Handbooks aren't law.
Yes, the drivers must act in the approach zone. But I still question your opinion that legal responsibility only begins there.
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
It would be nice if these crossing principles were clearly spelled out in the laws as one would expect, but they are not. In fact the laws are sometimes vague and open to conflicting interpretations. Maybe that is intentional. I don't know.
But you you are free to question my interpretation. Or you may go further and offer your own differing interpretation. You may even refute my interpretation if you can cite the laws that prove your interpretation.
Try reading the FMCSA regs on RR crossings just ONE time. Full of doublespeak and Lega;lease that will make you think your doing it RIGHT yet a good DOT OFFICER can find you doing something WRONG everytime. The FMCSA Regs anymore are worse than any RR rulesbook so that if a DOT officer wants to right you a ticket they CAN and WILL.
Or as drivers say it anymore it is the NASCAR rulebook of the Trucking industry and if they want to FIND SOMETHING WRONG THEY WILL. Also when they do it will cost you money and POINTS now. You may think your legal under the Rulebook but they will move the rules away from you and say SORRY CAN NOT DO THAT anymore. Stuff that was legal 11 Years ago and had been legal for 60 years like Spilt Logging Do not even try it anymore. Do not even think of pushing that envolope for an extra 2 mins on the time anymore they will hammer your but to the tree. Yet the rules ure as hell do not apply to them.
I think you misread your fine links. The approach zone (where signs, etc. warning of a crossing should be located) is 1410 feet on a 70 mph road, like in Nevada.The last point at which a driver must begin to apply brakes if he is to stop before the crossing is 780 feet @ 70 mph. There is nothing there to suggest a driver need do nothing until he reaches the approach zone if he can see the flashing lights of the crossing gates, which in this case, he would have been able to do.
From the preliminary report: "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; a color video recording from the lead locomotive showed that the crossing gates were down as the train approached the crossing and the audio recording confirmed that the train horn and crossing bell were activated; and tire marks were found starting 320 feet from the grade crossing and continuing up to the railroad tracks."
If the report is correct, he should have seen the warning lights well beyond the distance necessary to stop. He ignored both the warning signs and the warning lights of the crossing, and still did not attempt to stop until far too late - 320 feet - when he needed 780. Driver error. Seems to me, this crossing, as a level crossing, was adequate. However, as a device to protect trains from careless drivers, it inevitably failed. A grade separation would be the only nearly foolproof device.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But does the approach zone at the Nevada crossing actually begin at 1410 feet as the tables call for? I have not measured it, but it begins at the point of the RXR signs, which another poster measured to be 900 feet from the crossing.
In either case, this does pose a puzzling question about the fine point of drivers’ responsibility. The approach zone requires a response from the driver. But the question posed by zugmann is whether or not any driver response is required prior to the approach zone. The question arises from the fact that the red flashing lights can often be seen prior to entering the approach zone. But if this requires a driver response prior to the approach zone, what would that response be?
It can’t be a requirement to slow down, because even after entering the approach zone, there is no requirement to slow down. A requirement to slow down only begins once a driver has entered the non-recovery zone, if a train is approaching and/or if the red lights are flashing.
Once a driver enters the approach zone, he or she is informed that a grade crossing is ahead, and that he or she must look for trains or activated signals. If the signals are activated, and if the flashing light activation can be seen before entering the approach zone, an undistracted driver will see them. In that case, a driver who knows what the flashing red lights mean will know, prior to entering the approach zone, that he or she is approaching a grade crossing.
However, there is no need for a driver to physically react to this information prior to entering the approach zone because the approach zone allows enough distance to mentally react, and the following non-recovery zone, allows enough distance to stop. The two zones are designed that way.
So an informed driver will realize that he or she does not have to react until entering the approach zone. However, if that informed driver enters this Nevada crossing approach zone in a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, he or she will discover that the approach zone is unusually short; only lasting 2.92 seconds, after which the driver will enter the non-recovery zone.
If the driver had known ahead of time that the approach zone was so short, he or she might have reacted to the information received prior to entering the approach zone. But still, short as it may be, 2.92 seconds is plenty of time to react if a driver is not distracted during that interval.
Drivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
schlimm Drivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
I may be a dummy but it appears to me that if Nevada had rumble strips 1000 ft from a RR crossing on a 70 MPH road and then post a speed limit of 50 MPH at 800 ft. Then another rumble strip at 400 - 500 ft with RR warning sign then maybe that would be sufficient for the state???
schlimmDrivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
I am not saying that the driver was not negligent. Forget about that driver. I am only saying that a driver of a truck such as the one the driver was driving, at a speed of 70 mph, has a 2.92-second warning. That is more than enough time to see the danger and make a decision to apply the brakes.
