Y6bs evergreen in my mind
blue streak 1 I may be a dummy but it appears to me that if Nevada had rumble strips 1000 ft from a RR crossing on a 70 MPH road and then post a speed limit of 50 MPH at 800 ft. Then another rumble strip at 400 - 500 ft with RR warning sign then maybe that would be sufficient for the state???
I may be a dummy but it appears to me that if Nevada had rumble strips 1000 ft from a RR crossing on a 70 MPH road and then post a speed limit of 50 MPH at 800 ft. Then another rumble strip at 400 - 500 ft with RR warning sign then maybe that would be sufficient for the state???
This looks good to me. I drove length of that highway 3 times last month and there were many, many time the the speed limit was lowered to 45-55mph. At every small town or some cross highways there was a "speed zone ahead" sign and then a "speed limit" sign. Then a block later a " end of speed zone" sign. If I choose to keep going 70mph in that zone, it still had a positive effect because I was watching very close to see if a police was parked there. A rumble strip will make you read the signs and hopefully look for a train even if you don't slow down. Seems like an easy fix.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
This thread seems to still be alive, so I will add some thoughts.
The visibility of the signals at the crossing seems to be questionable. The NTSB, probably the source of most of the information, seems to be unsure about the matter.
There are four videos posted by the NTSB about the investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLxOIZP_lQ&feature=relmfu
6/24, 1m37s, announces the team formation and the movement to the site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0QQWLZPfYY&feature=relmfu
6/25, 14m44s, reports the erroneous name of the vehicles owner as Davies Trucking. At 5m40s, the warning sign distance of 897 feet, the roadway marking at 760 feet and the skid marks at 320 feet are reported. At 6m36s, there was “excellent visibility of the approach of the train from U. S. 95.” “There was a convoy of three trucks . . .” but no direct statement that they observed the signals, stopped to help, reported the crash or where they disappeared to afterward. (Note that they do NOT appear in any of the many aerial crash photos taken of the site available online.) The three truck convoy is mentioned again in response to a question at 11m49s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplaB7EB0L4&feature=relmfu
6/26 18m49s. At 2m55s the crossing should have been visible “well over a mile.” At 3m20s the signals, at activation, should have been visible “half a mile back.” At 12m15s a question was raised about the 25s activation time being sufficient and was answered with a statement that the vehicle would have been a half mile away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBS077jFTiM&feature=relmfu
6/27 18m17s. At 1m15s, the name of the trucking company is corrected to Davis. At 2m05s, the assertion of a convoy of three trucks was retracted. The sound is garbled and I can’t quite make out what he says but apparently there was one or more other trucks, possibly from the same company, who traversed the crossing at some unstated time. At 4m00s, the team is investigating traffic at the crossing (see below). At 4m30s the briefer states that the team will do tests with both cars and trucks to determine the sighting distance required to see the signals. (Duh?) At 7m55s the existence of a cell phone, possibly belonging to the driver has been found and forwarded to a testing center for analysis. At 11m59s a telephone question is raised about the specific stopping distance for the truck: the answer give is that it is unknowable because the “braking efficiency” is unknown.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html
This is apparently intended as a Public Affairs Announcement of the Investigation and is undated.
Highway / Railroad Accident Investigation
“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”
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv_preliminary.html
This a preliminary report and contains no information on sight or stopping distances.
http://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Traffic/2010Churchill.pdf
This is a link to the NDOT traffic count page for Churchill county. Location 91, the far north of US 95 where it joins I-80, shows 860 vehicles per DAY, about 35 per hour.
Two observations: nobody - except Bucyrus - seems to acknowledge the difficulties presented by the long curve before the final 900 foot long tangent approach to the crossing. The deniers seems to include the NTSB itself.
Second, if sighting isn’t a problem, why are the extra cantilevered flashing signals installed. Those, according to the manuals are normally used for multi-lane highways.
Has anybody looked at the HRGX Handbook diagram for signal coverage? This is an extract:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec04b.htm
The implication is a 1000 foot maximum range for the signals.
David K. Wheeler
schlimmDrivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
I am not saying that the driver was not negligent. Forget about that driver. I am only saying that a driver of a truck such as the one the driver was driving, at a speed of 70 mph, has a 2.92-second warning. That is more than enough time to see the danger and make a decision to apply the brakes.
