Grade crossing accidents are actually rather rare occurances; at least statistically speaking. Consider how many cars cross RR tracks every day and how often there is an accident. Those statistics just don't take into account the probabilities of a train and a road vehicle being at the crossing at the same time. I think it rather obvious that if there were no warning systems anywhere, there would be more accidents than there are now, but I cannot estimate how many more or how it would change the percentage of road vehicles crossing a RR track vs accidents.
Considering that there are warning signs and lights (which as has been pointed out, were working in this accident we are discussing) then I don't see holding Nevada as being "at fault" about it. They have met the requirements that in general we as a society have deemed reasonable and proper. Barring other factors, the "fault" seems to fall on the driver, but of course we won't know the truth of it until the final report is issued (even if it might or might not be the actual truth, being based just on the conjecture of the investigators).
But the question in this particular thread is whether we as a society should re-evaluate the status quo of requirements and provide improved warnings in order to save lives and property.
It might be argued that there are hundreds of grade crossings that are similar to this one where no accidents have ever occurred and thus the conclusion is that the present warning system is adequate, but I would counter that this particular crossing may have been accident free up to this point too, but the warning system MAY not have been inadequate to the circumstances... and those same circumstances exist at all those other hundreds of grade crossings too, and so they constitute a possible site of an accident of similar nature at any time. Just because there have been no accidents yet does not mean there never will be.
There is technology in use in other similar situations that might be applied to grade crossing signalization that could help... my thoughts are to the use of flashing lights on high-speed roadways that warn of a stop lighted intersection ahead and the lights start fiashing prior to the stop light starting to change, thus giving warning to the driver that by the time they get to the intersection the light will have turned red and they must stop. Of course that assumes the driver is paying attention and truely understand the purpose of the lights; something I have noticed not all drivers really do understand.
This is not unlike the RR signalization where one signal indicates something like "It is okay to pass this signal but be prepared to stop at the next one."
It may be a bit more difficult to activate a more distant signal on the highway because of an approaching train and of course it will be a more expensive installation than the present system.
It all depends on what the actual cost is and what we as a society decide is worth protecting for rare occurances.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
tdmidget In seriousness though, Bucyrus, if you are shilling for some law firm or otherwise have an interest in this board agreeing with you, give it up. This is a group of people who know that there is no excuse, anywhere, anytime, to hit or get hit by a train. If you trouble yourself to see the location on Google earth you will see that there is a huge RRX on the pavement 700 feet before the crossing. So you can't say he did not have advance warning. You will also see that he could have seen an approaching train for a half mile in either direction. So you can't say he could not see the train. Since this was a regular loadout for him you can't say that he was not familiar with the crossing. Additionally as a holder of a CCL he is expected to exercise more caution than the average driver. So, signals were there and working, he had warning, he could see,he was familiar with the route. Did he exercise even the caution expected of a grandmaw who drives once a week?
In seriousness though, Bucyrus, if you are shilling for some law firm or otherwise have an interest in this board agreeing with you, give it up. This is a group of people who know that there is no excuse, anywhere, anytime, to hit or get hit by a train.
If you trouble yourself to see the location on Google earth you will see that there is a huge RRX on the pavement 700 feet before the crossing. So you can't say he did not have advance warning. You will also see that he could have seen an approaching train for a half mile in either direction. So you can't say he could not see the train. Since this was a regular loadout for him you can't say that he was not familiar with the crossing. Additionally as a holder of a CCL he is expected to exercise more caution than the average driver.
So, signals were there and working, he had warning, he could see,he was familiar with the route. Did he exercise even the caution expected of a grandmaw who drives once a week?
I have no interest in the forum agreeing with me. But I don’t think the forum is of one mind on this, as your comment suggests. And plenty of people who are not registered members also read the forum. There is no way to know what they think.
Obviously the driver did not yield to the train, so in that regard, the driver has to be at fault. But extenuating circumstances can exist in any collision, including grade crossing crashes. It is simply not true that, as you say, “there is no excuse anywhere, anytime, to get hit by a train.” Sometimes the signals fail to activate or provide a too short of a warning.
I see no harm in asking questions and considering all the plausible explanations for what happened in this Nevada crash. I do not expect that the driver bears no blame, or that Nevada bears all the blame. And I have not reached any conclusions about the blame or cause. But it seems like a number forum members have. There seems to be some consensus that we must wait for the final investigation; unless we believe the driver was 100% at fault. Then we don’t have to wait for the investigation.
