tdmidget ... then you must be prepared to stop and if that means slowing down, then you must do so.
... then you must be prepared to stop and if that means slowing down, then you must do so.
(My emphasis added to quote by TDM)
If a crossing has limited visibility down the tracks, and is not signalized, then being prepared to stop might require slowing down. However those conditions do not apply to the Nevada crash crossing.
There is no need to slow down there in order to be prepared to stop. Assuming that a driver is not distracted, there is ample time for a 70 mph vehicle to stop within that final 900 ft. straight approach if a train is approaching, no matter whether the signals are working or not. So there is not a need to slow down in anticipation of the need to stop.
Falcon48 Bucyrus: But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet. It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet. Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop. So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds. Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf This analysis is not correct because it neglects the fact (as discussed in my previous post) that the crossing signals (which, according to all reports I've seen to date, were functioning properly) would have actuated at least 20 seconds before the train entered the crossing. Therefore, the truck driver had at least 20 seconds advance warning of the approach of the train. If he had been "distracted" for 2.92 seconds, he would still have had 17.08 seconds to stop from 70 mph. That's over 5 times the amount of time he would have needed to safely bring his truck to a stop from 70 mph according to your figures.
Bucyrus: But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet. It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet. Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop. So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds. Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet.
It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet.
Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop.
So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds.
Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31:
http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
The signals do provide a warning between the time of activation and the moment the train arrives at the crossing. I understand that warning lasts 25 seconds. However that warning is of no use to an approaching driver if that driver cannot see it because of a bend in the road, as there is in the northbound approach. When a driver rounds that bend and sees the warning, he or she is 900 feet from the crossing or 8.76 seconds at the 70 mph speed limit.
For a truck such as the one in this particular crash, requiring 600 feet to stop, that leaves a warning of 2.92 seconds, as I detailed in the post you quoted above.
@midget: So, according to your logic, you slow down [you don't specify the speed] every time you see a green light ahead of you on the chance it could turn red before you clear the intersection? Especially since there are always cars and trucks bearing down on the intersection from two directions?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Well you have come full circle. Now you agree that there WAS visibility AND there was plenty of room to stop. So there is no need for a star wars warning system. Just need a better driver.
If I can't see what's coming, you bet I do. And if I see a dingbat talking on the phone, applying makeup, reading (yes, I've seen it) or looking the other way I slow down. It's called defensive driving. You should check it out.
I want more protection from the HUMAN driver (which we ALL are). EVERYBODY can make a mistake. We are ALL subject to moments of distractions, lapses in skill, confusion, befuddlement, and simple failure to process the external stimuli that driving presents.
If we were all perfect we would not need CDL's or any sort of driver's license, nor would we need traffic controls, nor any sort of warning signage or signals at RR crossings. We would all know how to drive perfectly in all situations. ACCIDENTS would only be caused by mechanical failure... Not HUMAN failure.
BUT... There NO perfect drivers. None, Nada, Psylztche... Not me, not you, not anybody..
IF there is a way to help ALL of US HUMANOIDS to be more attentive to our skills as drivers then lets get off our "high horses" and find ways to do so and demand they be implimented.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
@tdmidget: If you slow down at every green light or rail crossing (even when there are no flashing lights or gates coming down), sooner or later you will get run over from behind because of your unsafe driving practices. Why you can't see the need for better protection from human error at crossings, as Semper Vaporo said, is beyond me and not worth additional discussion.
Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I slow down at EVERY crossing or intersection. I slow down enough to see if there is a hazard when visibility is bad. I slow down for rolling hazards described. And no I won't likely get hit from behind. Even with these cautions I seem to be in the faster percentiles. It is entirely possible to be an alert defensive driver who anticipates hazards and not drive like a grandma. This driver was not aware of his situation or he was reckless.
Ed, chime in here, is either of these excusable in a professional driver?
The key is situational awareness (AKA defensive driving). If I've been looking at a green light for more than a short time, the odds are rising that it's going to change on me as I approach it.
Yes, I do look both ways on approach to a crossing, as much as possible.
And I also drive emergency vehicles. Our state law says that when running red lights and siren we have to drive with "due regard." That essentially translates to "if you have an accident, it'll be your fault, no matter who is truly to blame."
This discussion isn't going to end until:
1. Bucyrus is proven right by the final report, or
2. Everybody agrees that Bucyrus is right.
If the final report comes out and does not agree with Bucyrus' assessment, we'll be treated to pages and pages of why the report is wrong.
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...
