Murray Its never too late: http://www.law.harvard.edu/index.html
Its never too late:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/index.html
Shall I send you the tuition bill?
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx22TyCge7w
I do have a Harvard Medical shirt I picked up... I'm halfway there.
PS. what was the subject?
PPS. ahh.. who cares.
Well for a slug recording deeds and wills it's about the going rate. For the kind we are talking about here your decimal point is misplaced.
"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. "
You're getting warm Bucyrus. There are witnesses you don't know about. They are the crew of the black helicopter following the train that summoned the locomotive with marks DHSX 1 to remove the white boxcars with shackles that were deadheading on the rear.
zugmann 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.
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.
Grade crossing issues interest me because they seem to pose a bad problem that cannot be solved. So I look into nooks and crannies to see what might have been overlooked in the quest for a solution. I analyze the problem. I write about this stuff. It’s kind of like a hobby. I find that there is great resistance to suggesting improvements because the industry and its representatives, after failing to solve the problem for over 150 years, hate the crossing violators so much that they appear to want them to be simply killed off by their behavior rather than to look for ways to save them, even though saving them might be a more effective way to actually solve the problem. How else can you explain the incredible push back against the proposal to add a simple active advance warning system to a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway?
Bucyrus zugmann: 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. Grade crossing issues interest me because they seem to pose a bad problem that cannot be solved. So I look into nooks and crannies to see what might have been overlooked in the quest for a solution. I analyze the problem. I write about this stuff. It’s kind of like a hobby. I find that there is great resistance to suggesting improvements because the industry and its representatives, after failing to solve the problem for over 150 years, hate the crossing violators so much that they appear to want them to be simply killed off by their behavior rather than to look for ways to save them, even though saving them might be a more effective way to actually solve the problem. How else can you explain the incredible push back against the proposal to add a simple active advance warning system to a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway?
zugmann: 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.
So are you arguing for the enhanced crossing protection, or simply fighting against those that you perceive to want the death penalty for crossing violators?
What is your definition of "Solved"? Is it the total elimination of grade crossing accidents?
Perfection is not an option. Nothing can be perfect.
While I agree that having a speed limit of 70 MPH for heavy trucks on a highway that crosses a rail line at grade is not a good idea, you can not make grade crossings "Perfectly" safe. You can not make anything "Perfectly" anything.
The numbers I have found are from 2005. In that year the FRA grade crossing inventory indicated that there were 147,681 public grade crossings in the US. 359 fatalities occurred at at those crossings. When you put it in context and consider the hundreds of millions of vehicles that went over those crossings that year you have to realize that the incidence of grade crossing fatalities is quite low. There is a great safety record.
It is only when you compare the grade crossing accident rate to a totally unreasonable standard of perfection that you can claim there is a problem in need of a solution. This isn't to say there can't be improvements. But remember that any resources, such as money, that are diverted to those improvements have to come from someplace else. And those resources probably have better uses.
greyhounds Bucyrus: zugmann: 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. Grade crossing issues interest me because they seem to pose a bad problem that cannot be solved. So I look into nooks and crannies to see what might have been overlooked in the quest for a solution. I analyze the problem. I write about this stuff. It’s kind of like a hobby. I find that there is great resistance to suggesting improvements because the industry and its representatives, after failing to solve the problem for over 150 years, hate the crossing violators so much that they appear to want them to be simply killed off by their behavior rather than to look for ways to save them, even though saving them might be a more effective way to actually solve the problem. How else can you explain the incredible push back against the proposal to add a simple active advance warning system to a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway? What is your definition of "Solved"? Is it the total elimination of grade crossing accidents? Perfection is not an option. Nothing can be perfect. While I agree that having a speed limit of 70 MPH for heavy trucks on a highway that crosses a rail line at grade is not a good idea, you can not make grade crossings "Perfectly" safe. You can not make anything "Perfectly" anything. The numbers I have found are from 2005. In that year the FRA grade crossing inventory indicated that there were 147,681 public grade crossings in the US. 359 fatalities occurred at at those crossings. When you put it in context and consider the hundreds of millions of vehicles that went over those crossings that year you have to realize that the incidence of grade crossing fatalities is quite low. There is a great safety record. It is only when you compare the grade crossing accident rate to a totally unreasonable standard of perfection that you can claim there is a problem in need of a solution. This isn't to say there can't be improvements. But remember that any resources, such as money, that are diverted to those improvements have to come from someplace else. And those resources probably have better uses.
Bucyrus: zugmann: 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. Grade crossing issues interest me because they seem to pose a bad problem that cannot be solved. So I look into nooks and crannies to see what might have been overlooked in the quest for a solution. I analyze the problem. I write about this stuff. It’s kind of like a hobby. I find that there is great resistance to suggesting improvements because the industry and its representatives, after failing to solve the problem for over 150 years, hate the crossing violators so much that they appear to want them to be simply killed off by their behavior rather than to look for ways to save them, even though saving them might be a more effective way to actually solve the problem. How else can you explain the incredible push back against the proposal to add a simple active advance warning system to a grade crossing on a 70 mph highway?
zugmann:
Yes, by “solving the problem,” I do mean eliminating it. It may not be achievable, but that would be the benchmark goal. Actually, I think it would be achievable with the complete elimination of grade crossings, so in that sense, perfection is achievable.
