Trains.com

Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?

54695 views
432 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Salem, Oregon
  • 189 posts
Posted by NP Red on Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:07 AM

blownout cylinder

Happened just west of Glencoe ON....Police couldn’t confirm how the collision occurred, but passengers in the rear of the train and residents of a nearby house say the truck struck close to the end of the last car.

Taken from...http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/07/29/18486786.html.....

Ummmm...how does one not see a train? Especially if the thing is crossing the grade?

 

This lawsuit will fault the train for not accelerating and thus causing the accident.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:28 AM

Here is something toThink about More and More states have Zero Idle Polices where Drivers that are OTR can not idle thir trucks to stay cool in the Summer.  They expect the Driver of an OTR truck to be able to Sleep in an Aluminum box for 10 hours in 100+ heat.  People have taken Tempature readings on their Dashboards were the Cabs are getting to over 150Degrees.  Yet States like Nevada California refuse to let us Idle so we are Well RESTED.  Maybe Driver Fatigue could have been an Issue in this case you try sleeping for 10 hours with No AC in over 100 degree heat. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:31 AM

The VIA collison was a Pickup Truck a Heckl of alot differant than a 40ton OTR truck in Nevada. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 31, 2011 1:44 PM

Even if we set aside the actual crash circumstances, I would like someone to try to justify the completely unreasonable predicament into which this crossing can place an approaching driver if the timing is just right. 

 

Say you are driving down the highway at 70 mph approaching that Nevada crossing, and the lights activate when you are 500 feet away from the crossing.  What are you going to do?  First of all, you have to decide whether you can stop short of the crossing.  So let me ask:  Can you stop short of the crossing?  Whatever your answer to that question is, there is a fair possibility that your answer is wrong. 

 

At 70 mph, the stopping distance is somewhere in the vicinity of 500-600 feet, depending on air temperature, wind, humidity, road surface, vehicle type, vehicle load, tires, condition of brakes, and braking control.  So the best answer to the question of whether or not you can stop in time is, “I don’t know.”

 

Yet, the law requires you to stop if you can stop before reaching the crossing, even though you won’t know if you can stop in time unless you try.  But stopping will require maximum braking effort, which will probably occur just short of locking your wheels and skidding.  If in fact you cannot stop in time, the law permits you to keep going.

 

So there are three possible outcomes to this dilemma: 

 

1)      You attempt to stop short of the crossing and you are successful.

2)      You attempt to stop short of the crossing and you are not successful.

3)      You decide to keep going and not attempt to stop.

 

In any of these three scenarios, you will spend several seconds traversing the 500 feet while the red lights are flashing at you.  If you decide not to stop, or if you try to stop, but realize you won’t be able to, you will have several seconds to wonder if the gate is going to come down in your face.  If you had decided not to try to stop, you will cross at 70 mph, wondering if the gate is going to come down a split second before you arrive at the crossing.  So as a backdrop to this dilemma is the possibility of getting killed hitting the gate. 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:14 PM

A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second.  Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet.  I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions. 

If I remember my HS driver's ed correctly, reaction time is actually on the order of .75 seconds - the website has essentially doubled that and in doing so added around 75 feet to the stopping distance.

This site on crossing signals indicates that the signals should activate about 30 seconds before the train will arrive at the crossing.  That's over 3000 feet if the train is also travelling at 70 MPH.

In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered.  My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash.

The gates will thus be down for between 20 and 25 seconds before the arrival of the train.

The satellite images of the crossing seem to show that the pavement markings are at least 500 feet from the crossing - probably more.  I think my monitor distorts the X axis, so I can't always believe what I measure on the screen.

The satellite image doesn't show the roadside signs.

From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:29 PM

If that site is accurate, and I'll assume it is, it would seem that an average, reasonably alert driver should be able to stop a car in plenty of time, with 100 feet to spare.  However, the site does not allow for the variable of weight of the vehicle (a loaded truck, such as in Nevada takes longer to stop than a car at the same speed) as it is designed for an auto or light truck.  And it assumes good brakes.  Consequently, we don't know (from this site) whether the 500 ft. distance would suffice.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Sunday, July 31, 2011 10:57 PM

I was under the impression that the truck was empty - which is actually worse as the coefficient of friction will be lower.  That the truck slid 300 feet would tend to bear that out.  I suspect that a loaded truck might have even been able to stop in time, but I have no data to support or refute that.