I don’t see anything that says the RXR sign is purely advisory. But even if it is, why should a driver not take the advice it gives? It marks the beginning of the approach zone in which a driver is advised to look for danger and make a decision by the time he or she reaches the non-recovery zone.
Since the approach zone does not require a driver to slow down, even if the red lights are flashing, why should a driver slow down prior to the approach zone if the red lights are flashing?
An informed driver will expect the zones to be properly set up with enough distance to begin the reaction and braking. And they are. But I expect that their margin of safety will be questioned in court. Or maybe not. But it is being questioned right now by the Nevada D.O.T.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
This thread seems to still be alive, so I will add some thoughts.
The visibility of the signals at the crossing seems to be questionable. The NTSB, probably the source of most of the information, seems to be unsure about the matter.
There are four videos posted by the NTSB about the investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLxOIZP_lQ&feature=relmfu
6/24, 1m37s, announces the team formation and the movement to the site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0QQWLZPfYY&feature=relmfu
6/25, 14m44s, reports the erroneous name of the vehicles owner as Davies Trucking. At 5m40s, the warning sign distance of 897 feet, the roadway marking at 760 feet and the skid marks at 320 feet are reported. At 6m36s, there was “excellent visibility of the approach of the train from U. S. 95.” “There was a convoy of three trucks . . .” but no direct statement that they observed the signals, stopped to help, reported the crash or where they disappeared to afterward. (Note that they do NOT appear in any of the many aerial crash photos taken of the site available online.) The three truck convoy is mentioned again in response to a question at 11m49s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplaB7EB0L4&feature=relmfu
6/26 18m49s. At 2m55s the crossing should have been visible “well over a mile.” At 3m20s the signals, at activation, should have been visible “half a mile back.” At 12m15s a question was raised about the 25s activation time being sufficient and was answered with a statement that the vehicle would have been a half mile away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBS077jFTiM&feature=relmfu
6/27 18m17s. At 1m15s, the name of the trucking company is corrected to Davis. At 2m05s, the assertion of a convoy of three trucks was retracted. The sound is garbled and I can’t quite make out what he says but apparently there was one or more other trucks, possibly from the same company, who traversed the crossing at some unstated time. At 4m00s, the team is investigating traffic at the crossing (see below). At 4m30s the briefer states that the team will do tests with both cars and trucks to determine the sighting distance required to see the signals. (Duh?) At 7m55s the existence of a cell phone, possibly belonging to the driver has been found and forwarded to a testing center for analysis. At 11m59s a telephone question is raised about the specific stopping distance for the truck: the answer give is that it is unknowable because the “braking efficiency” is unknown.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html
This is apparently intended as a Public Affairs Announcement of the Investigation and is undated.
Highway / Railroad Accident Investigation
“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”
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv_preliminary.html
This a preliminary report and contains no information on sight or stopping distances.
http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2010Churchill.pdf
This is a link to the NDOT traffic count page for Churchill county. Location 91, the far north of US 95 where it joins I-80, shows 860 vehicles per DAY, about 35 per hour.
Two observations: nobody - except Bucyrus - seems to acknowledge the difficulties presented by the long curve before the final 900 foot long tangent approach to the crossing. The deniers seems to include the NTSB itself.
Second, if sighting isn’t a problem, why are the extra cantilevered flashing signals installed. Those, according to the manuals are normally used for multi-lane highways.
Has anybody looked at the HRGX Handbook diagram for signal coverage? This is an extract:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec04b.htm
The implication is a 1000 foot maximum range for the signals.
David K. Wheeler
blue streak 1 I may be a dummy but it appears to me that if Nevada had rumble strips 1000 ft from a RR crossing on a 70 MPH road and then post a speed limit of 50 MPH at 800 ft. Then another rumble strip at 400 - 500 ft with RR warning sign then maybe that would be sufficient for the state???
This looks good to me. I drove length of that highway 3 times last month and there were many, many time the the speed limit was lowered to 45-55mph. At every small town or some cross highways there was a "speed zone ahead" sign and then a "speed limit" sign. Then a block later a " end of speed zone" sign. If I choose to keep going 70mph in that zone, it still had a positive effect because I was watching very close to see if a police was parked there. A rumble strip will make you read the signs and hopefully look for a train even if you don't slow down. Seems like an easy fix.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
David,.