Regarding the size of the problem, I really do not know how to quantify it. Statistically, the problem of grade crossing crashes may seem small compared to the encounters that do not result in crashes. But still, the problem does seem very significant. The industry and everyone else involved with the problem acts like it is an extremely serious problem and they put forth a lot of effort to mitigate it. I think it is fair to say that those parties believe the problem is in need of a solution even if the solution is only progress towards perfection, but may never reach the goal of perfection.
Regarding the Nevada crossing, I agree that no grade crossing can be made perfectly safe. But the Federal D.O.T. has crossing system accessory called Advance Active Warning that is intended for use with signalized crossings on high-speed roads. Not every signalized crossing is set up exactly the same way. They are customized for the conditions, such as an unusual road alignment in the approach or visibility issues, for example. The relatively high speed limit of the highway is just the condition that calls for the AAW add-on to the crossing protection system. It won’t make the crossing perfectly safe, but it will make it safer than it is now.
zugmann So are you arguing for the enhanced crossing protection, or simply fighting against those that you perceive to want the death penalty for crossing violators?
Both. In a way, I think the latter is standing in the way of the former. But I am not just advocating boosting crossing protection methods and devices. I guess you could do that by making the lights brighter, the bells louder, and the signs bigger. I am more interested in the ambiguity and conflict in the overlapping laws and guidance, and the driver psychology as it pertains to grade crossings.
There have been some interesting surveys conducted on driver perceptions about their responsibility at grade crossings. And they have found that many drivers have a set of beliefs that are inconsistent with the law without realizing that. And those beliefs have come about as a natural common sense deduction, so the driver may actually believe they are lawful.
For instance, there is no yellow light warning for the activation of the red flashing lights. Drivers realize that this is not logical to expect drivers to instantly stop should the red lights activate upon approach. So many drivers assume that the red flashing lights are the same as a yellow light in a traffic intersection. They assume that when the gates come down, it becomes, in effect, a red light.
So a driver becoming habituated to this belief, may encounter a crossing with flashing lights, but no gates. The driver might not know where the train is, and might not realize that there are no gates. Then the driver might simply run the red lights because no gate is down, and to the driver that means that the red lights are equivalent to a yellow light.
Bucyrus There have been some interesting surveys conducted on driver perceptions about their responsibility at grade crossings. And they have found that many drivers have a set of beliefs that are inconsistent with the law without realizing that. And those beliefs have come about as a natural common sense deduction, so the driver may actually believe they are lawful. For instance, there is no yellow light warning for the activation of the red flashing lights. Drivers realize that this is not logical to expect drivers to instantly stop should the red lights activate upon approach. So many drivers assume that the red flashing lights are the same as a yellow light in a traffic intersection. They assume that when the gates come down, it becomes, in effect, a red light. So a driver becoming habituated to this belief, may encounter a crossing with flashing lights, but no gates. The driver might not know where the train is, and might not realize that there are no gates. Then the driver might simply run the red lights because no gate is down, and to the driver that means that the red lights are equivalent to a yellow light.
I realize you have been researching this topic, and this seems so counter-intuitive that I would like to read more of the studies. Can you link or at least cite?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm,
Here is a link that includes findings on driver behavior patterns at grade crossings. I have not read this enough times to fully digest it, but if I understand it, they collected driver perceptions by catching them with a camera while violating crossings, and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
Through this process, I believe they have stumbled upon some of the most revealing insight imaginable. However there is one drawback to this study, and that is the way it is written. In my opinion, this is one of the most difficult papers to read that I have ever seen. You just cannot start a sentence and take it in six different directions, and expect a reader to organize all of the interlacing stipulations and qualifiers in that sentence:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
Bucyrus and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
And I'm sure they were 100% honest given the circumstances. Funny how nobody knows the law when they are caught breaking it.
Double post. D'oh.
Triple post. Holy cow.
Here is the U.P. website page called, Rail Crossing Warning Systems:
http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/sentinels.shtml
I cannot believe they say this in the last sentence of the page:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.”
That is absolutely 100% false.
In fact, that is the most common misperception among drivers that is at the very heart of the grade crossing crash problem. That misperception being that many drivers believe the lights and gates are merely advisory, and that drivers are allowed to use their own discretion as to whether they can safely cross the tracks. This false belief is the driver’s rationalization in every attempt to beat the train when the warning system is activated.
I think what they meant to say is this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately the safety of a motorist depends on obeying these warnings.
edbenton Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when they are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when they are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
If he was driving of habit, a 5 hour late Zephyr is nothing out of the ordinary.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Bucyrus I think what they meant to say is this: “Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately the safety of a motorist depends on obeying these warnings.
Your statement isn't any better. It still makes the signs and signals sound advisory, and not mandatory.