Everybody says a driver must not be distracted. Yet, every driver is distracted to some extent every foot of the way they travel. So distraction is not a black and white issue of either being distracted or not being distracted.
So the traffic authorities try to mitigate the abrupt life or death situations with warning. They construct the warning to give more than what is needed in order to allow for some degree of distraction. You mention the RXR painted on the road ahead of the crossing. No doubt, there are also advance-warning signs. I am only asking if more warning would have been prudent, or would have prevented the crash.
Yet some are incredulous that I am suggesting an extended warning. They insist that no extra warning was necessary and that the driver had all the warning he needed. But consider this: The warning begins with the primary warning of the crossing signals and gates. Why should there be any more warning than that? If that were all the warning there was, for example, and I suggested painting RXR on the road, would forum members insist that that was not necessary? I think they would.
I like BLAAT horns!
zugmann Must have been that blaat horn. Ineffective, I tells ya...
Must have been that blaat horn. Ineffective, I tells ya...
Truer than not, nowadays. I was involved with a near miss a few years ago - driver said we weren't blowing the horn. We were. RS-3 with blaat horn.
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...
extension cord.
Really long extension cord.
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
I didn't see any catenary in the wreck pcitures?
tdmidget Now there is something we didn't know, that a GG1 was pulling a train in Nevada!
Now there is something we didn't know, that a GG1 was pulling a train in Nevada!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Folks,
After discussion with the Forum moderators, we've decided to prune the contentious and off-topic posts and re-open this thread.
The thread was initially locked because a participant complained about it getting off-topic. I had answered a previous complaint by saying that the thread wouldn't be closed if it returned to topic and civility. Then when another moderator made the decision that the thread wasn't going to improve, and locked it, he didn't explain that reasoning.
The thread is being reopened, minus the off-topic posts that started it all, in the hopes that when the discussion resumes, it remains on-topic and civil. Attempts to derail it again, or to continue to discuss the decision to close or reopen it, even to say "thank you," will be deleted as off-topic.The threads that have been created to discuss this event, now redundant, will shortly be deleted as well.
I apologize for the distress this episode has caused to so many. Nobody wishes more than I that it had never happened. Chalk it up to a communication breakdown. I'm working more closely with the Forum moderators to ensure that we're all on the same page from now on.
Now, how 'bout that GG1? Sweet engine, huh?
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Does the Nevada crossing have a timing defect?
At 70 mph, a vehicle will require something like 450-550 feet to stop at maximum braking. Consider a driver approaching the Nevada crossing at 70 mph, and the crossing flashers activate when the driver is 500 feet from the crossing. At that point, the driver must consider whether it is possible to stop short of the crossing.
It the driver decides to stop, it will take 6-9 seconds to stop. After 3 seconds, the gate will come down. If the driver has misjudged his or her ability to stop, and therefore is incapable of stopping short of the crossing, the driver will crash through the lowered gate.
If the driver decides not to stop and continues to travel at 70 mph, it will take about 5 seconds to reach the crossing. And by that time, the gate will be down, and the driver will crash through the lowered gate at 70 mph.
garr Why not take the simple approach and replace the cross bucks and gates with a standard red light? Motorist will sit at a red light at 2 am with no other cars approaching waiting for minutes on green. Plus it seems that red light running was not one of the offenses this truck driver had been charged with. Probably would have proven as effective as any other proposal mentioned thus far. Jay
Why not take the simple approach and replace the cross bucks and gates with a standard red light? Motorist will sit at a red light at 2 am with no other cars approaching waiting for minutes on green. Plus it seems that red light running was not one of the offenses this truck driver had been charged with. Probably would have proven as effective as any other proposal mentioned thus far.
Jay
Your observation that people will stop and wait for a red traffic light at 2:00 AM with no cars around, and yet, run right past grade crossing flashers and weave around the gates is probably the single most significant indicator of the underlying grade crossing problem.
Here is the explanation: First of all, there is a deep and long-instilled belief among drivers that they are permitted to use their own discretion in determining whether it is safe to cross, simply by judging the speed and proximity of the train. That is a fundamental backdrop of a belief system that goes right back to the beginning. And it remains the core of responsibility surrounding the non-signalized crossings even today. So it is deeply seated part of the public consciousness.