The question here is whether the warning was adequate.  That two other truck drivers saw and heeded the existing warning devices and avoided a collision would tend to indicate that it was.

While the braking distances would differ between a truck and a car, the travel distances at speed would not.  Thus a loaded truck travelling at 70 mph would still be across the crossing in less than five seconds if the warning devices activated when it was 500 feet away and it might or might not tangle with the gates, depending on how quickly they dropped.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, August 1, 2011 4:03 AM

edbenton

Here is something toThink about More and More states have Zero Idle Polices where Drivers that are OTR can not idle thir trucks to stay cool in the Summer.  They expect the Driver of an OTR truck to be able to Sleep in an Aluminum box for 10 hours in 100+ heat.  People have taken Tempature readings on their Dashboards were the Cabs are getting to over 150Degrees.  Yet States like Nevada California refuse to let us Idle so we are Well RESTED.  Maybe Driver Fatigue could have been an Issue in this case you try sleeping for 10 hours with No AC in over 100 degree heat. 

The truck involved was a day cab. I think the driver was working a local run(no log book). 

     in the time I've been driving I have not heard that Nevada has ever hassled anyone about idling. Even on the backside of the Las Vegas strip.(used to be able to park a truck there).

Rgds IGN

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, August 1, 2011 4:11 AM

tree68

A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second.  Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet.  I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions. 

If I remember my HS driver's ed correctly, reaction time is actually on the order of .75 seconds - the website has essentially doubled that and in doing so added around 75 feet to the stopping distance.

This site on crossing signals indicates that the signals should activate about 30 seconds before the train will arrive at the crossing.  That's over 3000 feet if the train is also travelling at 70 MPH.

In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered.  My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash.

The gates will thus be down for between 20 and 25 seconds before the arrival of the train.

The satellite images of the crossing seem to show that the pavement markings are at least 500 feet from the crossing - probably more.  I think my monitor distorts the X axis, so I can't always believe what I measure on the screen.

The satellite image doesn't show the roadside signs.

From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.

     A fully loaded truck(conventional 5 axle) takes a little over 300 ft to stop from 60 mph.  The truck involved was empty, EMPTY TRUCKS TAKE LONGER TO STOP THEN LOADED, (a loaded truck has better adhesion). In addition this was a set of western doubles, 40ft trl and a shorter 27ft trl. 

     Rgds IGN

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, August 1, 2011 4:33 AM

I am going to wait for the acccident investigation report to make any further judgements on a lot of this.

     I will speculate this. It is entirely  possible that the circumstances may turn out to be just fate.  A driver trundling across a stretch of road doing what he normally does every day. A different train then what he normally sees(the train was running 5 hours late)    Just a boring day at work.  

     I have not heard anything about a cell phone. And from having been there, I suspect there is no cell phone coverage.(I remember not having when I was last there 3+ years ago)

   One last thing want to bet this crossing gets an overpasswhen the dust settles?

    Still the loss of life and injuries are very sad

Rgds IGN

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, August 1, 2011 6:52 AM

Current Federal Regs are that a Loaded Truck must be able to Stop from 60 in 368 feet.  New regs that apply to new 2012 Models are a Reduction in ddistance of 10% so even with that he would not have made it going 70 he would have needed at least 500+ feet Empty to stop.  Hate to say it but that Countersuit is going to Hammer Union Pacific to a Wall for not having a proper Warning time and Improper Markings on the roads for Warnings. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 1, 2011 9:56 AM

tree68

A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second.  Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet.  I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions. 

In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered.  My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash.

From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.

 

I need to clarify something about my example above.  I should have stipulated that it applied to a truck such as the one involved in the crash.  However, it is not an example based on the exact circumstances of the crash.  My example deals with what happens when such a truck approaches the crossing at 70 mph and the signals activate when it is 500 feet away.  In this example, there is no collision. 