Mandatory or not , doesn't matter. Regardless of whether it is a railroad crossing or a stop sign, red light, what ever, the driver makes the decision to stop in accordance with sign or signal. All of these are mandatory but light and signs are run every day. Face it Bucyrus. Operating a motor vehicle is an exercise in judgement. A driver is obligated to be aware of everything that might affect or interact with his vehicle and make decisions accordingly. The law can only do so much. You are trying to relieve drivers of the basic responsibility of operating a vehicle.
TDM,
You are missing the point. I am not trying to relieve drivers of responsibility, and I really don’t understand your analysis in coming to that conclusion. The sentence I quoted above in blue from the U.P. website has two meanings. One of them they intended, and the other one, they are not aware of. In my opinion, the unintended meaning is far clearer than their intended meaning.
The motorists bears the responsibility to follow the law at a grade crossing, but motorists are not free to make the decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross, as the U.P. site states.
Bucyrus The motorists bears the responsibility to follow the law at a grade crossing, but motorists are not free to make the decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross, as the U.P. site states.
People still have free will. There can be consequences, but ultimately, it is for the motorist to decide to stop or not.
zugmann,
That is basically the meaning intended by the U.P. However, it seems like a strange and irrelevant point to make. It is self-evident, and only adds confusion. It would be like saying that railroad rules are important to follow, but ultimately the railroad employee is free to decide whether or not to follow the rules. Can you see the double meaning? I wonder if U.P. could see it.
Two meanings: One meaning is true, and the other meaning is false. Equals bad writing.
I'm free to not follow the rules. But I won't have a job for very long, so I do follow. But the choice is always there.
I agree it is strange, but not irrelevant.
When I say it is irrelevant, I mean is serves no purpose to state it. Does your employer make a point to tell you that you are free to break the rules?
Bucyrus When I say it is irrelevant, I mean is serves no purpose to state it. Does your employer make a point to tell you that you are free to break the rules?
They don't have to tell me I have free will.
Yes, I agree.
Yesterday, I called U.P. and talked to someone in communications. I don’t believe he understood the point I was making about there being another meaning to their statement. But he did attempt a robust explanation of the meaning that they intended. He said that if a motorist made a decision that it was safe to cross the tracks, and the signals were activated, then the motorist would be breaking the law, but ultimately it is it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.
He told me that what the sentence means is that ultimately it is the motorist’s decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross because it can’t be the engineer’s decision. I said yes it cannot be the engineer’s decision, but it cannot be the motorist’s decision either. The signals mean what they mean, and nobody is free to decide otherwise.
He said that ultimately everything the driver does is the driver’s decision whether it is legal nor not.
I also talked to Operation Lifesaver national office. We discussed it in detail, and at first, she did not see the second meaning either. Then all of a sudden it was as if a light turned on, and she said she could then see the other meaning that I was talking about. She said they definitely did not mean to convey that meaning. She told me to contact U.P. and explain it again.
A traffic light is unequivocal. Green means go, yellow means caution (about to change to red), and red means stop. We'll skip flashing aspects here.
It is still up to the driver to decide whether they choose to obey the signal, and to accept the consequences if it turns out they made the wrong decision (ie, ticket or 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...
That is true that the driver has free will. That is one of the two meanings to the U.P. sentence in blue at the top of this page. I don’t see the point of telling drivers that, however. It goes without saying, and saying it leads to the other meaning.
And that other meaning is a perfect confirmation of one of the most significant and most common misunderstandings that many drivers have. That misunderstanding is the belief that the lights and gates are only advisory to tell a driver a train is coming, and beyond that, a driver is legally free to decide whether or not it is safe to cross. This belief is an ingrained carryover from the long history of non-signalized crossings.
So why make a statement to drivers about having free will when it has no bearing on the situation, and when it creates a double meaning with the second meaning being something that reinforces the one most deadly misunderstanding that many drivers already have?
Bucyrus That is true that the driver has free will. That is one of the two meanings to the U.P. sentence in blue at the top of this page. I don’t see the point of telling drivers that, however. It goes without saying, and saying it leads to the other meaning. And that other meaning is a perfect confirmation of one of the most significant and most common misunderstandings that many drivers have. That misunderstanding is the belief that the lights and gates are only advisory to tell a driver a train is coming, and beyond that, a driver is legally free to decide whether or not it is safe to cross. This belief is an ingrained carryover from the long history of non-signalized crossings. So why make a statement to drivers about having free will when it has no bearing on the situation, and when it creates a double meaning with the second meaning being something that reinforces the one most deadly misunderstanding that many drivers already have?
Ever think maybe just some computer lackey wrote up that grade crossing bit and we are all looking for some deep-rooted meaning that just ain't there?
zugmannEver think maybe just some computer lackey wrote up that grade crossing bit and we are all looking for some deep-rooted meaning that just ain't there?
I am not looking for any deep meaning. U.P. told me what they meant by the statement. It is a case of intending to say something, but conveying something else by accident. It happens all the time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.