And even the laws on signalized crossings permit drivers to pass the flashing lights in certain circumstances using their own discretion. It is only the lowered gates that are absolutely inviolable. If the gates are down, the road is closed, train or no train. But most drivers do not know that. With a red traffic light, on the other hand, there is no sense of the freedom to use personal discretion in deciding whether to stop and wait. With a red traffic light, drivers just accept it as an abstract concept. With grade crossing flashers, drivers think of the train and wonder if they need to wait for it.
However, the number-one-main-reason why drivers wait for traffic lights, but run grade crossing lights is their worry about an excessive delay from trains. So it is not the style of stoplight, but rather it is the type of crossing that motivates drivers to yield or not. Therefore, if you protected grade crossings with traffic lights, drivers would fail to heed the traffic lights to the same extent they fail to heed crossing flashers.
Bucyrus Operation Lifesaver has told me that drivers must approach signalized crossings at a speed low enough to permit them to stop for an approaching train, no matter whether the signals are activated or not. This amounts to yielding to trains as required by the crossbuck. To properly yield to an approaching train may or may not require slowing down. It depends on how far the driver can see down the tracks in each direction. I have posed a follow-up question asking what drivers must do to yield to the red flashing lights should they happen to activate as a driver approaches a signalized crossing. The requirement to yield to the flashing lights is not affected by the driver’s view down the tracks.
I have posed a follow-up question asking what drivers must do to yield to the red flashing lights should they happen to activate as a driver approaches a signalized crossing. The requirement to yield to the flashing lights is not affected by the driver’s view down the tracks.
But it would have been an entirely diffenent situation had the grade crossing signals failed to actuate. There's no jury in the country that would find a motorist liable for a crossing accident caused by failure of active crossing warning systems because the driver didn't treat the crossbuck as a ":yield" sign. The only place that such a notion could have any credence is on a website. It doesn't reflect reality.
Semper Vaporo But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train. A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, ...
But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train.
A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, ...
I think the question is about Nevada protecting the passeners, train crew, and the drivers
Operation Lifesaver has told me that drivers must approach signalized crossings at a speed low enough to permit them to stop for an approaching train, no matter whether the signals are activated or not. This amounts to yielding to trains as required by the crossbuck. To properly yield to an approaching train may or may not require slowing down. It depends on how far the driver can see down the tracks in each direction.
schlimm PigFarmer1: The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems. I am amazed as well. If it had been a teenager doing what the truck driver appears to have done, I doubt if there would be so many trying to transfer the blame to the crossing, signals, sunlight, angle of crossing, timing, etc. Instead, we'd be hearing about Mr. Darwin, once again. But the ultimate goal should be to prevent these accidents through the elimination of grade crossings, at least on highways outside cities crossing railroad RoW's with passenger trains.
PigFarmer1: The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
I am amazed as well. If it had been a teenager doing what the truck driver appears to have done, I doubt if there would be so many trying to transfer the blame to the crossing, signals, sunlight, angle of crossing, timing, etc. Instead, we'd be hearing about Mr. Darwin, once again. But the ultimate goal should be to prevent these accidents through the elimination of grade crossings, at least on highways outside cities crossing railroad RoW's with passenger trains.
Thank you schlimm -- I've tried to make the same point in the past, but perhaps from the other side. Without knowing all the facts, we should neither be too quick to acquit the mature professional, nor be too quick to convict the teenager.
And I agree that we should do whatever is feasible to prevent these sorts of accidents, and protect against even inattentive, careless, or stupid drivers where the level or speed of traffic warrants it (even if it means protecting these inattentive, careless, or stupid drivers from themselves!).
Otherwise, we can just throw in the towel and say that old-fashioned cross-bucks give sufficient warning of an obvious potential for danger, and driver beware! But I think, like it or not, society has progressed beyong that point.
PigFarmer1 The investigation will show that the gates were working fine (The two other truckers attested to that). I'm familiar with the crossing and I KNOW that when the gates activate there is ample time to stop. I find that there are people who are looking for way too many causes here. I will be absolutely amazed if the investigation finds anything other than driver fault and/or vehicle problems.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Another thing that might help (probably not) would be better instruction in the practical understanding of the following equations:
f = m * a
p = m * v
Not to mention a regular review of the "Law of Tonnage"....
John
You know, another thing that would work would be to eliminate grade crossings altogether. Everywhere, period. Plus in this economy it would make for some good jobs for some lucky people.
Revisiting this thread, all these re-engineering proposals brings to mind that non-PC statement--"Once you idiot proof something a bigger idiot will come along". Heck, the government/railroads could spend millions on each grade crossing in America by eliminating the crossing with a highway bridge over the tracks but someone will ultimately find a way to run off the bridge or down the embankment to the tracks.
How much warning do you need to stop?
25 seconds seems pretty generous. Granted you have to be paying attention to your driving, but I thought that was the point of it all.
zugmann 1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at: (b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
1. It is unlawful for any person to drive or operate a vehicle of any kind or character at:
(b) Such a rate of speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.
I agree with your point about the stopping requirement if you are carrying flammable liquid. In that case, the driver should know ahead of time to look for grade crossings and stop for them whether they are activated or not. I did not consider that extra requirement for flammables. However, my point still stands as to the possibility of a large loss of life in a run-into-train crash with a truck even if it is not transporting flammables.
As to item (b), it does certainly seem to cover every possible contingency. However, I don’t know how you measure it before having a collision. It is easy to say that if you run into something, you were driving at a speed high enough to endanger life, limb, or property of any person. But a driver has to know ahead of time about the life, limb, or property of any person that will be endangered by his speed. So the real issue goes first to the driver’s awareness of the endangerment. Obviously, the driver did not become aware soon enough. But considering the stakes, I don’t think the 25-second warning is reasonable at 70 mph.
[/quote]
You guys are obviously more informed on the accident than I, but I'd like to jump in here.
Bucyrus Just because people can see the signals from half a mile away, is it reasonable to expect that everyone will and must see the signals at that point? A driver’s attention cannot possibly be everywhere, so the argument that no accidents would occur if drivers paid attention is a faulty argument. Even the most perfect driver is always not paying attention to some portion of his or her sphere of attention. Generally on a road, a driver’s attention span will either be focused on the far or the near portion of the road ahead. Generally, a driver has to focus on the road near and far just to stay on it. A driver might have various reasons for focusing near or far, and might change from one to the other at times. Everybody knows that looking far will help identify obstructions and give the most time to react to them. But, out in the middle of nowhere, a driver might grow complacent about the possibility of obstructions. A grade crossing that has seldom or never been active in a driver’s memory of experience of that crossing might not even register as something to be looking far ahead for. Therefore, I conclude that a driver’s attention lapse on the far road ahead, for say a half-minute (3080 feet at 70mph), might be a completely functional and legal part of driving out there.
That being said, even my local museum faces the same things. When we run trains for the State Fair, and have been doing so since '86, we send a work crew through there to hang ""Caution, increased train traffic" signs. A private charter tiptoes along to inspect every crossing and grind down the rust (since we don't use those rails outside fo the fair) and we usually have radio ads and traffic reports along the lines of "There is a train for the next two weeks, so be careful." So in and of itself, the seldom firign crossing is a valid point.
BucyrusApparently during the first part of the Amtrak 25-second warning, this driver did not focus on either the signals flashing, or the train entering from one side of his sphere of attention. During the driver’s approach, both the signal and the presence of the train would have grown in their visual obviousness. Now there may be extenuating circumstances beyond just the normal application of driving attention out there, but for some reason, this driver apparently lost about 18 seconds of that 25-second warning. That left 7 seconds to realize the emergency, hit the brakes, skid 300 feet, and hit the train. So the question is this: Why did driver lose those 18 seconds of the Amtrak warning? Can it be just attributable to the normal application of driver attention out in the wide-open west? The suggestion of cell phone, texting, or similar communication as being possible driver distraction is highly applicable here. That may indeed be the next shoe to drop. Traveling in a convoy can engender competition and boldness, and expressing this kind of bravado could also be distracting. However, there may have been none of this type of activity distraction. I could see it being just due to an 18-second lapse of focus on the far road. There are only 25 seconds to work with.
Bucyrus Because the warning begins with an indication of signals that are 3000 feet ahead of the driver, it seems quite reasonable and understandable that even the best of drivers might miss some of that warning as it begins, and not see the warning until they get a little closer. So if you shave off say 10 seconds for that delayed perception, you only have 15 seconds left. Then it takes 7 more seconds to stop, and that is a panic stop. How long would a non-panic stop take? Lets say a normal stop takes 12 seconds. That leaves a 3-second margin of safety. Is that a reasonable safety margin, considering the potential loss of life if a driver happens to need 4 seconds instead of 3 seconds? If that truck were a gasoline tanker, it could have killed half the people on the train.
That leaves a 3-second margin of safety. Is that a reasonable safety margin, considering the potential loss of life if a driver happens to need 4 seconds instead of 3 seconds? If that truck were a gasoline tanker, it could have killed half the people on the train.
I think most driving stanrds will tell you "no", based on the fact that common practice at that speed is to leave a large3r margin of safety just for following someone. I think it's supposed to be 5 at 70mph. That being said, that margin of safety is completely detached from the driver's actual reaction time. If he had a 5second cushion, but only reacted in the last 5 seconds instead of the last 7, it would've done him no good, and nothing short of a PTC system that related semis to crossing signals would have mattered. Going into the argument on theprevious page about speedlimits, while there is a limit to how much "handholding" the government should be doing, can we really be going about saying "Oh, well, you were speeding, so we won't do anyting for you or the other hundred or however many people do it? That sounds to me as almost being as unsafe as someone doing the speed-limit when everyone else is trying to fly around him. There's a point in when the police are clocking people, where it's as dangerous to try and disrupt eh flow of traffic with two or three slow obstacles in the river. So yes, if that stretch of highway is moving faster than the speed-limit routinely, then one of two things needs to be done. It either needs to be more thouroghly enforced, or be made as safe as people seem to think it is. Step one, is giving more attention to stopping distances.
-Morgan
I hope that gasoline tanker would have stopped, as so ordered by Nevada Statute NRS 484B.560:
NRS 484B.560 Certain vehicles required to stop at all railroad grade crossings; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the driver of any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, or of any school bus carrying any school child, or of any vehicle carrying any explosive or flammable liquid as a cargo or part of a cargo, before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad, shall stop that vehicle within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along the track for any approaching train, and for signals indicating the approach of a train, and shall not proceed until the driver can do so safely.
(from: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec553 )
I think this covers the topic nicely:
NRS 484B.600 Basic rule; additional penalty for violation committed in work zone.
(a) A rate of speed greater than is reasonable or proper, having due regard for the traffic, surface and width of the highway, the weather and other highway conditions.
(c) A rate of speed greater than that posted by a public authority for the particular portion of highway being traversed.
(d) In any event, a rate of speed greater than 75 miles per hour.
2. A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484B.130.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1975, 754; 1987, 656; 1995, 2441, 2442; 2003, 3241)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.361)
(Emphasis mine - zug)
From: (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec600)
The train's locomotive and the truck were on a near perfect course to collide at the crossing. Twenty-five seconds before reaching the crossing, both the train and the truck were about 3000 feet from the crossing and the flashers came on. Traffic authorities say that the signals are visible from that distance although perhaps rounded off to an even half-mile or 2640 feet.
Just because people can see the signals from half a mile away, is it reasonable to expect that everyone will and must see the signals at that point? A driver’s attention cannot possibly be everywhere, so the argument that no accidents would occur if drivers paid attention is a faulty argument. Even the most perfect driver is always not paying attention to some portion of his or her sphere of attention. Generally on a road, a driver’s attention span will either be focused on the far or the near portion of the road ahead. Generally, a driver has to focus on the road near and far just to stay on it. A driver might have various reasons for focusing near or far, and might change from one to the other at times.
Everybody knows that looking far will help identify obstructions and give the most time to react to them. But, out in the middle of nowhere, a driver might grow complacent about the possibility of obstructions. A grade crossing that has seldom or never been active in a driver’s memory of experience of that crossing might not even register as something to be looking far ahead for.
Therefore, I conclude that a driver’s attention lapse on the far road ahead, for say a half-minute (3080 feet at 70mph), might be a completely functional and legal part of driving out there. Further adding to a driver’s complacency, he or she probably does not feel distracted from the far road when looking at the near road. The two are in a line, and attention can be readily toggled from near to far.
Apparently during the first part of the Amtrak 25-second warning, this driver did not focus on either the signals flashing, or the train entering from one side of his sphere of attention. During the driver’s approach, both the signal and the presence of the train would have grown in their visual obviousness. Now there may be extenuating circumstances beyond just the normal application of driving attention out there, but for some reason, this driver apparently lost about 18 seconds of that 25-second warning. That left 7 seconds to realize the emergency, hit the brakes, skid 300 feet, and hit the train.
So the question is this:
Why did driver lose those 18 seconds of the Amtrak warning? Can it be just attributable to the normal application of driver attention out in the wide-open west? The suggestion of cell phone, texting, or similar communication as being possible driver distraction is highly applicable here. That may indeed be the next shoe to drop. Traveling in a convoy can engender competition and boldness, and expressing this kind of bravado could also be distracting. However, there may have been none of this type of activity distraction. I could see it being just due to an 18-second lapse of focus on the far road. There are only 25 seconds to work with.