 

The point of my example is to highlight a defect in the crossing setup.  However, this defect will not lead to a crash, but rather, it places the driver into dilemma, which might cause the truck to skid and jackknife.  The issue is a crossing protection system presenting a driver with a “red board” right in the face at 70 mph with the additional prospect of the gates lowering before the driver can get across.   

 

Regarding my 500 ft. stopping distance assumption:

 

You are also right that the average stopping distance is 388 feet, but that is for cars.  The average stopping speed for trucks is 465 feet.  The category “truck” is broad, so I don’t know what how the stopping distance is affected by the range from large trucks to small trucks.  But I thought it fair to pick a round number of 500 feet, considering that this was a big truck, and it was pulling two trailers in tandem.  The actual stopping distance for such a truck is fairly likely to be higher than the average, and it might be much higher.  The driver skidded 320 feet and still has some speed left over. 

 

It may well be that the driver can get across before the gates are far enough down to foul the vehicle.  But a driver does not know that ahead of time.  The UMTCD says there must be at least a 3-second delay between the activation of the flashing lights and the start of the descent of the gates.  So an informed driver would know that he or she has at least three seconds for that to occur. 

 

But three seconds is not enough for the 70 mph road.  At the 500-foot example I have outlined, the driver would crash through the gates if he or she kept moving at 70 mph, or if he or she attempted to stop, but found that 500 feet was not enough room to stop.   Therefore, because the three-second delay is not enough, the owner of the crossing should have set the equipment to provide a longer delay.  However, there is no way for a driver to know what that actual delay is.  So a driver can only assume a three-second delay and hope for more. 

 

Therefore, I don’t think a driver is likely to know how much time he or she has between the activation of the red lights and the decent of the gate.  Any conclusion as to this interval must be an assumption unless you just might happen to be privy to the technical information for that particular crossing.

 

However, in the final analysis, the questions of the stopping distance and the timing of the gate descent are beside the point because the driver cannot know the answer to those questions.  That is the point.  That is what produces a dilemma for the driver.  So it is not an issue of getting hit by the train in this example.  The issue is requiring a driver to perform a panic stop in what is fundamentally a life or death situation in the mind of a driver assessing what the signals mean.  From a driver’s point of view, he or she is confronted with amounts to a traffic light changing from green to red, with no yellow in between.  

 

According to your assumption about the gate timing, and your stopping distance, you concluded that a driver should be able to stop in time, and then you apply this to all drivers.  From that, you conclude that there is no issue.  But I asked what you would do if you were the driver, and you did not answer my question.  You have to put yourself into the position of a driver to understand my example.  You cannot just passively project your knowledge of what you think drivers should do onto drivers confronting this situation. 

 

So I ask again.  What would you do if you were driving that truck at 70 mph approaching that crossing and the lights activated when you were 500 feet away?

 

So far, nobody has answered that question.  I can’t even answer it for myself if I were the driver.  The inability of anyone here to answer the question makes my point.  

 

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, August 1, 2011 10:28 AM

This is coming from someone that did have a CDL for YEars.  I am approaching a RR crossing get to less than 300 feet and then the gates start to come down.  I do not SLOW DOWN I STAND ON THE THROTTLE.  There is no way IN HELL I CAN STOP so I hope and Pray I cna get at least my cab across the tracks that way I will survive before the train hits if I can see it.  I will take my freaking chances in court and Hammer the State and the RR for NOT GIVING ME THE TIME TO STOP SAFELY IN A COURT OF LAW. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, August 1, 2011 10:29 AM

edbenton

 Hate to say it but that Countersuit is going to Hammer Union Pacific to a Wall for not having a proper Warning time and Improper Markings on the roads for Warnings. 

The UP might take a hit for not providing a time predictive signal activation, but the markings on the road and the speed limit are the Nevada highway dept's responsibility. The CP/SP/UP line has been in that area for over 140 years and on that specific alignment for at least 100 years and thus would predate the highway.

I would also question the wisdom behind the suit with regards to lack of crossing time predictors. It sounds really close to acknowledging that the driver was routinely violating the law with respect to the crossing. Considering the driver's record, the countersuit sounds like an act of desperation.