Current FMCSA regulations ONLY require a Driver to Stop at EVERY CROSSING when Hauling Haz-Mat or Passengers on a Bus unless the Crossing is mark with the Excempt signage. Otherwise they can go right thru the Crossing unless there is a Train VISABLE or the Warning signs for the Crossing are Activated and down if it is equipped with Crossbars. Now from that Picture series I posted from that Blog from 900 feet away YOU cna not EVEN see the freaking crossing 650 which would have been the LAST time the Driver would have been able to Safely stop beyond that by the time the rear axle engaged on the back trailer HE WAS SCREWED.
The Tractor has what is called a TPS or Tractor Protection System that makes the Tractors brakes the LASTbrakes to apply at least they did when I drove it helped prevent Jacknifes. Well the way the system works is the in an OTR truck is our Brakes are held off by Pressure and use Pressure to APPLY also. So when we apply the brakes we are feeding pressure thru another separate set of lines to apply the brakes. Best of both worlds lose the air pressure we still stop also. Well problem is it will not apply the brakes Closest to the Driver til the ones Farthest AWAY from the Driver have been applied at the Pressure the Driver wants. So if yoru wanting a Emergancy stop the delay can be around .4 seconds total. So say he saw the train at 400 feet away slammed on the brakes by the time everything applied he would have been in the 330-320 foot range. His last act was problay scream on the radio to the 2 behind him Stop NOW.
Even the New Regs the Feds are pushing to shorten Stopping Distances on Heavy trucks would not have stopped this accident from happening why your going to ask. They are designed for a LOADED truck not an EMPTY truck. An unladen truck takes about 20% longer to stop than a loaded one since they have a tendancy to hop on a stop.
Ed,
With the type of truck involved with this crash, running empty on dry pavement in a straight line at 70 mph, what would you estimate the total braking distance to be?
I am referring to braking distance only; not factoring in reaction time. I am referring to the distance from the point of maximum application of the brakes to the point where the truck stops.
References vary on this point, so I am asking for your informed opinion.
Rough guess From 70MPH empty from what I have read and personal Experiance from driving 53 ft trailers most of my time out there. We are looiking at around 600-650 feet easy from the time the brakes applied to the time he would have been able to STOP. BTW anyone that pulls a LCV on a highway most insurance carriers demand at least 5 years accident free and also you better have better have one hell of an attention on what that back wagon is doing. I know 12 years ago Fed ex Ground offered me a run from Chicago to Dallas with a Driver I knew and Resepcted greatly. We both told them to SHOVE it. Neither one of us wanted to be pulling Wiggle Wagons in the winter. That give you a clue how much that back trailer can move around. Both of us were drivers with close to a million miles and NEITHER ONE OF US WANTED TO DRIVE THEM.
Yes that driver Screwed up by not stopping in time but he could not have stopped if he wanted to. Something tells me that there is going to be some major HEADS rolling in NV by the time all this is over. The State seems to think that one size fits all works they forget that Trucks can not stop as fast as cars. Why do you think that more and more Drivers and Companies are mounting Cameras in their Cabs that can catch what all the vechiles around them are doing. I know of a driver that was able to prove in court that he was cut off by a what we called a Diver and stopper to cause and accident. That guy tried to sue him his Insurance carrier Countersued for the Damages and Legal fees and WON with that tape. The driver is now doing 15 years and the Atty was Disbarred turns out they were running a scam against Truckers hoping for a quick settlement everytime.
A question: Did either the Nevada State Patrol or the NTSB find any evidence of cell phone use? Personally I would be surprised if they did as I do not remember there being service out that way.
Thx IGN
From all the Forums I am a member of I have not heard Crap of there being a Cell phone in use. The only thing I have heard of being in use was a CB Radio and all drivers have used them for Years with no issues. No dialing involved just push to Talk.
There was some speculation about cell phones early on. Personally I did not think it would be a possibility as I remember it there is not any cell phone coverage out that way(it is as remote as you can get in the 48 states).
My company used to do 6 runs a week from Idaho down to the Los Angeles area. It's been 2 years or so since I'd been down that patch of road. Only drove it southbound though.
It tends to be a boring stretch of road. And there are any number of pullouts to take a break at.
Rgds IGN
One other item. As I recall Battle Mountain(the trucking co) uses a commercial GMRS set up to communicate between trucks and loaders/dump operators. They usually do not talk on CB's as a result.
