Current Federal Regs are that a Loaded Truck must be able to Stop from 60 in 368 feet. New regs that apply to new 2012 Models are a Reduction in ddistance of 10% so even with that he would not have made it going 70 he would have needed at least 500+ feet Empty to stop. Hate to say it but that Countersuit is going to Hammer Union Pacific to a Wall for not having a proper Warning time and Improper Markings on the roads for Warnings.
I am going to wait for the acccident investigation report to make any further judgements on a lot of this.
I will speculate this. It is entirely possible that the circumstances may turn out to be just fate. A driver trundling across a stretch of road doing what he normally does every day. A different train then what he normally sees(the train was running 5 hours late) Just a boring day at work.
I have not heard anything about a cell phone. And from having been there, I suspect there is no cell phone coverage.(I remember not having when I was last there 3+ years ago)
One last thing want to bet this crossing gets an overpasswhen the dust settles?
Still the loss of life and injuries are very sad
Rgds IGN
tree68 A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second. Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet. I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions. If I remember my HS driver's ed correctly, reaction time is actually on the order of .75 seconds - the website has essentially doubled that and in doing so added around 75 feet to the stopping distance. This site on crossing signals indicates that the signals should activate about 30 seconds before the train will arrive at the crossing. That's over 3000 feet if the train is also travelling at 70 MPH. In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered. My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash. The gates will thus be down for between 20 and 25 seconds before the arrival of the train. The satellite images of the crossing seem to show that the pavement markings are at least 500 feet from the crossing - probably more. I think my monitor distorts the X axis, so I can't always believe what I measure on the screen. The satellite image doesn't show the roadside signs. From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.
A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second. Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet. I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions.
If I remember my HS driver's ed correctly, reaction time is actually on the order of .75 seconds - the website has essentially doubled that and in doing so added around 75 feet to the stopping distance.
This site on crossing signals indicates that the signals should activate about 30 seconds before the train will arrive at the crossing. That's over 3000 feet if the train is also travelling at 70 MPH.
In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered. My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash.
The gates will thus be down for between 20 and 25 seconds before the arrival of the train.
The satellite images of the crossing seem to show that the pavement markings are at least 500 feet from the crossing - probably more. I think my monitor distorts the X axis, so I can't always believe what I measure on the screen.
The satellite image doesn't show the roadside signs.
From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.
A fully loaded truck(conventional 5 axle) takes a little over 300 ft to stop from 60 mph. The truck involved was empty, EMPTY TRUCKS TAKE LONGER TO STOP THEN LOADED, (a loaded truck has better adhesion). In addition this was a set of western doubles, 40ft trl and a shorter 27ft trl.
edbenton Here is something toThink about More and More states have Zero Idle Polices where Drivers that are OTR can not idle thir trucks to stay cool in the Summer. They expect the Driver of an OTR truck to be able to Sleep in an Aluminum box for 10 hours in 100+ heat. People have taken Tempature readings on their Dashboards were the Cabs are getting to over 150Degrees. Yet States like Nevada California refuse to let us Idle so we are Well RESTED. Maybe Driver Fatigue could have been an Issue in this case you try sleeping for 10 hours with No AC in over 100 degree heat.
Here is something toThink about More and More states have Zero Idle Polices where Drivers that are OTR can not idle thir trucks to stay cool in the Summer. They expect the Driver of an OTR truck to be able to Sleep in an Aluminum box for 10 hours in 100+ heat. People have taken Tempature readings on their Dashboards were the Cabs are getting to over 150Degrees. Yet States like Nevada California refuse to let us Idle so we are Well RESTED. Maybe Driver Fatigue could have been an Issue in this case you try sleeping for 10 hours with No AC in over 100 degree heat.
in the time I've been driving I have not heard that Nevada has ever hassled anyone about idling. Even on the backside of the Las Vegas strip.(used to be able to park a truck there).
I was under the impression that the truck was empty - which is actually worse as the coefficient of friction will be lower. That the truck slid 300 feet would tend to bear that out. I suspect that a loaded truck might have even been able to stop in time, but I have no data to support or refute that.
The question here is whether the warning was adequate. That two other truck drivers saw and heeded the existing warning devices and avoided a collision would tend to indicate that it was.
While the braking distances would differ between a truck and a car, the travel distances at speed would not. Thus a loaded truck travelling at 70 mph would still be across the crossing in less than five seconds if the warning devices activated when it was 500 feet away and it might or might not tangle with the gates, depending on how quickly they dropped.
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...
If that site is accurate, and I'll assume it is, it would seem that an average, reasonably alert driver should be able to stop a car in plenty of time, with 100 feet to spare. However, the site does not allow for the variable of weight of the vehicle (a loaded truck, such as in Nevada takes longer to stop than a car at the same speed) as it is designed for an auto or light truck. And it assumes good brakes. Consequently, we don't know (from this site) whether the 500 ft. distance would suffice.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Even if we set aside the actual crash circumstances, I would like someone to try to justify the completely unreasonable predicament into which this crossing can place an approaching driver if the timing is just right.
Say you are driving down the highway at 70 mph approaching that Nevada crossing, and the lights activate when you are 500 feet away from the crossing. What are you going to do? First of all, you have to decide whether you can stop short of the crossing. So let me ask: Can you stop short of the crossing? Whatever your answer to that question is, there is a fair possibility that your answer is wrong.
At 70 mph, the stopping distance is somewhere in the vicinity of 500-600 feet, depending on air temperature, wind, humidity, road surface, vehicle type, vehicle load, tires, condition of brakes, and braking control. So the best answer to the question of whether or not you can stop in time is, “I don’t know.”
Yet, the law requires you to stop if you can stop before reaching the crossing, even though you won’t know if you can stop in time unless you try. But stopping will require maximum braking effort, which will probably occur just short of locking your wheels and skidding. If in fact you cannot stop in time, the law permits you to keep going.
So there are three possible outcomes to this dilemma:
1) You attempt to stop short of the crossing and you are successful.
2) You attempt to stop short of the crossing and you are not successful.
3) You decide to keep going and not attempt to stop.
In any of these three scenarios, you will spend several seconds traversing the 500 feet while the red lights are flashing at you. If you decide not to stop, or if you try to stop, but realize you won’t be able to, you will have several seconds to wonder if the gate is going to come down in your face. If you had decided not to try to stop, you will cross at 70 mph, wondering if the gate is going to come down a split second before you arrive at the crossing. So as a backdrop to this dilemma is the possibility of getting killed hitting the gate.
The VIA collison was a Pickup Truck a Heckl of alot differant than a 40ton OTR truck in Nevada.
blownout cylinder Happened just west of Glencoe ON....Police couldn’t confirm how the collision occurred, but passengers in the rear of the train and residents of a nearby house say the truck struck close to the end of the last car. Taken from...http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/07/29/18486786.html..... Ummmm...how does one not see a train? Especially if the thing is crossing the grade?
Happened just west of Glencoe ON....Police couldn’t confirm how the collision occurred, but passengers in the rear of the train and residents of a nearby house say the truck struck close to the end of the last car.
Taken from...http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/07/29/18486786.html.....
Ummmm...how does one not see a train? Especially if the thing is crossing the grade?
This lawsuit will fault the train for not accelerating and thus causing the accident.
blue streak 1 So now we have another truck crossing accident with via now. This is getting old. Is it the summer heat?
So now we have another truck crossing accident with via now. This is getting old. Is it the summer heat?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
BucyrusWith that reasoning, if all we had were non-signalized crossings, and someone suggested adding lights and gates, would you insist that adding lights and gates would not reduce crashes?
As Dragoman points out - it's all a matter of return on investment.
If the crossing in question has had numerous incidents, then adding additional protection makes plenty of sense.
On the other hand, if the crossing has had no incidents for years, then the ROI on adding more protection is near zero - and the community will probably not support the cost.
The village where I lived in MI has three crossings, all fairly busy. They didn't have gates 40 years ago, and they don't have gates today. The last incident I'm aware of involved an auto carrier and a high crowned crossing (now closed) on which the trailer got hung up. The incident had nothing to do with the warning mechanisms and everything to do with driver error - he should have realized that with his long wheelbase trailer he wouldn't be able to get over the crossing.
Before anyone can decide that any given crossing needs more/better protection, they have to look at the history of the crossing. Zero incidents would tend to indicate little need for improvements.
I think it is safe to say, statistics have show that virtually no safety improvement can eliminate all accidents, but every safety improvement eliminates some accidents. Then it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis (and/or political decision), as to what level of accident reduction is worth the cost of what level of improvement.
Everything makes a difference, but do we (as a society) think the difference is worth it?
tree68 Bucyrus: Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened. Unless it somehow slaps the driver up alongside the head and shouts, "pay attention," no system is going to prevent an accident from happening if the driver is distracted, is not properly focussed on the road ahead, or is trying to beat the train. Thus we'll always see this kind of suit - the insistance that if government had done one more thing the incident wouldn not have happened...
Bucyrus: Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
Unless it somehow slaps the driver up alongside the head and shouts, "pay attention," no system is going to prevent an accident from happening if the driver is distracted, is not properly focussed on the road ahead, or is trying to beat the train.
Thus we'll always see this kind of suit - the insistance that if government had done one more thing the incident wouldn not have happened...
There are many instances of the traffic control authorities adding more warning beyond the minimum, to a hazard just to increase the probability of attracting a driver’s attention. They don’t draw a line in the sand. It is absurd to believe that only so much warning is necessary and no additional warning will make any difference. With that reasoning, if all we had were non-signalized crossings, and someone suggested adding lights and gates, would you insist that adding lights and gates would not reduce crashes?
And by the same token ... every time there is a major rule infraction incident, either the carriers on their own or at the FRA's behest concoct and implement half a dozen additional rules on top of the rule that was actually violated. The thought being that now you have 7 rules to violate to get to the same failure; all this really does is add additional poundage to the rule book. The more 'ticky-tac' rules that get added to the rule book, the more it becomes a 'Gotcha Book' and not something to effectively operate a railroad.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus Well perhaps so, but it is a prediction that is impossible to verify. And in that same vein, I predict that if the Active Advance Warning system had been applied to the crossing, the crash would have never happened.
Bold statement when we don't even know a cause. But hey, why let facts get in the way of emotion?
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
From the practical legal standpoint, it isn't so much about deflecting blame or shifting fault per se, but setting up an argument for comparative or contributory negligence.
This is so that when the ultimate settlements are made (and it will be settled -- this will never actually go to trial), the insurance companies representing those who are found to be most at fault (as a result of the state and federal investigations) will pay less than would be the case if they just said "OK, our fault!"
Bucyrus, (said in part0
"...It is interesting to contrast this rather subjective authority that guides motorists, to the methods of train dispatching and control. The latter is not subjective at all. It is based on pure logic. There can be no overlap in meaning of the signals and the rules. Such an objective system is an incredible accomplishment. But when trains encounter grade crossings, they intersect with the subjective system of road rules..."
I would suggest that the whole grade crossing safety issue is one of the individual subjectively processing their own knowledge, and interpretation [ in addition, to adding their own priorities at that particular moment in time; to the process of their subjectively prioritizing their need to get across that next crossing they are approaching.] Ultimately, the whole process, regardless of what warnings are posted, crossbucks or automated warning devices, is a crap-shoot based on the individual's making a split second decision to go or stop.
One thing that has not been noted is that the decision to place a particular kind of active or in-active warning device at a highway/road crossing is one made by the political entity in which that site is located. Based on the relevant criteria. Once the decision is made the political entity must pay to have the selected devices bought and installed (usually by the host railroad or their contractor) when the installation is compete, it is then the responsibility of the host railroad to maintain that crossing and equipment in a satisfactory condition of operation.
tree68 And if all of the warning devices that have been heretofore suggested were in place, the suit would still have read exactly the same.
And if all of the warning devices that have been heretofore suggested were in place, the suit would still have read exactly the same.
Bucyrus...and in failing to install, program and maintain the grade crossing predictor, associated circuitry and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing,” the suit says. (My emphasis)
(My emphasis)
The purpose of the suit is to deflect blame and to involve the deep pockets.
Nothing more, nothing less.
One would wonder if the truck also accelerated upon closing with the crossing. Hmmm....
Crandell
Dragoman So, it continues -- now the trucking company is sueing UP & Amtrak. http://www.rgj.com/article/20110729/NEWS/110729047/Trucking-company-Amtrak-train-crash-countersues-Amtrak-Union-Pacific?odyssey=mod
So, it continues -- now the trucking company is sueing UP & Amtrak.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20110729/NEWS/110729047/Trucking-company-Amtrak-train-crash-countersues-Amtrak-Union-Pacific?odyssey=mod
Hmm, what a novel therory. A quote from the article announcing the basis for this new lawsuit against Amtrak and UP:
It [the lawsuit] said Amtrak and Union Pacific breached its duties “by allowing trains to accelerate in the approach to the grade crossing and in failing to install, program and maintain the grade crossing predictor, associated circuitry and warning device mechanisms so as to provide adequate warning to travelers on Highway 95 of the approach of trains at the crossing,” the suit says.
The only winners here will be the lawyers.
I have done a fair amount of research on grade crossing issues and also on the topic of crosswalk law, which I believe is getting people killed. There is a parallel between the two topics.
One would think that the law should be the final authority, clearly informing a driver of how to cross grade crossings and crosswalks. But I am coming around to the general conclusion expressed by members Dragoman and Falcon48.
And that conclusion is that the correct driving procedure is really defined by a combination of laws, court interpretation, organizational promotions to the public, organizational explanations of what the law means, common sense, and the general interpretation of the law by the police. The problem is that all of these sources are at least somewhat ambiguous, and in some details, they conflict with each other. Therefore, all of this together can only be averaged to arrive at a general conclusion. The fine points and technicalities are simply beyond the reach of resolution.
It is interesting to contrast this rather subjective authority that guides motorists, to the methods of train dispatching and control. The latter is not subjective at all. It is based on pure logic. There can be no overlap in meaning of the signals and the rules. Such an objective system is an incredible accomplishment. But when trains encounter grade crossings, they intersect with the subjective system of road rules.
zugmann extension cord. Really long extension cord.
extension cord.
Really long extension cord.
What gauge?
I could see someone suggesting that the gates be down about 15 minutes before the train even gets there..then you really would see people just going around the gate even more....like that is going to help.
I've driven that stretch a few times before...it is a road that can hypnotize some people rather easily...we have a few level crossings out in the middle of nowhere here that could provide for some entertainment as well...
Let's face it. Most accidents (look at airliners) are statistically rare events, but no sane person would suggest that is reason enough to stand pat and not try to find various ways to improve the odds.
There is a range of methods to protect rail-road intersection, ranging from none to crossbucks to flashing signals to gates to grade separations. The question is what level to use in what circumstances, taking into account cost to equip and the levels of traffic, speed limits, volumes of traffic, speed limits, and visibility on both the highway and railroad, and also whether or not passenger trains run on the rail line and/or buses run on the road. There may be other factors, but the key is finding the appropriate match.
I believe the reason this thread about a rail crossing accident attracts more attention is because of who needs protection. Usually it is a vehicle or pedestrian that is the "victim". in this case it was a train with many passengers on board, that was struck by a vehicle and which suffered fatalities on board, that needed the protection.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.