- Erik

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, August 1, 2011 11:09 AM

Not actually the Countersuit will have merit for one thing.  UP maintains the RR Crossing Signals they Maintain the Timing Intervals for the crossing Gates.  UP has a History of Failing to do so BIG TIME.  Here in IL in Lexington IL they Disabled a set of Crossing Gates entirely and KILLED 2 Teenagers that never got a warning about another Amtrak train that was coming and hit their car BROADSIDE and threw them and the car oiver 100 feet away from the crossing.  Then UP tried to Cover up the incindent by having a Signal Maintainer Pull teh Shunts he had been order to put into the Crossing gates to make it appear the Gates Worked.  How the Lawyers found out the Local Gas Station caught the Incident on Their Secruity Cameras and turned the tape over to the Famileis Lawyers.  UP ended up with Egg on face when that thing hit the News Media. 

 

This is on the Line that UP and Amtrak is going to run 110 MPH on in IL.  Why were the Gates and Signals Disabled because one of the bars refused to Go up with the others.  IIRC UP settled out of Court for over 10 Million Per Family in that one. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, August 1, 2011 12:12 PM

So, given the information provided so far, and working on the presumption that the current warning is inadequate, what should the overall crossing package look like?

We've spent plenty of time discussing what's wrong - what would make it right, to the extent that any normal driver would be as completely protected as possible?

Pictures and specifications would be helpful.

And I would strongly suggest that such a system be completely fixed - no pie-in-the-sky gotta-be-installed-in-every-vehicle solutions.  Use what's available today.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 1, 2011 12:53 PM

tree68

So, given the information provided so far, and working on the presumption that the current warning is inadequate, what should the overall crossing package look like?

We've spent plenty of time discussing what's wrong - what would make it right, to the extent that any normal driver would be as completely protected as possible?

Pictures and specifications would be helpful.

And I would strongly suggest that such a system be completely fixed - no pie-in-the-sky gotta-be-installed-in-every-vehicle solutions.  Use what's available today.

The crossing needs two elements of advance warning:

 

1)      An at-crossing warning that the red flashing lights are about to activate.

2)      A distant warning that the red flashing lights are about to activate or simply have begun to activate.

 

Item #1 would eliminate the problem of dropping a red stop signal in the face of drivers when they approach the crossing at 70 mph.  This could be accomplished by having the red lights flash yellow for say 10-15 seconds before they start flashing red.  Or it could be accomplished by installing a separate set of yellow flashing lights near the crossing red lights. 

 

Technically, these yellow lights should probably not flash.  Constant yellow would be analogous to the meaning of traffic signals where constant yellow indicates that the signal is about to turn red.  However, for this unique application to grade crossings, it may be better to flash the yellow to help get the attention of drivers.  There should also be some signage that explains how the crossing signal works.  The decent of the gate should not begin until some time interval after the lights begin flashing red. 

 

Item #2 would extend the visual active warning of the flashing lights of the crossing out from the crossing.  With the current system, at the point where a train activates the signals, when a vehicle is on a collision course with a train, the driver is 3,000 feet away from the crossing.  That is too much distance to expect an instant reaction by a driver.  So the driver is likely to lose some of his or her advance warning before recognizing and reacting to that warning. 

 

Therefore, the solution to this problem would be to add yellow flashing lights at some distance out from the crossing.  If that distance were say 1,500 feet, an approaching driver on a collision course with a train would see a visual warning begin when that driver is 1,500 feet from the signal instead of 3,000 feet from it.  I do not know what that advance warning distance should be.  Maybe 2,000 feet would be better than 1,500 feet.  But if you get too far out with the advance warning, a driver might pass it just before it activates, and be largely deprived of its benefit.

 

These distant flashing lights should activate with the flashing lights at the crossing when those crossing lights begin flashing yellow.  There should also be some signage in conjunction with these distant advance lights that explains how the crossing signal works.       

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, August 1, 2011 2:22 PM

Therefore, the solution to this problem would be to add yellow flashing lights at some distance out from the crossing. 

This would be along the lines of warning systems currently in place on some highways for traffic lights.  I've seen it done in Maryland.

But we're talking some apples and oranges here. 

If an oncoming vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is on a collision course (assuming constant speed through the crossing and both arriving at the crossing at the same time) with an oncoming train travelling at 70 MPH the driver has upwards of 30 seconds of warning during which they can take appropriate action (ie, slow, then stop).