In response to Bucyrus' post of 8/13 and other posts speculating on the amount of time the driver had to react, NTSB reports that its investigators documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver's direction of travel was over 1 mile (not 900 feet). See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html . I think it is safe to regard their conclusion as authoritative. That means that the driver had the entire acrtivation time of the crossing signals as advance warning of the approach of the train (20-25 seconds, not 8.76 seconds). Also, according to news reports, the drivers of two following trucks saw the signals and were slowing for the crossing (in other words, they could see it), and questioned why the first driver had not done so.
Falcon48 In response to Bucyrus' post of 8/13 and other posts speculating on the amount of time the driver had to react, NTSB reports that its investigators documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver's direction of travel was over 1 mile (not 900 feet). See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html . I think it is safe to regard their conclusion as authoritative. That means that the driver had the entire acrtivation time of the crossing signals as advance warning of the approach of the train (20-25 seconds, not 8.76 seconds). Also, according to news reports, the drivers of two following trucks saw the signals and were slowing for the crossing (in other words, they could see it), and questioned why the first driver had not done so.
A lot of numbers have been crunched in this thread, but the one unresolved question is the distance from which the crossing signals can be seen. Although there is a 30-degree curve 900 feet south of the crossing, there is a possibility of projecting the crossing flasher beam into the highway south of that curve. One way to do it is to use lamps that have that have a beam-spread wide enough. I don’t know if spreading the beam compromises its strength. Another way would be to use multiple lamps, so some are aimed down the highway between the curve and the crossing, and the other lamps are turned 30-degrees so they aim down the highway south of the curve. In any case, it would be possible to project the signals beyond the curve. If that is the case, then my calculation of there being only a 2.92 second warning for a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, is incorrect.
I had a phone conversation with the Public Information Officer of the Nevada DOT, and ran this 2.92-second calculation past him, and he said he was unqualified to confirm or refute my analysis. He assured me that other people in their organization were qualified to address my analysis, and that they would do so if asked. I sent them a message inquiring about this on 8/16, and am still awaiting their reply.
In some of the news coverage of this crash, investigators stated that the lights were visible from ½ mile. Whether that is actually the case at this crossing through the curve in the highway, or whether it is simply the straight-line projection specification of the light beam, I don’t know. The Public Information Officer of NVDOT says the signal lamps meet the requirement of being able to be seen from 2000 feet.
The NTSB preliminary report linked above by Falcoln48, in its opening statement, says this: “Investigators have documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver’s direction of travel was over 1 mile.”
However, this NTSB statement needs clarification, because the language of it strikes me as purposely vague. For example, if there were nothing blocking the field of vision between a person and the crossing 20 miles away, you could say that the sight distance was 20 miles. I want to know how many feet down that highway a person with good vision can see the flashing lights of the crossing.
Also interesting is the fact that this one technical detail given in the opening statement is left out of the language of the preliminary report. And yet that preliminary report contains all of the other details necessary to describe the circumstances of the crash. It repeats many of the details given in the opening statement, but not the visibility distance of the crossing upon approach. It appears, as one would expect, that the preliminary report is an elaboration of the opening statement. So it seems odd to give a pertinent detail in the opening statement and then leave it out of the preliminary report, which includes all of the other pertinent details.
Therefore, I would regard the NTSB finding to be authoritative, but I would first have to know what the finding means. So I would not jump to the conclusion that a driver has a warning of 20-25 seconds until the NTSB actually says that. Also, the preliminary report does say that the information is preliminary and may be corrected or supplemented during the course of the investigation.
I would also not conclude that warning was adequate simply because the two following drivers reacted in time. For one thing, they were not on the same collision course with the train as the first truck. But aside from that, I am not saying that the driver was blameless. He obviously was negligent. Even if my 2.92-second analysis is correct, that is still enough time to see the danger. The truck driver waited past that warning, but that does not mean that every driver will do that.
Throughout this thread, my point has not been to vindicate the truck driver, although the tread title may imply that. In fact, if I had somehow learned the details of this crossing setup, I would be making my point about this even if this crash had not occurred. My concern is about the danger of this crossing.
In response to Bucyrus' latest post, why would NTSB investigators say that the "sight distance" on the road was over 1 mile if they weren't talking about the sight distance to the grade crossing where the accident occurred? After all, they are investigating the accident - what possible relevance does sight distance has if it isn't the sight distance to the crossing? The way NTSB works, they probably restaged the accident scenario with another truck to come to this conclusion. I don't regard the fact that the "one mile" statement appeared in only one of the two NTSB documents as significant. The most likely explanation was that it was inadvertently omitted from one of the documents
I did not attribute my 20-25 second warning conclusion to NTSB (and I don't read Bucyrus as saying that I did). It was my own deduction, which seems to logically flow from NTSB's conclusion.
