Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier? You could get into all sorts of probability exercises with it, though. Using the term "dangerous" can be well, dangerous, since there are many definitions. We as humans like to inject emotions (and politics) into scientific or mathematical calculations.
And for another example, let's go the other extreme:
Let's say that this crossing gets upgraded with gates. One train a month. And that one car goes around the gates and gets smacked. Now is this the most dangerous crossing for the month? 100% of the traffic that uses it collided with 100% of the trains that use it. So now do we build an overpass for it? Do you believe it is worth it? Let's pretend that closing it is not an option.
No answer needed, let's stick to the crossing in question and stop playing silly number games on non-existent scenarios. This crossing was equipped with gates, and probably advanced warning signs at a prescribed distance away. Whether mechanical or human error, the driver did not have control of his truck. I do a lot of driving in farm country, where there may be a combine harvester or an amish buggy over the next hill, so I drive accordingly.
I do not think that the government should have to put up 16 flashing warning signs for every single hazard that exists. Driving is a privilege that we are required to show a competency of skills in order to participate.
Will accidents happen? Yes. Can some be prevented by 16 flashing warning signs? I'm sure. Will all? No. Is it worth it to try to put those 16 flashing warning signs up for every hazard? I do not think so. Could you imagine the gridlock if EVERY intersection in this country had a stop light? After all, why should that intersection get it, and not this one? Won't someone please think of the children???
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
zugmann Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier?
Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier?
Zugman,
Yes it is an outlier, but that does not invalidate my point. With all due respect, I used the example (end of page 4) with an exaggerated crossing danger in the crossing structural details, and also exaggerated the vehicle train frequency downward, only to make a point. I think the point is valid, and I am not sure why you refuse to consider it. The example is a non-existent scenario, as you say, but it is not a silly numbers game, as you say.
I believe this particular Nevada crossing calls for an extended warning. It is not tantamount to putting “16 flashing warning signs for every single hazard that exists,” as you say. For all I know, there may be only a handful of crossings in Nevada that call for this added protection. Furthermore, this added protection in the form of enhanced advance warning, is a tool in the toolbox of crossing protection measures developed by the traffic experts and authorities. They invented that tool precisely for crossings with relatively high road speeds.
There are hundreds of thousands of crossings in the U.S. that would not require this added protection. I am not advocating for added safety measures on all grade crossings, just to squeeze out that last ounce of crash prevention, as you suggest in your last paragraph. As you have previously pointed out, that would be a slippery slope, and the cost would not be worth it. And if you do go down that slippery slope, it eventually leads to proposals for giant air bags on the front of locomotives to protect pedestrians. Those are good points you make in your last paragraph, and I agree with all of them, however, they have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have suggested with the Nevada crossing.
I agree with your point that driving is a privilege where we are required to show competency of skills in order to participate, and that the government should not have to take the warning systems to extremes for every road hazard. However, they do adjust the warning system to match each hazard. If all that was needed was marking the existence of a grade crossing, and the rest was left up to driver competency, we would not need flashing lights and gates on crossings.
So let me ask you this:
What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others? Are you looking at this one incident and concluding this crossing needs upgraded? I'm trying to understand why you are so adamant about the level of protection at this particular crossing.
I would argue that the government many times does not "match" warning systems to the hazard levels of a particular crossing. Many times extra warning is only the product of political or constituent pressure. Again, injecting human emotion into scientific data.
zugmann So let me ask you this: What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others?
What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others?
What makes this crossing need the extended warning is the highway speed. It is a 70 mph speed limit. Assuming some enforcement tolerance exists, as is usually the case, 80 mph or higher is probably allowed before a driver would be ticketed. Because it is in sparsely populated country, the speed enforcement is likely to be minimal, thus minimizing the ticket threat that normally tends to suppress speeding. Because the country is open and trips are relatively long, it creates a relatively stronger motive to speed. Under all of these circumstances, I would guess that the average speed is 85-90 mph.
So the government should equip these crossings for the speeders?
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. If you want to do 90mph, that's fine. But don't expect the government to be there holding your hand. What if there was a disabled truck stopped on the shoulder (or travel lane) of the road? And one of these speeding idiots crashed into him. Would it be his fault?
I knew you would bring that up. I contend that the problem exists with a legal speed of 70 mph. Yes, the authorities should not be expected to make a 30 mph intersection safe for people who happen to be going 60 mph for example. But this is not completely black and white. The government does have a responsibility to enforce the speed limit for the protection of other drivers who are not speeding. The government is the manager of the road. They have a responsibility to not only make the laws, but to enforce them as well. Otherwise some of the laws will have no benefit in protecting the law abiders.
So if speeding is routine on the Nevada highway at this crossing, the government has a responsibility to know about it and to control it. So I do not believe that the possibility of a driver speeding is necessarily a loophole in my argument.
I do not know what actually happened in the Nevada crash. Ed Benton says that the truck was governed to 55 mph max. If the truck was only going 55, then I am not sure what happened.
I would like to know three things:
1) The speed of the truck before he braked.
2) The average vehicle speed on that highway for commercial vehicles.
3) The average vehicle speed on the highway for cars and other private vehicles.
We're starting to go around in circles.
The state/county/local authorities may do enough speed enforcement on such a road that it is not being "tolerated" in the eyes of the court.
You have valid concerns that are shared by many, I'm sure. I'm just not among them. I don't think you can convince me, and vice versa. So, I think what's best is to sit back and see how it plays out. But I enjoyed the discussion.
zugmann,
Yes, I understand. I don’t expect to convince everyone, especially the state of Nevada. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For all I know, there could be a huge shoe yet to drop here. But it is frustrating to have to wait so long for the final investigation. There may not be enough answers right now, but I will supply enough questions. I appreciated your comments and challenges.
I have posed questions to the FRA, MN Highway Patrol, and Operation Lifesaver on grade crossing issues. If they have no stock answers, they simply will not respond.
Bucyrus I have posed questions to the FRA, MN Highway Patrol, and Operation Lifesaver on grade crossing issues. If they have no stock answers, they simply will not respond.
I had a recent encounter with that mentality...I asked some UP people about the possibility of revamping the grade crossing systems (especially those "another train warning systems") in feasible ways that would reduce noise, rancor, and complacency. The answer I got would suggest that UP likes noise, rancor, and complacency. What they don't like is change.
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)
Here are two new lawsuits, one against Amtrak and one against the truck driver and his employer:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18407452
I note that the Amtrak suit deals with issues occuring in the aftermath of the collision - it does not place any blame for the incident itself on Amtrak.
IMHO, that suit will come down to any policies in place regarding the subject door and the rationale for those policies.
It could be argued that the same thing might have occured if the door was jammed as the result of the collision, in which case the argument would have to be that the door wasn't properly protected against any and all possible situations. Of course we know that that's virtually impossible.
As for the incident itself - my read of the events leading up to the collision indicates that the crossing was properly protected such that a reasonable person would receive adequate warning to take the necessary actions to avoid a collision at the crossing.
Given the deceased driver's actions prior to the collision, he was apparently somehow distracted or misjudged his time of arrival at the crossing (both of which have been suggested by many already), gaining an appreciation for his situation only after it was too late to take appropriate action to avoid the collision.
What remains to be known is exactly what those issues were, and the sole person who knew didn't survive the collision.
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...
In these threads about the Nevada accident (and in many previous threads concerned with the same thing, but different accidents/events) where someone has failed to heed the warning signals, many people have expressed that they have no sympathy for the person that failed to heed the warnings. And they object to the suggestion that further/better warning systems be implemented. They ask, "why should the government play nurse-maid to the "bad" driver?
But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train. Could Nevada have done more to prevent their deaths from the UNINTENTIONAL suicide?
A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, but the driver may still have thought he could beat a slow freight train, so maybe it wouldn't have. Grade separation is one choice, but really is no guarantee that a motorist won't run off the side of a highway overpass(equipment failure or stupidity) and fall on the train, or that the train won't derail (equipment failure or vandalism?) and knock down the highway bridge dumping the motorist into an inferno of chemical tank cars or fall off a RR overpass and bury the hapless motorist under 500,000 gallons of corn-syrup or 500 tons of sugar beets.
The only guaranteed way to prevent it would be to tear out the tracks AND the road and prohibit all travel.
You may be the most perfect motorist in the world, but that won't keep you from being killed in an automotive accident when you are hit by the world's worst driver. You may be an innocent passenger in a boat, plane, train or automobile but you may be just as dead as the unintentional suicide driver in some other boat, plane, train or automobile that hits what you are in.
So it boils down to what YOUR life is worth and how much YOU are willing to pay to preserve it. Are you willing to risk your life by not paying for any improvements? Will you pay for the more distant alert system? Will you pay for the grade separation? Or will you be willing to do without that bag of munchies that the trucker cannot deliver because all travel is prohibited?
What's that old saying? "Cough up or shut up." Pardon, my unintentional insult, but I am just an innocent pedestrian and my pockets are just as empty as yours are.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The theory that the driver may have been trying to beat the train has been brought up. I have considered that theory because at first, it seemed quite plausible. The driver thinks it is a slower moving freight train, and he speeds up, only to discover that the train is approaching too fast to beat. So the driver aborts the attempt to beat the train, but cannot stop in time.
But there is one major flaw in that theory. To beat the train, the driver would have to crash through the gates at very high speed. Certainly the truck could break through the gates, but it would likely cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to the truck. Conceivably, the gate could come right through the windshield and kill the driver.
Going around the lowered gates would have prevented the damage, but it would have required slowing down to maybe 5 mph and still be a difficult maneuver with a tractor/trailer unit. So it seems improbable that the driver was planning on racing the train to the crossing, and then slowing way down to go around the gates.
So I rule out the theory that the driver was trying to beat the train. Whatever inconvenience a driver believes he or she will avoid by beating a train is bound to be more than offset by the inconvenience of causing significant damage to his or her vehicle.
tree68 IMHO, that suit will come down to any policies in place regarding the subject door and the rationale for those policies. It could be argued that the same thing might have occured if the door was jammed as the result of the collision, in which case the argument would have to be that the door wasn't properly protected against any and all possible situations. Of course we know that that's virtually impossible.
How quickly we forget. Who should be sued? Congress and the NRA. Please go to the below site and read the checked firearms policy!
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267293829
Blue streak do you really think that this is a forum for your anti constitution politics? The tragic loss of life should not be a opportunity to harangue. Oh, that's right, never let a crisis go to waste, huh?
The train's locomotive and the truck were on a near perfect course to collide at the crossing. Twenty-five seconds before reaching the crossing, both the train and the truck were about 3000 feet from the crossing and the flashers came on. Traffic authorities say that the signals are visible from that distance although perhaps rounded off to an even half-mile or 2640 feet.
Just because people can see the signals from half a mile away, is it reasonable to expect that everyone will and must see the signals at that point? A driver’s attention cannot possibly be everywhere, so the argument that no accidents would occur if drivers paid attention is a faulty argument. Even the most perfect driver is always not paying attention to some portion of his or her sphere of attention. Generally on a road, a driver’s attention span will either be focused on the far or the near portion of the road ahead. Generally, a driver has to focus on the road near and far just to stay on it. A driver might have various reasons for focusing near or far, and might change from one to the other at times.
Everybody knows that looking far will help identify obstructions and give the most time to react to them. But, out in the middle of nowhere, a driver might grow complacent about the possibility of obstructions. A grade crossing that has seldom or never been active in a driver’s memory of experience of that crossing might not even register as something to be looking far ahead for.
Therefore, I conclude that a driver’s attention lapse on the far road ahead, for say a half-minute (3080 feet at 70mph), might be a completely functional and legal part of driving out there. Further adding to a driver’s complacency, he or she probably does not feel distracted from the far road when looking at the near road. The two are in a line, and attention can be readily toggled from near to far.
Apparently during the first part of the Amtrak 25-second warning, this driver did not focus on either the signals flashing, or the train entering from one side of his sphere of attention. During the driver’s approach, both the signal and the presence of the train would have grown in their visual obviousness. Now there may be extenuating circumstances beyond just the normal application of driving attention out there, but for some reason, this driver apparently lost about 18 seconds of that 25-second warning. That left 7 seconds to realize the emergency, hit the brakes, skid 300 feet, and hit the train.
So the question is this:
Why did driver lose those 18 seconds of the Amtrak warning? Can it be just attributable to the normal application of driver attention out in the wide-open west? The suggestion of cell phone, texting, or similar communication as being possible driver distraction is highly applicable here. That may indeed be the next shoe to drop. Traveling in a convoy can engender competition and boldness, and expressing this kind of bravado could also be distracting. However, there may have been none of this type of activity distraction. I could see it being just due to an 18-second lapse of focus on the far road. There are only 25 seconds to work with.
Because the warning begins with an indication of signals that are 3000 feet ahead of the driver, it seems quite reasonable and understandable that even the best of drivers might miss some of that warning as it begins, and not see the warning until they get a little closer. So if you shave off say 10 seconds for that delayed perception, you only have 15 seconds left. Then it takes 7 more seconds to stop, and that is a panic stop. How long would a non-panic stop take? Lets say a normal stop takes 12 seconds.
That leaves a 3-second margin of safety. Is that a reasonable safety margin, considering the potential loss of life if a driver happens to need 4 seconds instead of 3 seconds? If that truck were a gasoline tanker, it could have killed half the people on the train.
I hope that gasoline tanker would have stopped, as so ordered by Nevada Statute NRS 484B.560:
NRS 484B.560 Certain vehicles required to stop at all railroad grade crossings; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the driver of any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, or of any school bus carrying any school child, or of any vehicle carrying any explosive or flammable liquid as a cargo or part of a cargo, before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad, shall stop that vehicle within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along the track for any approaching train, and for signals indicating the approach of a train, and shall not proceed until the driver can do so safely.
(from: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec553 )
I think this covers the topic nicely:
NRS 484B.600 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484B.130.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.361)
(Emphasis mine - zug)
From: (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec600)
[/quote]
You guys are obviously more informed on the accident than I, but I'd like to jump in here.
Bucyrus Just because people can see the signals from half a mile away, is it reasonable to expect that everyone will and must see the signals at that point? A driver’s attention cannot possibly be everywhere, so the argument that no accidents would occur if drivers paid attention is a faulty argument. Even the most perfect driver is always not paying attention to some portion of his or her sphere of attention. Generally on a road, a driver’s attention span will either be focused on the far or the near portion of the road ahead. Generally, a driver has to focus on the road near and far just to stay on it. A driver might have various reasons for focusing near or far, and might change from one to the other at times. Everybody knows that looking far will help identify obstructions and give the most time to react to them. But, out in the middle of nowhere, a driver might grow complacent about the possibility of obstructions. A grade crossing that has seldom or never been active in a driver’s memory of experience of that crossing might not even register as something to be looking far ahead for. Therefore, I conclude that a driver’s attention lapse on the far road ahead, for say a half-minute (3080 feet at 70mph), might be a completely functional and legal part of driving out there.
That being said, even my local museum faces the same things. When we run trains for the State Fair, and have been doing so since '86, we send a work crew through there to hang ""Caution, increased train traffic" signs. A private charter tiptoes along to inspect every crossing and grind down the rust (since we don't use those rails outside fo the fair) and we usually have radio ads and traffic reports along the lines of "There is a train for the next two weeks, so be careful." So in and of itself, the seldom firign crossing is a valid point.
BucyrusApparently during the first part of the Amtrak 25-second warning, this driver did not focus on either the signals flashing, or the train entering from one side of his sphere of attention. During the driver’s approach, both the signal and the presence of the train would have grown in their visual obviousness. Now there may be extenuating circumstances beyond just the normal application of driving attention out there, but for some reason, this driver apparently lost about 18 seconds of that 25-second warning. That left 7 seconds to realize the emergency, hit the brakes, skid 300 feet, and hit the train. So the question is this: Why did driver lose those 18 seconds of the Amtrak warning? Can it be just attributable to the normal application of driver attention out in the wide-open west? The suggestion of cell phone, texting, or similar communication as being possible driver distraction is highly applicable here. That may indeed be the next shoe to drop. Traveling in a convoy can engender competition and boldness, and expressing this kind of bravado could also be distracting. However, there may have been none of this type of activity distraction. I could see it being just due to an 18-second lapse of focus on the far road. There are only 25 seconds to work with.
Bucyrus Because the warning begins with an indication of signals that are 3000 feet ahead of the driver, it seems quite reasonable and understandable that even the best of drivers might miss some of that warning as it begins, and not see the warning until they get a little closer. So if you shave off say 10 seconds for that delayed perception, you only have 15 seconds left. Then it takes 7 more seconds to stop, and that is a panic stop. How long would a non-panic stop take? Lets say a normal stop takes 12 seconds. That leaves a 3-second margin of safety. Is that a reasonable safety margin, considering the potential loss of life if a driver happens to need 4 seconds instead of 3 seconds? If that truck were a gasoline tanker, it could have killed half the people on the train.
I think most driving stanrds will tell you "no", based on the fact that common practice at that speed is to leave a large3r margin of safety just for following someone. I think it's supposed to be 5 at 70mph. That being said, that margin of safety is completely detached from the driver's actual reaction time. If he had a 5second cushion, but only reacted in the last 5 seconds instead of the last 7, it would've done him no good, and nothing short of a PTC system that related semis to crossing signals would have mattered. Going into the argument on theprevious page about speedlimits, while there is a limit to how much "handholding" the government should be doing, can we really be going about saying "Oh, well, you were speeding, so we won't do anyting for you or the other hundred or however many people do it? That sounds to me as almost being as unsafe as someone doing the speed-limit when everyone else is trying to fly around him. There's a point in when the police are clocking people, where it's as dangerous to try and disrupt eh flow of traffic with two or three slow obstacles in the river. So yes, if that stretch of highway is moving faster than the speed-limit routinely, then one of two things needs to be done. It either needs to be more thouroghly enforced, or be made as safe as people seem to think it is. Step one, is giving more attention to stopping distances.
-Morgan
zugmann 1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at: (b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
I agree with your point about the stopping requirement if you are carrying flammable liquid. In that case, the driver should know ahead of time to look for grade crossings and stop for them whether they are activated or not. I did not consider that extra requirement for flammables. However, my point still stands as to the possibility of a large loss of life in a run-into-train crash with a truck even if it is not transporting flammables.
As to item (b), it does certainly seem to cover every possible contingency. However, I don’t know how you measure it before having a collision. It is easy to say that if you run into something, you were driving at a speed high enough to endanger life, limb, or property of any person. But a driver has to know ahead of time about the life, limb, or property of any person that will be endangered by his speed. So the real issue goes first to the driver’s awareness of the endangerment. Obviously, the driver did not become aware soon enough. But considering the stakes, I don’t think the 25-second warning is reasonable at 70 mph.
How much warning do you need to stop?
25 seconds seems pretty generous. Granted you have to be paying attention to your driving, but I thought that was the point of it all.
Why not take the simple approach and replace the cross bucks and gates with a standard red light? Motorist will sit at a red light at 2 am with no other cars approaching waiting for minutes on green. Plus it seems that red light running was not one of the offenses this truck driver had been charged with. Probably would have proven as effective as any other proposal mentioned thus far.
Revisiting this thread, all these re-engineering proposals brings to mind that non-PC statement--"Once you idiot proof something a bigger idiot will come along". Heck, the government/railroads could spend millions on each grade crossing in America by eliminating the crossing with a highway bridge over the tracks but someone will ultimately find a way to run off the bridge or down the embankment to the tracks.
Jay
You know, another thing that would work would be to eliminate grade crossings altogether. Everywhere, period. Plus in this economy it would make for some good jobs for some lucky people.
John
Another thing that might help (probably not) would be better instruction in the practical understanding of the following equations:
f = m * a
p = m * v
Not to mention a regular review of the "Law of Tonnage"....
The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
PigFarmer1 The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
I am amazed as well. If it had been a teenager doing what the truck driver appears to have done, I doubt if there would be so many trying to transfer the blame to the crossing, signals, sunlight, angle of crossing, timing, etc. Instead, we'd be hearing about Mr. Darwin, once again. But the ultimate goal should be to prevent these accidents through the elimination of grade crossings, at least on highways outside cities crossing railroad RoW's with passenger trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm PigFarmer1: The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems. I am amazed as well. If it had been a teenager doing what the truck driver appears to have done, I doubt if there would be so many trying to transfer the blame to the crossing, signals, sunlight, angle of crossing, timing, etc. Instead, we'd be hearing about Mr. Darwin, once again. But the ultimate goal should be to prevent these accidents through the elimination of grade crossings, at least on highways outside cities crossing railroad RoW's with passenger trains.
PigFarmer1: The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
Thank you schlimm -- I've tried to make the same point in the past, but perhaps from the other side. Without knowing all the facts, we should neither be too quick to acquit the mature professional, nor be too quick to convict the teenager.
And I agree that we should do whatever is feasible to prevent these sorts of accidents, and protect against even inattentive, careless, or stupid drivers where the level or speed of traffic warrants it (even if it means protecting these inattentive, careless, or stupid drivers from themselves!).
Otherwise, we can just throw in the towel and say that old-fashioned cross-bucks give sufficient warning of an obvious potential for danger, and driver beware! But I think, like it or not, society has progressed beyong that point.
Operation Lifesaver has told me that drivers must approach signalized crossings at a speed low enough to permit them to stop for an approaching train, no matter whether the signals are activated or not. This amounts to yielding to trains as required by the crossbuck. To properly yield to an approaching train may or may not require slowing down. It depends on how far the driver can see down the tracks in each direction.
I have posed a follow-up question asking what drivers must do to yield to the red flashing lights should they happen to activate as a driver approaches a signalized crossing. The requirement to yield to the flashing lights is not affected by the driver’s view down the tracks.
Semper Vaporo But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train. A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, ...
But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train.
A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, ...
I think the question is about Nevada protecting the passeners, train crew, and the drivers
Bucyrus Operation Lifesaver has told me that drivers must approach signalized crossings at a speed low enough to permit them to stop for an approaching train, no matter whether the signals are activated or not. This amounts to yielding to trains as required by the crossbuck. To properly yield to an approaching train may or may not require slowing down. It depends on how far the driver can see down the tracks in each direction. I have posed a follow-up question asking what drivers must do to yield to the red flashing lights should they happen to activate as a driver approaches a signalized crossing. The requirement to yield to the flashing lights is not affected by the driver’s view down the tracks.
But it would have been an entirely diffenent situation had the grade crossing signals failed to actuate. There's no jury in the country that would find a motorist liable for a crossing accident caused by failure of active crossing warning systems because the driver didn't treat the crossbuck as a ":yield" sign. The only place that such a notion could have any credence is on a website. It doesn't reflect reality.
garr Why not take the simple approach and replace the cross bucks and gates with a standard red light? Motorist will sit at a red light at 2 am with no other cars approaching waiting for minutes on green. Plus it seems that red light running was not one of the offenses this truck driver had been charged with. Probably would have proven as effective as any other proposal mentioned thus far. Jay
Your observation that people will stop and wait for a red traffic light at 2:00 AM with no cars around, and yet, run right past grade crossing flashers and weave around the gates is probably the single most significant indicator of the underlying grade crossing problem.
Here is the explanation: First of all, there is a deep and long-instilled belief among drivers that they are permitted to use their own discretion in determining whether it is safe to cross, simply by judging the speed and proximity of the train. That is a fundamental backdrop of a belief system that goes right back to the beginning. And it remains the core of responsibility surrounding the non-signalized crossings even today. So it is deeply seated part of the public consciousness.
And even the laws on signalized crossings permit drivers to pass the flashing lights in certain circumstances using their own discretion. It is only the lowered gates that are absolutely inviolable. If the gates are down, the road is closed, train or no train. But most drivers do not know that. With a red traffic light, on the other hand, there is no sense of the freedom to use personal discretion in deciding whether to stop and wait. With a red traffic light, drivers just accept it as an abstract concept. With grade crossing flashers, drivers think of the train and wonder if they need to wait for it.
However, the number-one-main-reason why drivers wait for traffic lights, but run grade crossing lights is their worry about an excessive delay from trains. So it is not the style of stoplight, but rather it is the type of crossing that motivates drivers to yield or not. Therefore, if you protected grade crossings with traffic lights, drivers would fail to heed the traffic lights to the same extent they fail to heed crossing flashers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.