And that's true today, without additional warning devices, and barring any malfunctions or visibility issues.

The issue is with those who are from 300-600 feet from the crossing at the time of activation (at 70 MPH).  At 300 feet, they hardly have time to react and will be through the crossing before the gates even start coming down.

At 600-700 feet, they probably have time to safely stop before reaching the crossing.

As such, perhaps a modification is necessary at the crossing.  An experimental installation of amber "advance" warning lights would certainly provide some insight to driver response.

Advance warning, however, I don't see as particularly useful without mitigating factors.  All of the advance warning I've seen for traffic lights involved limited sight distance and very heavy traffic.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 1, 2011 2:54 PM

Larry,

 

I seem to recall that the warning with the Nevada crossing was 25 seconds.  And it is true that 25 seconds should be more than enough time to stop when moving 70 mph.  But the warning of 25 seconds is meaningless if a driver is too far away to recognize it.  So, the issue to be addressed with the advance distant warning is not to increase the 25 seconds.  It is to shorten the sight distance to the warning device, so that the driver can use the entire 25 seconds. 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, August 1, 2011 3:13 PM

What people forget is that there are more than Cars out there and the Heavy Trucks out there need more distance to Stop.  Just because you give a Car enough distance to stop does not mean a Normal OTR truck enough time to stop at anytime.  People need to realize that a Rocky Mountain Double that this guy was pulling will be needing 600-700 FEET to stop empty and might get it hauled down in 500 if he is extremely LUCKY on dry Pavement.  You throw in rain snow or any moisture on the road that can Double Ice will Triple that.  Yet we are the first to get blamed in any accident when Stats show 75-80% of all accidents with trucks are the Other Parties Fault. 

 

Yet groups like AAA Crash PATT and others want more Regulations against OTR and all Truckers in General and refuse the 3 things that would improve safety across the Nations Highways the Most.  1st is require Drug and Alchohl teasting in any Accident involving a Commerical Motor Vechile for all Parties why do they oppose this since it would take away alot of ammo Lawyers use against us in Court. 

2nd Ban all drivers from Texting OTR drivers are banned from even using a cellphone while moving unless it is Handsfree.  Do the same for Cars

3rd Would be require every one that is going thru drivers ed and traffic school to do a Ride along with an OTR driver to LEARN how to Properly Share the Road with OTR trucks that way they quit Cutting us off 2 feet in front of our bumpers then standing on the brakes and then wondering why they get an airhorn blared at them. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 1, 2011 3:36 PM

The other problem is the lack of warning for the activation of the red flashing lights.  While it is true that that problem will not lead to a collision with a train, it could cause a driver to lose control while trying to stop for the sudden activation at close range.  It is easy to say that the remedy is to just keep going if you are too close to stop.  But it is one thing if you are driving in city traffic approaching a grade crossing, the lights activate when you are 30 feet away, and you just zip on across. 

 

But at 70 mph, it is completely unreasonable to confront a driver with red stop signals without any pre-warning, and no time to stop for those signals.  Frankly, I am amazed that the railroad industry, and the regulating authorities do not recognize the problem.  And adding to the problem is the fact that most, if not all, state laws absolutely forbid crossing against the red flashing lights without stopping, under any circumstances.   It is easy to say that a driver should just keep going, but 500 feet is going to feel like an awful long time to be bearing down with no intent of stopping, on those absolute stop signals and the law that stands behind them.       

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • 707 posts
Posted by tdmidget on Monday, August 1, 2011 4:06 PM

Get over it!!! There is no excuse for thgis. The speed limit is a Maximum, not a required speed. A professional driver drives with consideration of road conditions and the capabilities of his machine. Of course that leaves out a few of the posters here but that is the law and how it is supposed to be.

 So, Bucyrus, lets say that they put up your weenie warning lights. When the next clown hits a train, what then? Warning lights for the warning lights? Your incessant argument here is a symptom of a disease that is rampant in this country and that is the refusal to accept responsibility.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 1, 2011 4:22 PM

tdmidget

Get over it!!! There is no excuse for thgis. The speed limit is a Maximum, not a required speed. A professional driver drives with consideration of road conditions and the capabilities of his machine. Of course that leaves out a few of the posters here but that is the law and how it is supposed to be.

