I note that the Amtrak suit deals with issues occuring in the aftermath of the collision - it does not place any blame for the incident itself on Amtrak.
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.
As for the incident itself - my read of the events leading up to the collision indicates that the crossing was properly protected such that a reasonable person would receive adequate warning to take the necessary actions to avoid a collision at the crossing.
Given the deceased driver's actions prior to the collision, he was apparently somehow distracted or misjudged his time of arrival at the crossing (both of which have been suggested by many already), gaining an appreciation for his situation only after it was too late to take appropriate action to avoid the collision.
What remains to be known is exactly what those issues were, and the sole person who knew didn't survive the 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...
Here are two new lawsuits, one against Amtrak and one against the truck driver and his employer:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18407452
Bucyrus I have posed questions to the FRA, MN Highway Patrol, and Operation Lifesaver on grade crossing issues. If they have no stock answers, they simply will not respond.
I have posed questions to the FRA, MN Highway Patrol, and Operation Lifesaver on grade crossing issues. If they have no stock answers, they simply will not respond.
I had a recent encounter with that mentality...I asked some UP people about the possibility of revamping the grade crossing systems (especially those "another train warning systems") in feasible ways that would reduce noise, rancor, and complacency. The answer I got would suggest that UP likes noise, rancor, and complacency. What they don't like is change.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
zugmann,
Yes, I understand. I don’t expect to convince everyone, especially the state of Nevada. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For all I know, there could be a huge shoe yet to drop here. But it is frustrating to have to wait so long for the final investigation. There may not be enough answers right now, but I will supply enough questions. I appreciated your comments and challenges.
We're starting to go around in circles.
The state/county/local authorities may do enough speed enforcement on such a road that it is not being "tolerated" in the eyes of the court.
You have valid concerns that are shared by many, I'm sure. I'm just not among them. I don't think you can convince me, and vice versa. So, I think what's best is to sit back and see how it plays out. But I enjoyed the discussion.
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 knew you would bring that up. I contend that the problem exists with a legal speed of 70 mph. Yes, the authorities should not be expected to make a 30 mph intersection safe for people who happen to be going 60 mph for example. But this is not completely black and white. The government does have a responsibility to enforce the speed limit for the protection of other drivers who are not speeding. The government is the manager of the road. They have a responsibility to not only make the laws, but to enforce them as well. Otherwise some of the laws will have no benefit in protecting the law abiders.
So if speeding is routine on the Nevada highway at this crossing, the government has a responsibility to know about it and to control it. So I do not believe that the possibility of a driver speeding is necessarily a loophole in my argument.
I do not know what actually happened in the Nevada crash. Ed Benton says that the truck was governed to 55 mph max. If the truck was only going 55, then I am not sure what happened.
I would like to know three things:
1) The speed of the truck before he braked.
2) The average vehicle speed on that highway for commercial vehicles.
3) The average vehicle speed on the highway for cars and other private vehicles.
So the government should equip these crossings for the speeders?
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. If you want to do 90mph, that's fine. But don't expect the government to be there holding your hand. What if there was a disabled truck stopped on the shoulder (or travel lane) of the road? And one of these speeding idiots crashed into him. Would it be his fault?
zugmann So let me ask you this: What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others?
So let me ask you this:
What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others?
What makes this crossing need the extended warning is the highway speed. It is a 70 mph speed limit. Assuming some enforcement tolerance exists, as is usually the case, 80 mph or higher is probably allowed before a driver would be ticketed. Because it is in sparsely populated country, the speed enforcement is likely to be minimal, thus minimizing the ticket threat that normally tends to suppress speeding. Because the country is open and trips are relatively long, it creates a relatively stronger motive to speed. Under all of these circumstances, I would guess that the average speed is 85-90 mph.
What makes this crossing deserving of the added protection? What are the characteristics of this crossing vs. many others? Are you looking at this one incident and concluding this crossing needs upgraded? I'm trying to understand why you are so adamant about the level of protection at this particular crossing.
I would argue that the government many times does not "match" warning systems to the hazard levels of a particular crossing. Many times extra warning is only the product of political or constituent pressure. Again, injecting human emotion into scientific data.
zugmann Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier?
Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier?
Zugman,
Yes it is an outlier, but that does not invalidate my point. With all due respect, I used the example (end of page 4) with an exaggerated crossing danger in the crossing structural details, and also exaggerated the vehicle train frequency downward, only to make a point. I think the point is valid, and I am not sure why you refuse to consider it. The example is a non-existent scenario, as you say, but it is not a silly numbers game, as you say.