Because the warning begins with an indication of signals that are 3000 feet ahead of the driver, it seems quite reasonable and understandable that even the best of drivers might miss some of that warning as it begins, and not see the warning until they get a little closer. So if you shave off say 10 seconds for that delayed perception, you only have 15 seconds left. Then it takes 7 more seconds to stop, and that is a panic stop. How long would a non-panic stop take? Lets say a normal stop takes 12 seconds.
Blue streak do you really think that this is a forum for your anti constitution politics? The tragic loss of life should not be a opportunity to harangue. Oh, that's right, never let a crisis go to waste, huh?
tree68 IMHO, that suit will come down to any policies in place regarding the subject door and the rationale for those policies. It could be argued that the same thing might have occured if the door was jammed as the result of the collision, in which case the argument would have to be that the door wasn't properly protected against any and all possible situations. Of course we know that that's virtually impossible.
IMHO, that suit will come down to any policies in place regarding the subject door and the rationale for those policies.
It could be argued that the same thing might have occured if the door was jammed as the result of the collision, in which case the argument would have to be that the door wasn't properly protected against any and all possible situations. Of course we know that that's virtually impossible.
How quickly we forget. Who should be sued? Congress and the NRA. Please go to the below site and read the checked firearms policy!
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Content_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267293829
The theory that the driver may have been trying to beat the train has been brought up. I have considered that theory because at first, it seemed quite plausible. The driver thinks it is a slower moving freight train, and he speeds up, only to discover that the train is approaching too fast to beat. So the driver aborts the attempt to beat the train, but cannot stop in time.
But there is one major flaw in that theory. To beat the train, the driver would have to crash through the gates at very high speed. Certainly the truck could break through the gates, but it would likely cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to the truck. Conceivably, the gate could come right through the windshield and kill the driver.
Going around the lowered gates would have prevented the damage, but it would have required slowing down to maybe 5 mph and still be a difficult maneuver with a tractor/trailer unit. So it seems improbable that the driver was planning on racing the train to the crossing, and then slowing way down to go around the gates.
So I rule out the theory that the driver was trying to beat the train. Whatever inconvenience a driver believes he or she will avoid by beating a train is bound to be more than offset by the inconvenience of causing significant damage to his or her vehicle.
In these threads about the Nevada accident (and in many previous threads concerned with the same thing, but different accidents/events) where someone has failed to heed the warning signals, many people have expressed that they have no sympathy for the person that failed to heed the warnings. And they object to the suggestion that further/better warning systems be implemented. They ask, "why should the government play nurse-maid to the "bad" driver?
But the question here is not whether Nevada is at fault for the death of the driver by neglecting to be more proactive in protecting him, but rather whether Nevada might have prevented the murder (manslaughter) of the innocent passengers on the AMTRAK train. Could Nevada have done more to prevent their deaths from the UNINTENTIONAL suicide?
A more distant ALERT system in this instance might have made a difference, but the driver may still have thought he could beat a slow freight train, so maybe it wouldn't have. Grade separation is one choice, but really is no guarantee that a motorist won't run off the side of a highway overpass(equipment failure or stupidity) and fall on the train, or that the train won't derail (equipment failure or vandalism?) and knock down the highway bridge dumping the motorist into an inferno of chemical tank cars or fall off a RR overpass and bury the hapless motorist under 500,000 gallons of corn-syrup or 500 tons of sugar beets.
The only guaranteed way to prevent it would be to tear out the tracks AND the road and prohibit all travel.
You may be the most perfect motorist in the world, but that won't keep you from being killed in an automotive accident when you are hit by the world's worst driver. You may be an innocent passenger in a boat, plane, train or automobile but you may be just as dead as the unintentional suicide driver in some other boat, plane, train or automobile that hits what you are in.
So it boils down to what YOUR life is worth and how much YOU are willing to pay to preserve it. Are you willing to risk your life by not paying for any improvements? Will you pay for the more distant alert system? Will you pay for the grade separation? Or will you be willing to do without that bag of munchies that the trucker cannot deliver because all travel is prohibited?
What's that old saying? "Cough up or shut up." Pardon, my unintentional insult, but I am just an innocent pedestrian and my pockets are just as empty as yours are.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.