I can best answer your question by observation of Durand, MI. It is a quiet zone that involves four crossings and was 'grandfathered' prior to the new requirements.The 'locals' are well aware. Some transients may not be. There is a crossing west of Durand that gives at least a thirty second warning, and it's on a seldom traveled rural road.
So, where does this fit into the perspective of the crossing in Nevada? Without seeing that crossing up close and personal I find it hard to make a judgment. The signals may not be aligned in the best manner for approaching traffic to see them before they are capable of stopping. That applies to cars as well as trucks. The curve in the road may well have been a factor.
As always, I will wait for the NTSB's final report.
Norm
Look for the NTSB to do this. Brake testing to see just What the Stopping Distance is of a Semi Truck and for ALOT of Freaking Eyes to get opened NATIONWIDE in the Insurance and Law Industry and in the Engineering Industry. When they see that there was No way in HADES for that truck to stop either Empty or LOADED look for alot of Roads to be remarked for what a Truck needs not what a Car Needs Finally.
Best thing yet would be for the Engineers at the NTSB to actually sit in a OTR truck and ride along with a Driver for a week and go HOW in the HELL does anything get freaking Delivered with all the crap the normal Driver puts up with.
The NTSB has at least implied that the crossing flasher red lights can be seen from over one mile away. That raises an interesting question of the distance from which the lights are intended to be seen, and what a driver is supposed to do when he or she sees them.
I don’t find anything in the MUTCD or other official guidance that details this information. You would think they would publish specifications about the distance projection of the lights. As David K. Wheeler has pointed out in his post above, the RHGC handbook shows various angle and spread projection installations that seem to effect a maximum range of 1000 feet. Is 1000 feet the intended design projection? They don’t address that obvious question, and yet they discuss bulb wattage and power requirements.
The state laws seem to deal only with events occurring in the immediate approach to the crossing. They forbid crossing against the red flashing lights. The laws also suggest that a driver must decide to yield to the lights when they become clearly visible. “Clearly” is an interesting modifier because it implies that the lights might be visible without being clearly visible. One might wonder if the lights seen from one mile in bright mid-day sun are clearly visible or just visible.
Bucyrus --
I believe that I understand the technical issues you have been trying to raise in this thread. But I am not sure I understand your question, when you ask about "what a driver is supposed to do" when seeing a warning signal.
Isn't any warning signal, by definition, supposed to warn of a hazard ahead? And if so, isn't the driver supposed to be warned, and act appropriately (be more aware, slow down (if necessary). be prepared to take evasive action or stop (again, if necessary))?
As I said, I understand the discussion of whether there is sufficient warning for a particular hazard, but I think it is unlikely that a rule will codify the individual particulars of how to pay more attention to the potential hazard (except in certain circumstances, such as the requirement that busses and certain other vehicles must stop at every grade crossing, for example).
Dragoman Bucyrus -- I believe that I understand the technical issues you have been trying to raise in this thread. But I am not sure I understand your question, when you ask about "what a driver is supposed to do" when seeing a warning signal. Isn't any warning signal, by definition, supposed to warn of a hazard ahead? And if so, isn't the driver supposed to be warned, and act appropriately (be more aware, slow down (if necessary). be prepared to take evasive action or stop (again, if necessary))?
Dragoman,
Well that does seem logical when you look at that way, and it would be logical if the Federal D.O.T. had not set up specific zones intended to control traffic approaching the crossing. Clearly the intent of the zones is not to expect drivers to be scanning the horizon in an attempt to find the red flashing lights of the crossing.
If that were the case, it would be important to project the signal light as far as possible to provide the greatest possibility of attracting a driver’s attention to the hazard. And drivers would be told that the flashing lights will alert them to the fact that a grade crossing is ahead, and a train is in hazardous proximity.
But that is not what they tell drivers. Instead, they set up advance warning RXR signs that are said to be the point where drivers are first informed that a grade crossing is ahead, and that drivers must take responsibility to look for it and look for trains and activated crossing signals. The signs mark the beginning of the zones.
From that point, a driver has all the information he or she needs in order to take action. The RXR signs are visually obvious when a driver passes them, and the crossing signals will also be visually obvious from the location of the advance RXR signs and any point closer to the crossing. So there is simply no need for a driver to be splitting hairs over what he or she might see on the horizon over a mile ahead.
The intent of the system is to FIRST inform a driver that a crossing is ahead by the presence of the advance warning signs, and then SECOND, to have the driver look for trains and signals. The intent is not to require drivers to first look for signals. If that were the intent alone, then a driver approaching a crossing with un-activated signals might not realize the crossing is there until nearly arriving at it. And if that were the case, a driver might get nearly to the crossing without looking for trains or activated signals.
