance, but there are many places where such a concept would require extensive trackside optics in order to bring the light to bear where desired. There would also be the question of reduced visibility due to fog or other such factors.
The track circuit is a time-tested, reliable method for activating crossing protection. Some places link regular traffic lights to the crossing circuit, which will provide a "prewarning" in the form of the amber as the light cycles through.
As for not being able to stop without going through the crossing when the warning devices first activate, that's a reason why the gates don't come down immediately as the lights and bell start - and a reason why trains are not to enter the crossing until the protection has been completely activated for 15-20 seconds.
At this point, it appears the warning equipment at the subject crossing was working properly, and that others saw it and responded appropriately.
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 is obvious that the most critical operating entity in this and any other moving vehicle is a sober, awake, and intelligent human being in control of the vehicle and himself 100% at all times. And that is the weakest link in the whole process.
henry6 It is obvious that the most critical operating entity in this and any other moving vehicle is a sober, awake, and intelligent human being in control of the vehicle and himself 100% at all times. And that is the weakest link in the whole process.
Perhaps so, but that is not the only weakness in the whole process. I would submit that the premise alone of the Nevada crash was a relatively weak link in the whole process. But I think we have to be fair and not heap all the presumed blame upon the weakest link yet. The driver of the truck could very well have been "sober, awake, and intelligent," as you say. If so, then we have to look at some of the other less weak links to understand what happened in Nevada.
What about the 2 vertical reflectors that are installed on some crossing warning signs? The headlights of a loco especially the flashing ditch lights should really get someone's attention? These reflectors are angled so each reflects the headlights in one direction or the other.
I believe Ohio has installed them on some crossings?
tree68 As for not being able to stop without going through the crossing when the warning devices first activate, that's a reason why the gates don't come down immediately as the lights and bell start - and a reason why trains are not to enter the crossing until the protection has been completely activated for 15-20 seconds.
The lights and bell with the gate up is the equivalent of the amber traffic light, i.e. stop if there is sufficient distance to come to a safe stop when the lights start flashing. On a 70 MPH road, you would want 5 to 7 seconds between the time the lights start flashing and the gate comes down.
Barriers are tough to do right. In order not to trap a vehicle in the crossing, they should fold over when pushed away from the track, but remain in place when pushed towards the track.
From what I'm reading, Erik, Larry, and Henry are saying that the flashing red lights before the lowering of the gates is the railroad's version of the yellow before the red traffic light. Bucyrus is saying the motor vehicle code says the red lights are the same as a "Stop" light (red traffic light) the instant they light, gate position being irrelevant.
With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law.
If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
James
Bucyrus [snipped] . . . It is illegal for a driver to cross a grade crossing if the red lights are flashing. What do you do if you are driving the speed limit of say 55 mph down a highway and the lights start flashing when you are 100 feet from the crossing? It would be impossible to stop for the lights in just 100 feet. Getting hit by the train is not the issue here. The issue is breaking the law by crossing against the lights. . . . The crossing gives you a warning interval between the start of the lights and the arrival of the train. But it gives you no warning about the starting of the lights. It is like a traffic signal with no yellow light. . . .
Otherwise, maybe a solution for the 'at-risk' crossings with lots of truck and train traffic is to require all trucks to come to a complete stop before crossing, same as school buses and the trucks hauling flammables and haz-mats, etc. have to do. That of course is less than the 10 MPH suggested elsewhere above by Bucyrus, and lends itself to easy enforcement by the police. Yes, those extra stops would be a traffic hazard - so that will lead to the installation of an additional outer acceleration-deceleration lane for those vehicles at each such crossing, plus the merge-back in maneuver. For the railroad, the crossing surface will get that much longer. Well, as the saying goes, "Choose your poison" (per John Wayne in a Western movie ?) . . .
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.