I believe this particular Nevada crossing calls for an extended warning. It is not tantamount to putting “16 flashing warning signs for every single hazard that exists,” as you say. For all I know, there may be only a handful of crossings in Nevada that call for this added protection. Furthermore, this added protection in the form of enhanced advance warning, is a tool in the toolbox of crossing protection measures developed by the traffic experts and authorities. They invented that tool precisely for crossings with relatively high road speeds.
There are hundreds of thousands of crossings in the U.S. that would not require this added protection. I am not advocating for added safety measures on all grade crossings, just to squeeze out that last ounce of crash prevention, as you suggest in your last paragraph. As you have previously pointed out, that would be a slippery slope, and the cost would not be worth it. And if you do go down that slippery slope, it eventually leads to proposals for giant air bags on the front of locomotives to protect pedestrians. Those are good points you make in your last paragraph, and I agree with all of them, however, they have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have suggested with the Nevada crossing.
I agree with your point that driving is a privilege where we are required to show competency of skills in order to participate, and that the government should not have to take the warning systems to extremes for every road hazard. However, they do adjust the warning system to match each hazard. If all that was needed was marking the existence of a grade crossing, and the rest was left up to driver competency, we would not need flashing lights and gates on crossings.
Wouldn't that crossing be considered a form of an outlier? You could get into all sorts of probability exercises with it, though. Using the term "dangerous" can be well, dangerous, since there are many definitions. We as humans like to inject emotions (and politics) into scientific or mathematical calculations.
And for another example, let's go the other extreme:
Let's say that this crossing gets upgraded with gates. One train a month. And that one car goes around the gates and gets smacked. Now is this the most dangerous crossing for the month? 100% of the traffic that uses it collided with 100% of the trains that use it. So now do we build an overpass for it? Do you believe it is worth it? Let's pretend that closing it is not an option.
No answer needed, let's stick to the crossing in question and stop playing silly number games on non-existent scenarios. This crossing was equipped with gates, and probably advanced warning signs at a prescribed distance away. Whether mechanical or human error, the driver did not have control of his truck. I do a lot of driving in farm country, where there may be a combine harvester or an amish buggy over the next hill, so I drive accordingly.
I do not think that the government should have to put up 16 flashing warning signs for every single hazard that exists. Driving is a privilege that we are required to show a competency of skills in order to participate.
Will accidents happen? Yes. Can some be prevented by 16 flashing warning signs? I'm sure. Will all? No. Is it worth it to try to put those 16 flashing warning signs up for every hazard? I do not think so. Could you imagine the gridlock if EVERY intersection in this country had a stop light? After all, why should that intersection get it, and not this one? Won't someone please think of the children???
Zugmann,
Consider this example: Say that a hypothetical grade crossing has one fast train per month, and one vehicle crossing per month. Now say that the crossing is completely unmarked with no visibility down the tracks. Say the tracks are in a blind cut on both sides of the road, and there are no flashers, no gates, no crossbucks, and nothing to indicate the crossing is there except the rails in the road. Would you consider that crossing to be exceptionally dangerous?
Yet with only one train and one vehicle per month, there might not be a collision in 100 years if they don’t happen to arrive at the crossing at the same time. So the infrequency of collisions might suggest that the crossing is not dangerous, and yet the deficiencies in the crossing warning obviously make it as dangerous as can be.
zugmann We need a statistician. There are ways to calculate all that stuff out that takes in account number of trains. But I bet the number would be pretty unimpressive (in a good way).
We need a statistician. There are ways to calculate all that stuff out that takes in account number of trains.
But I bet the number would be pretty unimpressive (in a good way).
You need the number of vehicles too.
Set up a couple cameras that are activated when the signals activate. Count the number of vehicles that stop or don't stop.
You already know the frequency of crossing accidents at that location. So you know the number of vehicles that didn't stop and had a train/vehicle collision.
Assume (Yes, I know about "Assume") that the traffic pattern across the crossing hasn't changed. (Or wait forever to get a history of accidents with acually counted vehicles.)
Figure out that flashing red lights and crossing gates stop X percent of all vehicles when they need to stop. Use the camera info to give traffic tickets to those who deserve them.
Make an evaluation as to what action is needed. Keep in mind that there are not unlimited resources.
zugmann, I suspect it is more complicated than rate of collisions. I think what Bucyrus is trying to point to, is that trains only occupy (and approach) a crossing so many minutes out of the 1440 minutes there are in a day, and vehicles only cross (and approach) the tracks so many minutes of the day (especially in the more isolated areas).
So, it should be possible to calculate the statistical likelihood of a train/vehicle meet. Knowing that and the rate of collisions may get you somewhere. Otherwise, a certain frequency of collisions on a nearly-abandoned dessert road looks comparable to the same frequency at a busy urban crossing, which it is not.
How do you measure risk? There's always risk.
Whether it's one train a day or 100.. what's the rate of collisions? There be your answer.
Mention has been made of the number of times vehicles cross this crossing without a collision, and is that therefore an indication that the risk is insignificant? But there has to be a train approaching for there to be any risk at all. I wonder how many trains cross this crossing in 24 hours. How many of them are passenger trains? Are there more than two passenger trains and four freight trains per day?
It could be that a wide-open highway with a high speed limit and a state that countenances speeding poses an exceptionally high risk of collision every time a vehicle and a train arrive at the crossing at the same time. It is just that that might only happen once a month.
tdmidget:
The embargoed status of the line can perhaps put K.P.'s mind to rest about this crossing, but I think the point he makes is a good one generally -- even those of us who know better can have lapses of situational-awareness. Those even less "oriented towards trains" should, perhaps, be better protected?
Sad to say (IMHO), I also believe schlimm has hit it on the nose: so many of the decisions made in our society, including those around safety and loss of life, are based upon "some accountant's cost-benefit analysis". Number of lives to be saved vs. the overall cost of the protection.
In fact (speaking of truckers, as this thread has been), IIRC, didn't the same sort of cost-benefit analysis come up in the original proposals to require truck underride guards?
Not much to worry about there , K.P. The Phoenix to Yuma line is embargoed and used only for car storage for quite a while now.
In his 6-30 reply in this thread, cacole mentioned Arizona, which is similar to Nevada.
In Arizona, the highly traveled north-south Highway 85 crosses the Union Pacific (SP) rail line once used by Amtrak's Sunset Limited.
Looking east at the southbound lanes.
The northbound lanes are about a half a block to the east.
The highway is used as a bypass to avoid the congestion of Phoenix. Personally, this railfan finds this grade crossing a rather terrifying one, even with little train traffic traversing it. What is so scary is that non-railroad oriented people often drive in lala land. So, they would not see crossing gates down and flashers flashing, but finally see something big move across the road, like a train. Perhaps the truck driver in the incident in Nevada was one of these.
In the last couple of years I had a rather shocking experience. As I approached a severely angled rural dirt road grade crossing (photo bottom) only protected at the time with crossbucks ...
... I was deep in conversation with my adult son. At the last minute I realized where I was at and just slammed on the brakes. I didn't even have time to check the rearview mirror. Once I had ascertained no train was approaching, I proceeded on. But the experience made this railfan think. What about those that are NOT oriented toward trains?
Whatever actually happened (the probable cause) in Nevada will likely eventually come out. But railroaders and railfans generally have an advantage over the general motorists in that they are train aware (usually, anyway)!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
A lot of what ifs here, where the only change is in adding a few more passive crossing devices. We have one glaring fact: a crossing with operating gates (which were seen by the two following trucks) in broad daylight, in a flat area with excellent visibility, failed in protecting the approaching train from a truck. That is the function of such a passive device, and in this case it failed. It really doesn't matter much that it succeeded for the past 1000 times; it failed to protect one time with multiple deaths and significant damage. If some accountant's cost-benefit analysis suggests that result is desirable because it is cheaper than installing more positive protection, then there isn't much more to say.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Having been an owner/operator with two million plus miles in the seat of 18+ wheelers what would be wrong with 1. adding stobe lights to these crossings 2. making it a law all vehicles make a full stop before crossing 3. if they don`t stop then putting speed bumps on both approaches, or all of the above.I remember a lot of crossings years ago that required a full stop.I always slowed down to less than 5 mph on all because it was easier on tires and suspensions
garr If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Jay
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Jay
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two.
Jay
Yes, but just because some drivers can avoid a collision without an extension of the crossing warning, that does not necessaily mean that the extended warning is not needed. If that were the case, we would not need signals and gates at grade crossings. Assuming good sight distance, a simple crossbuck should suffice.
Bucyrus Deggesty: How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken. I question whether every reasonable precaution has been taken. Traffic control authorities acknowledge that if the road speed is high enough, the warning system on a signalized grade crossing should be extended beyond what is typical by some means. Whether or not, that applies to the Nevada crossing is an open question.
Deggesty: How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
I question whether every reasonable precaution has been taken. Traffic control authorities acknowledge that if the road speed is high enough, the warning system on a signalized grade crossing should be extended beyond what is typical by some means. Whether or not, that applies to the Nevada crossing is an open question.
If this truck was in fact the first in a convoy, which implies closely following trucks, the protection proved adequate enough for the following two. Usually when vehicles are trailing each other closely it is easy for the following vehicles to also be involved in the same wreck as the first.
Again, I am basing my ideas on what has been reported. We all know how accurate the media is when reporting on railroad issues so I would assume the accuracy would be no greater on this and other issues.
garr Short of mechanical failure or a medical condition, prior evidence of this driver's record (if it has been reported correctly) points to the odds of this accident being caused by driver error. What is the old saying, "Character is what you do when no one is watching". If it is proven to be driver error, Nevada could have put umpteen millions of dollars worth of protection on that crossing and the results would not have been much different--unless there is some fail safe, quick stop method I am unaware of. Jay
Short of mechanical failure or a medical condition, prior evidence of this driver's record (if it has been reported correctly) points to the odds of this accident being caused by driver error.
What is the old saying, "Character is what you do when no one is watching". If it is proven to be driver error, Nevada could have put umpteen millions of dollars worth of protection on that crossing and the results would not have been much different--unless there is some fail safe, quick stop method I am unaware of.
At this point, of course, no one can be 100% sure, but strongly looks like the cause is truck driver error, not railroad or Nevada negligence. However, were Nevada to put some money into protection for the crossing in the form of a grade separation, the results would have been very different. yes, the cost is in the millions, but the railroads should not have to pay for an overpass and only partly for an underpass. Nearly 100 years ago, elevated viaducts for multi-track rail main lines through various cities were built because wisdom prevailed over the short term cost considerations.
pdf's pertinent to rail/highway separations. An underpass under the rail line costs 6X an overpass.
https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/static/standards/fdm/17-40.pdf
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Bridges.pdf
Deggesty How is the state of Nevada responsible for this collision? From what has been posted about the intersection, every reasonable precaution has been taken.
There is the mentality that declares, "Laws do not apply to ME." From time to time, someone will write a letter to the editor of the local paper complaining about the arrogant people on the highway who keep the writer from driving faster than the speed limit. Such a person does not realize that HE is the arrogant one. Of course, this mentality applies in many other areas.
Johnny
From The UPRR Corp website:
http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/tips_rules.shtml
FTL:"...In most states, motor vehicle laws read: "Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing and signals indicate an approaching train, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within fifteen feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall not proceed until he can do so safely."
FTL:"....The driver must treat the crossbuck as a yield sign and the motorist must stop whenever automatic signals are activated..."
As well, this Link: http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/facts.shtml
[quoted] FTL: "...The following signs are installed and maintained by the Railroad:
All other signs (i.e. stop signs, yield signs, advance warning signs, pavement markings) are the responsibility of the public road authority.
Crossings are sometimes referred to as highway-rail crossings or intersections.
Crossbuck signs and all other signs (i.e. advance warning signs, pavement markings) are referred to as passive warning devices.
Signals are referred to as active warning devices. Active warning devices are maintained by the railroad..." [end quoted]
This website has a number of links and each link a different bit of pertinent information referencing RR Crossings.
Most of the information and opinions in this thread are pretty much specific and on the point. The implications of Railroad crossings are validated and encoded in Federal Code of regulations as well as each State has either directly encoded into their laws straight from the FCR or has added their own embellishments for their particular needs.
Zardoz--depressed rumble strips might have be a relatively inexpensive option to get a drivers attention a strategic distance out.
DMUinCT We have the "Flashing Yellow Diamond" signs all over on my state's highways, Connecticut. When a clear view of a Traffic Light is not possible and the Traffic Light turns red, the Yellow sign down the road starts to flash, the sign reads "Stop Ahead When Flashing" .
We have the "Flashing Yellow Diamond" signs all over on my state's highways, Connecticut. When a clear view of a Traffic Light is not possible and the Traffic Light turns red, the Yellow sign down the road starts to flash, the sign reads "Stop Ahead When Flashing" .
DMU: Are you sure about about when the "Stop ahead when flashing" illuminates? Here in Georgia any state road over 50 MPH will have the signs and they start flashing about 10 - 15 seconds before light starts changing time and distance set for the speed limit. Most of those lights are loop activated and are delayed after a vehicle enters the loop approach zone. Georgia DOT controls all traffic lights on state supported roads so the whole state is consistent.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.