So the system relies on zones first and signals second. That is probably why the state laws call for driver response to signals when they are clearly visible. Once a driver is the first zone, the signals will be clearly visible. Prior to the first zone, they may not be clearly visible. There may be obstructions such as curves, or a driver might not recognize a signal that is far away when the driver does not realize there is a grade crossing ahead, and is therefore not concerned with the possibility of signals.
Now it is easy to say that even though there are zones, if the signals are visible prior to the zones, an approaching driver has the obligation to see them and react. But an informed driver will know that a reaction is not called for until reaching the first zone. And that informed driver will know that the zones are properly sized for reacting and stopping.
However, in the case of the Nevada crossing, the zones are too short. They do not meet the D.O.T. specifications. So a properly informed and lawful driver approaching the crossing while relying on the zones, will discover, only upon entering and traversing the zones, that they are too short, and may pose a problem getting stopped in time to avoid a collision with a train. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Came across an interesting British site, http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/stopping.htm which indicates the deceleration velocity for trucks is 1/2 that of typical cars. This makes sense as an examination of Car & Driver test reports http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/road_test_digest-feature show many cars and pickups going 70 to 0 in ~150 to 200+ feet (their procedure does not include the ~1.45 seconds to react to a signal, but the UK figures do):
CAR STOPPING DISTANCE (Highway Code) @ 10 MPH. PER SECOND
TRUCK STOPPING DISTANCE @ 10 MPH. PER SECOND
So a truck should be able to stop in 400-450 feet. The distance from the beginning of the warning zone with a sign to the crossing was approximately 900 feet, according to the Google estimates. That distance is about twice that needed for a truck with functioning brakes to stop. Consequently I don't see how Nevada was negligent. I think this accident, if anything, shows the need for grade separations and lightly-used crossing closings on railroad lines where passenger trains are running.
In my earlier post on 8/18, I questioned the meaning of the comment given in the opening statement of their preliminary investigation when they said 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.”
In response to that comment, I said that I was not convinced that they meant that a driver could see the flashing lights from over a mile away and around a 30-degree curve. I said that they might have simply meant that there was an unobstructed view of the crossing from over a mile. If there is no obstruction between the viewer and the crossing, you could call that an unobstructed view of the crossing. But the pertinent point is whether or not you can see the flashing lights.
Now, in listening to the language in their video, I find that it precisely confirms the elements of my suspicion about what they were saying and what it meant. In the video, the narrator says this:
“As far as the visibility of the tracks as a truck would have approached from the south, there is no obstructions in that visibility, and the crossing should have been visible from well over a mile.”
If I were investigating this, I would have set the crossing signals to flash on a clear day around noon, and drove south on the highway to the point where the flashing lights were no longer visible. And then I would have announced how many feet from the crossing I was when the flashing lights became completely invisible.
Unlike the NTSB, I would not have couched my findings in whether or not obstructions to visibility existed, or used the phrase, “crossing should have been visible.” I would not have spoken of “visibility of the tracks,” whatever that is supposed to mean. They don’t even define what they mean by “crossing” in the phrase, “crossing should have been visible.” Crossing can mean the location where the tracks cross the highway, or it can mean the un-activated signals, signal tower, and signal bungalow, or it can mean the red flashing lights of the activated signals.
What does that matter? All that really does matter is that the crossing lights were visible from at least 500 feet away. Are you saying they weren't?
From what the OTR guys on the forum have been saying, you would be incredibly lucky for an unloaded semi to stop withing 500 feet from 70MPH after the signal starts flashing. The tables from your previous post are based on a 1/2 g stop, which is within the capability of almost every car made in the last 40 years, but not necessarily for an empty semi. A better figure for a semi may be 700 to 800 feet from 70 MPH (which includes the distance traveled while the driver reacts to the stop signal and for the brakes to engage.
- Erik
Try stopping a unloaded concrete mixer at that speed better yet a loaded one.
Russell
erikem From what the OTR guys on the forum have been saying, you would be incredibly lucky for an unloaded semi to stop withing 500 feet from 70MPH after the signal starts flashing. The tables from your previous post are based on a 1/2 g stop, which is within the capability of almost every car made in the last 40 years, but not necessarily for an empty semi. A better figure for a semi may be 700 to 800 feet from 70 MPH (which includes the distance traveled while the driver reacts to the stop signal and for the brakes to engage. - Erik
The tables I quoted were for autos and then trucks. The figures included reaction time. If trucks can't manage even that generous distance, perhaps their loads are too great to be safe on a highway, as they would be more prone to rear-ending cars that stop quickly or when tail-gating cars in front of them.
Stopping distance for motor vehicles varies between many different sources. I calculated the stopping distance for the truck involved in the Nevada crash as being 600 feet. That is based on information given in the Nevada driver’s manual. I detailed my calculation in the second post on page 18 of this thread.
If you read that article it is from the British which means European trucks which means Jack Squat here in the USA on OTR trucks. Here is why in Europe the Goverments have Mandated Disc Brakes on all Tractors and also Limters to 55 MPH Max Speed MAX and the Police at anytime anywhere can plug into the Engine Computers and if the driver was speeding at anytime during the last 30 days cite them for speeding and the fines make a DUI fine look CHEAP.
But their braking systems are totally Different compared to what we here in the States run. 1st is the Discs on the Tractor portion of the combos Second is the tridems on about every trailer and then the Drum brakes they run are about 20-40% Larger than what we do. Expcet on the steer axle where most companies run a 13X3 Drum. Even the Larger Extended Service brakes made by Rockwell here in the States and sold as the Qplus are Still not LARGE enough for Europe. A Drum Brake Size in Europe is 18X9 here the Standard is 15X6 or the larger Q plus at 16.5 inches X6.5 inches. Second is the Pressure they run their brakes at 140 PSI we run at 120 PSI . Lastly is the size of the Brake chambers they run in Europe is LARGER here in the USA we use a 24 SQ IN on the Steer Axle. Europe uses a 30 SQ IN size. Every other axle we use a 30 SQIN size Europe is a 36 SQIN size.
Do the Math their Brakes are Larger run at a HIGHER Pressure with a Bigger Surface area were the Pressure is Applied. Put it this way The Brakes in the USA OTR truck are a 283 Chevy with a 2 Barrel Carb on it. What they use in Europe is a 426 HEMI Fully Blown on Alcohol with a 250 shot of NOS thrown in for good measure. Or in OTR measures here in the States we have a 238 Detroit and Europe is running a 600 CAT and we are both Climbing Sherman hill Eastbound.
Throughout this thread, my premise has been that there is a fundamental flaw in the setup of this Nevada grade crossing that may have contributed to the 6/24/11 crash, and the 9/10 near miss; and might contribute to future crashes. It is not an issue of the crossing protection system working properly. Testing has established that it was working properly. Instead, the issue is about a possible design flaw concerning inadequate advance warning on such a fast highway.
We have discussed how much warning is enough, as well as how much warning there actually is at this crossing. The amount of warning is debatable because, although the train triggers a 25-second warning upon approach, a portion of this warning may not be visually available to an approaching driver.
I calculated that the actual warning to a driver is 2.92 seconds in the case of the heaviest trucks such as the one involved in the 6/24 crash. Lighter vehicles that can stop faster will have a longer warning because they will use less stopping distance.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to the Public Information Officer of the Nevada D.O.T. about the 6/24 crash. I asked him how much warning is intended with the design of this crossing. He did not know the answer. Then I explained my analysis of the warning for the largest trucks to be 2.92 seconds, and asked him if he agreed. He said he did not know if I was right or wrong, but he said that he could relay my questions to the technical people in their organization to obtain the answers.
I mentioned the lawsuit against the U.P. concerning the issues of warning and timing of the grade crossing involved in the 6/24 crash. And I asked him of the D.O.T. had any reservations about releasing technical information about the crossing because of that lawsuit or other potential legal action. He said there was not any concern about that, and the public information office was charged with answering any questions the public might present, including technical information about the crossing.
I sent my question and analysis about the short warning to him by email and asked him to forward it to the appropriate technical authorities within their organization as we had discussed earlier. I also sent the same to another contact within their organization who is directly involved in the evaluation of crossing safety resulting from the 6/24 crash. Getting no response from either contact, I followed up with three phone message inquiries and one more email asking when I might expect an answer. I have received no response to these follow-up inquiries.
So, unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that they are intentionally not responding to my inquiry. I do not know why they are refusing to respond. However, I do conclude that if they were firmly convinced that my 2.92-second analysis was incorrect, they would have quickly and emphatically told me I was wrong.
That's the cool things with conclusions. You can conclude whatever you want.
Seriously. What is your interest in the subject? You seem hellbent on exploring every detail of this crossing, but never explain your interest in it.
Or they may have decided that some in this thread may be working for plaintiffs attorneys who search for all plausible "evidence" which will aid a client, at at the same time increase their hourly fees.
Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
Murray Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
I got into the wrong line of work.
zugmann Murray: Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour???? I got into the wrong line of work.
Murray: Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
Its never too late:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/index.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.