 So, Bucyrus, lets say that they put up your weenie warning lights. When the next clown hits a train, what then? Warning lights for the warning lights? Your incessant argument here is a symptom of a disease that is rampant in this country and that is the refusal to accept responsibility.

My incessant argument?  What about the incessant argument against me? 

I am all for personal responsibility and against the disease of refusing to accept it that you cite.  However, with all due respect, I think you should look at this a little more closely if you think my argument here is a symptom of that disease. 

I am not advocating lights warning of the warning lights ad infinitum until nobody gets killed anymore.  I am only advocating that a defect be corrected with one specific improvement.  Why should there be so much fierce resistance to that? 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, August 1, 2011 6:18 PM

Bucyrus
I am only advocating that a defect be corrected with one specific improvement.  Why should there be so much fierce resistance to that? 

I suspect it's because if it was perceived to be a problem by traffic authorities, and for that matter the masses, it would have been fixed by now.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 422 posts
Posted by Dragoman on Monday, August 1, 2011 6:31 PM

In the traffic world, it seems that every fix, every improvement, always happens with the gift of hindsight -- usually after something bad has happened.  (Here in California, the decision on where and whether to put up a "Stop" sign at an intersection depends on the number of accidents trhat have occurred there, which then points up the need.)  But to say that, since there was no problem up to now, that the crossing was satisfactoy, is like a drunk driver saying "It's OK, I've driven like this lots of times, and never had a problem!"  Maybe true, but not accurate.

So, maybe it hasn't "been fixed by now" because there wasn't an incident until now, highlighting the shortcomings of the crossing.  And, maybe this is the incident that will convince the "traffic authorities, and for that matter the masses" of the problem

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Monday, August 1, 2011 6:48 PM

How about those little lane markers, the "bumps" that are designed to awaken sleepy drivers when they begin to drift into another lane?

A series of those, placed appropriately before any grade crossing would provide both audio and physical reminders/input that the person was driving towards a grade crossing, and heighten their awareness of the possibility of the crossing being active.

A series of strips across the road, placed in such a manner that the noise and vibrations get closer together the closer you get to the crossing should wake most folks up.

Low cost, easy to install, and can be reflective so night time warning is also visual.

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, August 1, 2011 6:54 PM

I got it!  I was driving home from work and came upon the solution. 

 

Every crossing needs at least two wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube men! They can be activated when the crossing gates activate (just be sure to put ANSI-2 complaint vests on them).

 

I'd stop for them...

 

In case you are wondering what I am talking about: http://youtu.be/SC4vT1bRRgs

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

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Monday, August 1, 2011 8:06 PM

     I wonder, if the blame here just relies on society changing incrementally?

     When this road first went over the tracks, things were different than today.  In say, 1920, the train would have been a steamer, going much slower than today.  The truck would have been going much slower, carrying a much smaller load.  In 1920, the truck driver had a far better chance of seeing and hearing the train sooner, as he also had the windows open in the desert with no air conditioner.

     As time went on, the trains got faster, the trucks got faster and heavier, requiring longer stopping distances.  Also, the trucks got air conditioning, so the windows were shut.

      As the equation evolved between train and truck at this intersection,  the crossing probably evolved as well.  A simple cross-buck evolved into lights and crossing arms, etc....  With the addition of sattelite radio, killer speakers, cell phones, texting, portable DVD players, I-pods, etc...maybe it's just time for the crossing to evolve some more.

     Not neccesarily Nevada's fault.  Evolution of a society.  Maybe, we're all at fault.   Never ask for whom the bell tolls.....................

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, August 1, 2011 8:45 PM

edbenton

Not actually the Countersuit will have merit for one thing.  UP maintains the RR Crossing Signals they Maintain the Timing Intervals for the crossing Gates.  UP has a History of Failing to do so BIG TIME.

A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, August 1, 2011 10:27 PM

erikem
A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.

And a third - two other drivers running in convoy with the driver in question were able to properly respond to all visual clues and slow down/stop, avoiding a collision.

LarryWhistling
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...

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy