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.
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
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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, 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.
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.
I do have a Harvard Medical shirt I picked up... I'm halfway there.
PS. what was the subject?
PPS. ahh.. who cares.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx22TyCge7w
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?
zugmann Murray: Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour???? I got into the wrong line of work.
Murray: Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
I got into the wrong line of work.
Murray Isn't the going rate for an attorney something like $95.00 an hour????
Or they may have decided that some in this thread may be working for plaintiffs attorneys who search for all plausible "evidence" which will aid a client, at at the same time increase their hourly fees.
That's the cool things with conclusions. You can conclude whatever you want.
Throughout this thread, my premise has been that there is a fundamental flaw in the setup of this Nevada grade crossing that may have contributed to the 6/24/11 crash, and the 9/10 near miss; and might contribute to future crashes. It is not an issue of the crossing protection system working properly. Testing has established that it was working properly. Instead, the issue is about a possible design flaw concerning inadequate advance warning on such a fast highway.
We have discussed how much warning is enough, as well as how much warning there actually is at this crossing. The amount of warning is debatable because, although the train triggers a 25-second warning upon approach, a portion of this warning may not be visually available to an approaching driver.
I calculated that the actual warning to a driver is 2.92 seconds in the case of the heaviest trucks such as the one involved in the 6/24 crash. Lighter vehicles that can stop faster will have a longer warning because they will use less stopping distance.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to the Public Information Officer of the Nevada D.O.T. about the 6/24 crash. I asked him how much warning is intended with the design of this crossing. He did not know the answer. Then I explained my analysis of the warning for the largest trucks to be 2.92 seconds, and asked him if he agreed. He said he did not know if I was right or wrong, but he said that he could relay my questions to the technical people in their organization to obtain the answers.
I mentioned the lawsuit against the U.P. concerning the issues of warning and timing of the grade crossing involved in the 6/24 crash. And I asked him of the D.O.T. had any reservations about releasing technical information about the crossing because of that lawsuit or other potential legal action. He said there was not any concern about that, and the public information office was charged with answering any questions the public might present, including technical information about the crossing.
I sent my question and analysis about the short warning to him by email and asked him to forward it to the appropriate technical authorities within their organization as we had discussed earlier. I also sent the same to another contact within their organization who is directly involved in the evaluation of crossing safety resulting from the 6/24 crash. Getting no response from either contact, I followed up with three phone message inquiries and one more email asking when I might expect an answer. I have received no response to these follow-up inquiries.
So, unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that they are intentionally not responding to my inquiry. I do not know why they are refusing to respond. However, I do conclude that if they were firmly convinced that my 2.92-second analysis was incorrect, they would have quickly and emphatically told me I was wrong.
If you read that article it is from the British which means European trucks which means Jack Squat here in the USA on OTR trucks. Here is why in Europe the Goverments have Mandated Disc Brakes on all Tractors and also Limters to 55 MPH Max Speed MAX and the Police at anytime anywhere can plug into the Engine Computers and if the driver was speeding at anytime during the last 30 days cite them for speeding and the fines make a DUI fine look CHEAP.
But their braking systems are totally Different compared to what we here in the States run. 1st is the Discs on the Tractor portion of the combos Second is the tridems on about every trailer and then the Drum brakes they run are about 20-40% Larger than what we do. Expcet on the steer axle where most companies run a 13X3 Drum. Even the Larger Extended Service brakes made by Rockwell here in the States and sold as the Qplus are Still not LARGE enough for Europe. A Drum Brake Size in Europe is 18X9 here the Standard is 15X6 or the larger Q plus at 16.5 inches X6.5 inches. Second is the Pressure they run their brakes at 140 PSI we run at 120 PSI . Lastly is the size of the Brake chambers they run in Europe is LARGER here in the USA we use a 24 SQ IN on the Steer Axle. Europe uses a 30 SQ IN size. Every other axle we use a 30 SQIN size Europe is a 36 SQIN size.
Do the Math their Brakes are Larger run at a HIGHER Pressure with a Bigger Surface area were the Pressure is Applied. Put it this way The Brakes in the USA OTR truck are a 283 Chevy with a 2 Barrel Carb on it. What they use in Europe is a 426 HEMI Fully Blown on Alcohol with a 250 shot of NOS thrown in for good measure. Or in OTR measures here in the States we have a 238 Detroit and Europe is running a 600 CAT and we are both Climbing Sherman hill Eastbound.
Stopping distance for motor vehicles varies between many different sources. I calculated the stopping distance for the truck involved in the Nevada crash as being 600 feet. That is based on information given in the Nevada driver’s manual. I detailed my calculation in the second post on page 18 of this thread.
erikem From what the OTR guys on the forum have been saying, you would be incredibly lucky for an unloaded semi to stop withing 500 feet from 70MPH after the signal starts flashing. The tables from your previous post are based on a 1/2 g stop, which is within the capability of almost every car made in the last 40 years, but not necessarily for an empty semi. A better figure for a semi may be 700 to 800 feet from 70 MPH (which includes the distance traveled while the driver reacts to the stop signal and for the brakes to engage. - Erik
From what the OTR guys on the forum have been saying, you would be incredibly lucky for an unloaded semi to stop withing 500 feet from 70MPH after the signal starts flashing. The tables from your previous post are based on a 1/2 g stop, which is within the capability of almost every car made in the last 40 years, but not necessarily for an empty semi. A better figure for a semi may be 700 to 800 feet from 70 MPH (which includes the distance traveled while the driver reacts to the stop signal and for the brakes to engage.
- Erik
The tables I quoted were for autos and then trucks. The figures included reaction time. If trucks can't manage even that generous distance, perhaps their loads are too great to be safe on a highway, as they would be more prone to rear-ending cars that stop quickly or when tail-gating cars in front of them.
Try stopping a unloaded concrete mixer at that speed better yet a loaded one.
Russell
What does that matter? All that really does matter is that the crossing lights were visible from at least 500 feet away. Are you saying they weren't?
In my earlier post on 8/18, I questioned the meaning of the comment given in the opening statement of their preliminary investigation when they said this:
“Investigators have documented that the sight distance on the section of roadway leading up to the grade crossing from the truck driver’s direction of travel was over 1 mile.”
In response to that comment, I said that I was not convinced that they meant that a driver could see the flashing lights from over a mile away and around a 30-degree curve. I said that they might have simply meant that there was an unobstructed view of the crossing from over a mile. If there is no obstruction between the viewer and the crossing, you could call that an unobstructed view of the crossing. But the pertinent point is whether or not you can see the flashing lights.
Now, in listening to the language in their video, I find that it precisely confirms the elements of my suspicion about what they were saying and what it meant. In the video, the narrator says this:
“As far as the visibility of the tracks as a truck would have approached from the south, there is no obstructions in that visibility, and the crossing should have been visible from well over a mile.”
If I were investigating this, I would have set the crossing signals to flash on a clear day around noon, and drove south on the highway to the point where the flashing lights were no longer visible. And then I would have announced how many feet from the crossing I was when the flashing lights became completely invisible.
Unlike the NTSB, I would not have couched my findings in whether or not obstructions to visibility existed, or used the phrase, “crossing should have been visible.” I would not have spoken of “visibility of the tracks,” whatever that is supposed to mean. They don’t even define what they mean by “crossing” in the phrase, “crossing should have been visible.” Crossing can mean the location where the tracks cross the highway, or it can mean the un-activated signals, signal tower, and signal bungalow, or it can mean the red flashing lights of the activated signals.
Came across an interesting British site, http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/stopping.htm which indicates the deceleration velocity for trucks is 1/2 that of typical cars. This makes sense as an examination of Car & Driver test reports http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q2/road_test_digest-feature show many cars and pickups going 70 to 0 in ~150 to 200+ feet (their procedure does not include the ~1.45 seconds to react to a signal, but the UK figures do):
CAR STOPPING DISTANCE (Highway Code) @ 10 MPH. PER SECOND
TRUCK STOPPING DISTANCE @ 10 MPH. PER SECOND
So a truck should be able to stop in 400-450 feet. The distance from the beginning of the warning zone with a sign to the crossing was approximately 900 feet, according to the Google estimates. That distance is about twice that needed for a truck with functioning brakes to stop. Consequently I don't see how Nevada was negligent. I think this accident, if anything, shows the need for grade separations and lightly-used crossing closings on railroad lines where passenger trains are running.
Dragoman Bucyrus -- I believe that I understand the technical issues you have been trying to raise in this thread. But I am not sure I understand your question, when you ask about "what a driver is supposed to do" when seeing a warning signal. Isn't any warning signal, by definition, supposed to warn of a hazard ahead? And if so, isn't the driver supposed to be warned, and act appropriately (be more aware, slow down (if necessary). be prepared to take evasive action or stop (again, if necessary))?
Bucyrus --
I believe that I understand the technical issues you have been trying to raise in this thread. But I am not sure I understand your question, when you ask about "what a driver is supposed to do" when seeing a warning signal.
Isn't any warning signal, by definition, supposed to warn of a hazard ahead? And if so, isn't the driver supposed to be warned, and act appropriately (be more aware, slow down (if necessary). be prepared to take evasive action or stop (again, if necessary))?
Dragoman,
Well that does seem logical when you look at that way, and it would be logical if the Federal D.O.T. had not set up specific zones intended to control traffic approaching the crossing. Clearly the intent of the zones is not to expect drivers to be scanning the horizon in an attempt to find the red flashing lights of the crossing.
If that were the case, it would be important to project the signal light as far as possible to provide the greatest possibility of attracting a driver’s attention to the hazard. And drivers would be told that the flashing lights will alert them to the fact that a grade crossing is ahead, and a train is in hazardous proximity.
But that is not what they tell drivers. Instead, they set up advance warning RXR signs that are said to be the point where drivers are first informed that a grade crossing is ahead, and that drivers must take responsibility to look for it and look for trains and activated crossing signals. The signs mark the beginning of the zones.
From that point, a driver has all the information he or she needs in order to take action. The RXR signs are visually obvious when a driver passes them, and the crossing signals will also be visually obvious from the location of the advance RXR signs and any point closer to the crossing. So there is simply no need for a driver to be splitting hairs over what he or she might see on the horizon over a mile ahead.
The intent of the system is to FIRST inform a driver that a crossing is ahead by the presence of the advance warning signs, and then SECOND, to have the driver look for trains and signals. The intent is not to require drivers to first look for signals. If that were the intent alone, then a driver approaching a crossing with un-activated signals might not realize the crossing is there until nearly arriving at it. And if that were the case, a driver might get nearly to the crossing without looking for trains or activated signals.
So the system relies on zones first and signals second. That is probably why the state laws call for driver response to signals when they are clearly visible. Once a driver is the first zone, the signals will be clearly visible. Prior to the first zone, they may not be clearly visible. There may be obstructions such as curves, or a driver might not recognize a signal that is far away when the driver does not realize there is a grade crossing ahead, and is therefore not concerned with the possibility of signals.
Now it is easy to say that even though there are zones, if the signals are visible prior to the zones, an approaching driver has the obligation to see them and react. But an informed driver will know that a reaction is not called for until reaching the first zone. And that informed driver will know that the zones are properly sized for reacting and stopping.
However, in the case of the Nevada crossing, the zones are too short. They do not meet the D.O.T. specifications. So a properly informed and lawful driver approaching the crossing while relying on the zones, will discover, only upon entering and traversing the zones, that they are too short, and may pose a problem getting stopped in time to avoid a collision with a train. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.
As I said, I understand the discussion of whether there is sufficient warning for a particular hazard, but I think it is unlikely that a rule will codify the individual particulars of how to pay more attention to the potential hazard (except in certain circumstances, such as the requirement that busses and certain other vehicles must stop at every grade crossing, for example).
The NTSB has at least implied that the crossing flasher red lights can be seen from over one mile away. That raises an interesting question of the distance from which the lights are intended to be seen, and what a driver is supposed to do when he or she sees them.
I don’t find anything in the MUTCD or other official guidance that details this information. You would think they would publish specifications about the distance projection of the lights. As David K. Wheeler has pointed out in his post above, the RHGC handbook shows various angle and spread projection installations that seem to effect a maximum range of 1000 feet. Is 1000 feet the intended design projection? They don’t address that obvious question, and yet they discuss bulb wattage and power requirements.
The state laws seem to deal only with events occurring in the immediate approach to the crossing. They forbid crossing against the red flashing lights. The laws also suggest that a driver must decide to yield to the lights when they become clearly visible. “Clearly” is an interesting modifier because it implies that the lights might be visible without being clearly visible. One might wonder if the lights seen from one mile in bright mid-day sun are clearly visible or just visible.
Look for the NTSB to do this. Brake testing to see just What the Stopping Distance is of a Semi Truck and for ALOT of Freaking Eyes to get opened NATIONWIDE in the Insurance and Law Industry and in the Engineering Industry. When they see that there was No way in HADES for that truck to stop either Empty or LOADED look for alot of Roads to be remarked for what a Truck needs not what a Car Needs Finally.
Best thing yet would be for the Engineers at the NTSB to actually sit in a OTR truck and ride along with a Driver for a week and go HOW in the HELL does anything get freaking Delivered with all the crap the normal Driver puts up with.
David,.
I can best answer your question by observation of Durand, MI. It is a quiet zone that involves four crossings and was 'grandfathered' prior to the new requirements.The 'locals' are well aware. Some transients may not be. There is a crossing west of Durand that gives at least a thirty second warning, and it's on a seldom traveled rural road.
So, where does this fit into the perspective of the crossing in Nevada? Without seeing that crossing up close and personal I find it hard to make a judgment. The signals may not be aligned in the best manner for approaching traffic to see them before they are capable of stopping. That applies to cars as well as trucks. The curve in the road may well have been a factor.
As always, I will wait for the NTSB's final report.
Norm
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.