By the way, yesterday I inadvertently had an opportunity to test visibility of activated crossing signals on an EJ&E crossing in Illinois. The signals seemed similar to the signals involved in the Amtrak accident - gates with cantelever warning lights. I could see the activated lights well over a mile away (I checked my odometer for the distance).
I believe that it is technically possible for the Nevada crash crossing signals to be seen from one mile along the highway heading south from the crossing. With enough illumination power, anything is possible. But I also think that the NTSB statement is intentionally vague because, for the time being, they want the conclusion about the driver’s advance warning to be left intentionally vague.
However, this maximum sight distance for the activated flashers is really beside the point because a driver has no responsibility to react to the grade crossing until he or she enters the so-called “Approach zone.” And the approach zone begins at the location of the advance warning sign, which is 900 feet south of this Nevada crossing.
The driver’s legal responsibility does not begin at the point where the red flashing lights first become visible. And even from a practical standpoint, whether the red flashing lights are visible at ½ mile or even 1 mile is moot if the lights appear to be so small at those distances that it becomes unreasonable to rely on them as an attention-getting warning.
So the northbound warning begins 900 feet from the crossing. That corresponds to my analysis that concludes a driver of a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, has 2.92 seconds to react.
Bucyrus The driver’s legal responsibility does not begin at the point where the red flashing lights first become visible.
Source?
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 I believe that it is technically possible for the Nevada crash crossing signals to be seen from one mile along the highway heading south from the crossing. With enough illumination power, anything is possible. But I also think that the NTSB statement is intentionally vague because, for the time being, they want the conclusion about the driver’s advance warning to be left intentionally vague.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the NTSB statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking it themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the NTSB uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the NTSB statement. So until the NTSB tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Bucyrus Murphy Siding: Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that. No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the Warren Commision statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking Warren Commision themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances from a grassy knoll more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the Warren Commision statement. So until the Warren Commision tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Murphy Siding: Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the Warren Commision statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking Warren Commision themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances from a grassy knoll more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the Warren Commision statement. So until the Warren Commision tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Bucyrus,
I've been involved in aviation for the last thirty years and the last thing the NTSB wants to do is commit themselves on a preliminary report. They wait until every last detail is followed up before issuing a final report.
I've seen them stand off on an aviation aviation accident for over two years. Why should the Nevada accident be an exception? It takes considerable time to gather all the facts.
I make no judgment till the final report is issued.
Norm
Norm,
I am not saying that the Nevada accident is an exception. Actually I agree with you on your point. That is why I am holding off on accepting the NTSB comment about sight distance until they clearly say what they mean.
Otherwise, overall, I am just speculating on a possible deficiency with the crossing setup. And the final NTSB report may or may not resolve that issue. Nevada DOT is also investigating whether or not the crossing warning was adequate. I would not assume that it is a forgone conclusion that their findings will agree with those of the NTSB. And finally, there will be the verdict of the lawsuit against U.P. by the trucking company claiming that the crossing warning was not adequate.
" And finally, there will be the verdict of the lawsuit against U.P. by the trucking company claiming that the crossing warning was not adequate. "
The railroads install and maintain what the states require.
[quote user="zugmann"
Source?[/quote]
Page 16 and 32 here:
http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/railroad06downloads/nizam_macdonald.pdf
Page 63 and 66 here:
http://www.ite.org/decade/pubs/TB-019-E.pdf
Those give the definition of an "approach zone". I was more curious with you legal obligation statement. Show me a law/ordinance/statute that says that flashing red lights only apply to you if you're in the "approach zone".
Studies are a dime a dozen.
zugmann,
Those sources are not studies, as you call them. One of them is the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook published by the USDOT Federal Highway Administration. Both sources go into much more detail than the state statutes. I don’t see this matter detailed in the statutes, but there are other details not covered in the statutes as well.
Both of the sources I cited define the approach zone in terms of beginning at a specific location with formulas for determining that specific location based on speed and stopping distance. Neither those sources nor the statutes say anything about that location being the location where the flashing lights first become visible. And moreover, that location where the lights first become visible will vary from one person to another, so it cannot be specific. In any case, the approach zone provides enough distance to formulate a plan of action, and the following non-recovery zone provides enough distance to stop.
The sources say that the approach zone is where the driver first learns of a grade crossing ahead by virtue of the advance warning sign that marks the beginning of the approach zone. The driver is then supposed to act upon that information by looking for trains or crossing warnings, and make a decision before entering the non-recovery zone.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.