I don’t see anything that says the RXR sign is purely advisory. But even if it is, why should a driver not take the advice it gives? It marks the beginning of the approach zone in which a driver is advised to look for danger and make a decision by the time he or she reaches the non-recovery zone.
Since the approach zone does not require a driver to slow down, even if the red lights are flashing, why should a driver slow down prior to the approach zone if the red lights are flashing?
An informed driver will expect the zones to be properly set up with enough distance to begin the reaction and braking. And they are. But I expect that their margin of safety will be questioned in court. Or maybe not. But it is being questioned right now by the Nevada D.O.T.
schlimm Drivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
Drivers are required to respond to flashing crossing lights and gates at a crossing. The required response is to apply brakes to stop your vehicle. The crossing can be seen far in advance of the distance necessary for stopping on a day with good visibility, which was present on the day of the accident. This driver did not heed the lights and didn't begin to apply brakes until far too late. The approach sign distance is completely irrelevant, as that is purely advisory.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But does the approach zone at the Nevada crossing actually begin at 1410 feet as the tables call for? I have not measured it, but it begins at the point of the RXR signs, which another poster measured to be 900 feet from the crossing.
In either case, this does pose a puzzling question about the fine point of drivers’ responsibility. The approach zone requires a response from the driver. But the question posed by zugmann is whether or not any driver response is required prior to the approach zone. The question arises from the fact that the red flashing lights can often be seen prior to entering the approach zone. But if this requires a driver response prior to the approach zone, what would that response be?
It can’t be a requirement to slow down, because even after entering the approach zone, there is no requirement to slow down. A requirement to slow down only begins once a driver has entered the non-recovery zone, if a train is approaching and/or if the red lights are flashing.
Once a driver enters the approach zone, he or she is informed that a grade crossing is ahead, and that he or she must look for trains or activated signals. If the signals are activated, and if the flashing light activation can be seen before entering the approach zone, an undistracted driver will see them. In that case, a driver who knows what the flashing red lights mean will know, prior to entering the approach zone, that he or she is approaching a grade crossing.
However, there is no need for a driver to physically react to this information prior to entering the approach zone because the approach zone allows enough distance to mentally react, and the following non-recovery zone, allows enough distance to stop. The two zones are designed that way.
So an informed driver will realize that he or she does not have to react until entering the approach zone. However, if that informed driver enters this Nevada crossing approach zone in a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, he or she will discover that the approach zone is unusually short; only lasting 2.92 seconds, after which the driver will enter the non-recovery zone.
If the driver had known ahead of time that the approach zone was so short, he or she might have reacted to the information received prior to entering the approach zone. But still, short as it may be, 2.92 seconds is plenty of time to react if a driver is not distracted during that interval.
I think you misread your fine links. The approach zone (where signs, etc. warning of a crossing should be located) is 1410 feet on a 70 mph road, like in Nevada.The last point at which a driver must begin to apply brakes if he is to stop before the crossing is 780 feet @ 70 mph. There is nothing there to suggest a driver need do nothing until he reaches the approach zone if he can see the flashing lights of the crossing gates, which in this case, he would have been able to do.
From the preliminary report: "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; a color video recording from the lead locomotive showed that the crossing gates were down as the train approached the crossing and the audio recording confirmed that the train horn and crossing bell were activated; and tire marks were found starting 320 feet from the grade crossing and continuing up to the railroad tracks."
If the report is correct, he should have seen the warning lights well beyond the distance necessary to stop. He ignored both the warning signs and the warning lights of the crossing, and still did not attempt to stop until far too late - 320 feet - when he needed 780. Driver error. Seems to me, this crossing, as a level crossing, was adequate. However, as a device to protect trains from careless drivers, it inevitably failed. A grade separation would be the only nearly foolproof device.
Try reading the FMCSA regs on RR crossings just ONE time. Full of doublespeak and Lega;lease that will make you think your doing it RIGHT yet a good DOT OFFICER can find you doing something WRONG everytime. The FMCSA Regs anymore are worse than any RR rulesbook so that if a DOT officer wants to right you a ticket they CAN and WILL.
Or as drivers say it anymore it is the NASCAR rulebook of the Trucking industry and if they want to FIND SOMETHING WRONG THEY WILL. Also when they do it will cost you money and POINTS now. You may think your legal under the Rulebook but they will move the rules away from you and say SORRY CAN NOT DO THAT anymore. Stuff that was legal 11 Years ago and had been legal for 60 years like Spilt Logging Do not even try it anymore. Do not even think of pushing that envolope for an extra 2 mins on the time anymore they will hammer your but to the tree. Yet the rules ure as hell do not apply to them.
It would be nice if these crossing principles were clearly spelled out in the laws as one would expect, but they are not. In fact the laws are sometimes vague and open to conflicting interpretations. Maybe that is intentional. I don't know.
But you you are free to question my interpretation. Or you may go further and offer your own differing interpretation. You may even refute my interpretation if you can cite the laws that prove your interpretation.
Handbooks aren't law.
Yes, the drivers must act in the approach zone. But I still question your opinion that legal responsibility only begins there.
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,
Those sources are not studies, as you call them. One of them is the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook published by the USDOT Federal Highway Administration. Both sources go into much more detail than the state statutes. I don’t see this matter detailed in the statutes, but there are other details not covered in the statutes as well.
Both of the sources I cited define the approach zone in terms of beginning at a specific location with formulas for determining that specific location based on speed and stopping distance. Neither those sources nor the statutes say anything about that location being the location where the flashing lights first become visible. And moreover, that location where the lights first become visible will vary from one person to another, so it cannot be specific. In any case, the approach zone provides enough distance to formulate a plan of action, and the following non-recovery zone provides enough distance to stop.
The sources say that the approach zone is where the driver first learns of a grade crossing ahead by virtue of the advance warning sign that marks the beginning of the approach zone. The driver is then supposed to act upon that information by looking for trains or crossing warnings, and make a decision before entering the non-recovery zone.
Those give the definition of an "approach zone". I was more curious with you legal obligation statement. Show me a law/ordinance/statute that says that flashing red lights only apply to you if you're in the "approach zone".
Studies are a dime a dozen.
[quote user="zugmann"
Source?[/quote]
Page 16 and 32 here:
http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/railroad06downloads/nizam_macdonald.pdf
Page 63 and 66 here:
http://www.ite.org/decade/pubs/TB-019-E.pdf
" And finally, there will be the verdict of the lawsuit against U.P. by the trucking company claiming that the crossing warning was not adequate. "
The railroads install and maintain what the states require.
Norm,
I am not saying that the Nevada accident is an exception. Actually I agree with you on your point. That is why I am holding off on accepting the NTSB comment about sight distance until they clearly say what they mean.
Otherwise, overall, I am just speculating on a possible deficiency with the crossing setup. And the final NTSB report may or may not resolve that issue. Nevada DOT is also investigating whether or not the crossing warning was adequate. I would not assume that it is a forgone conclusion that their findings will agree with those of the NTSB. And finally, there will be the verdict of the lawsuit against U.P. by the trucking company claiming that the crossing warning was not adequate.
Bucyrus,
I've been involved in aviation for the last thirty years and the last thing the NTSB wants to do is commit themselves on a preliminary report. They wait until every last detail is followed up before issuing a final report.
I've seen them stand off on an aviation aviation accident for over two years. Why should the Nevada accident be an exception? It takes considerable time to gather all the facts.
I make no judgment till the final report is issued.
Norm
Bucyrus Murphy Siding: Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that. No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the Warren Commision statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking Warren Commision themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances from a grassy knoll more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the Warren Commision statement. So until the Warren Commision tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Murphy Siding: Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the Warren Commision statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking Warren Commision themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances from a grassy knoll more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the Warren Commision statement. So until the Warren Commision tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Awe come on- you're drifting into conspiracy theorist territory when you start making statements like that.
No I don’t think so. It is not going out on a limb to question the NTSB statement at this point. Even they allow that it may be incorrect at this preliminary point. If the question of crossing visibility were truly settled, the state of Nevada would not be asking it themselves as a result of the crash. The exact language the NTSB uses could simply mean that there is an unobstructed view to the crossing. Or it could mean that the activated signals have the ability to be seen for over one mile in a straight line, but not necessarily around the 30-degree bend. Two other authoritative sources gave two sight distances more clearly stated as being to the activated crossing signals. And moreover, those two sources differ from each other, and differ from the NTSB statement. So until the NTSB tightens up their statement, I will wait to find out what they really mean.
Bucyrus I believe that it is technically possible for the Nevada crash crossing signals to be seen from one mile along the highway heading south from the crossing. With enough illumination power, anything is possible. But I also think that the NTSB statement is intentionally vague because, for the time being, they want the conclusion about the driver’s advance warning to be left intentionally vague.
Bucyrus The driver’s legal responsibility does not begin at the point where the red flashing lights first become visible.
Source?
I believe that it is technically possible for the Nevada crash crossing signals to be seen from one mile along the highway heading south from the crossing. With enough illumination power, anything is possible. But I also think that the NTSB statement is intentionally vague because, for the time being, they want the conclusion about the driver’s advance warning to be left intentionally vague.
However, this maximum sight distance for the activated flashers is really beside the point because a driver has no responsibility to react to the grade crossing until he or she enters the so-called “Approach zone.” And the approach zone begins at the location of the advance warning sign, which is 900 feet south of this Nevada crossing.
The driver’s legal responsibility does not begin at the point where the red flashing lights first become visible. And even from a practical standpoint, whether the red flashing lights are visible at ½ mile or even 1 mile is moot if the lights appear to be so small at those distances that it becomes unreasonable to rely on them as an attention-getting warning.
So the northbound warning begins 900 feet from the crossing. That corresponds to my analysis that concludes a driver of a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, has 2.92 seconds to react.
In response to Bucyrus' latest post, why would NTSB investigators say that the "sight distance" on the road was over 1 mile if they weren't talking about the sight distance to the grade crossing where the accident occurred? After all, they are investigating the accident - what possible relevance does sight distance has if it isn't the sight distance to the crossing? The way NTSB works, they probably restaged the accident scenario with another truck to come to this conclusion. I don't regard the fact that the "one mile" statement appeared in only one of the two NTSB documents as significant. The most likely explanation was that it was inadvertently omitted from one of the documents
I did not attribute my 20-25 second warning conclusion to NTSB (and I don't read Bucyrus as saying that I did). It was my own deduction, which seems to logically flow from NTSB's conclusion.
By the way, yesterday I inadvertently had an opportunity to test visibility of activated crossing signals on an EJ&E crossing in Illinois. The signals seemed similar to the signals involved in the Amtrak accident - gates with cantelever warning lights. I could see the activated lights well over a mile away (I checked my odometer for the distance).
Falcon48 In response to Bucyrus' post of 8/13 and other posts speculating on the amount of time the driver had to react, NTSB reports that its investigators 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 (not 900 feet). See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html . I think it is safe to regard their conclusion as authoritative. That means that the driver had the entire acrtivation time of the crossing signals as advance warning of the approach of the train (20-25 seconds, not 8.76 seconds). Also, according to news reports, the drivers of two following trucks saw the signals and were slowing for the crossing (in other words, they could see it), and questioned why the first driver had not done so.
In response to Bucyrus' post of 8/13 and other posts speculating on the amount of time the driver had to react, NTSB reports that its investigators 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 (not 900 feet). See http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2011/miriam_nv.html . I think it is safe to regard their conclusion as authoritative. That means that the driver had the entire acrtivation time of the crossing signals as advance warning of the approach of the train (20-25 seconds, not 8.76 seconds). Also, according to news reports, the drivers of two following trucks saw the signals and were slowing for the crossing (in other words, they could see it), and questioned why the first driver had not done so.
A lot of numbers have been crunched in this thread, but the one unresolved question is the distance from which the crossing signals can be seen. Although there is a 30-degree curve 900 feet south of the crossing, there is a possibility of projecting the crossing flasher beam into the highway south of that curve. One way to do it is to use lamps that have that have a beam-spread wide enough. I don’t know if spreading the beam compromises its strength. Another way would be to use multiple lamps, so some are aimed down the highway between the curve and the crossing, and the other lamps are turned 30-degrees so they aim down the highway south of the curve. In any case, it would be possible to project the signals beyond the curve. If that is the case, then my calculation of there being only a 2.92 second warning for a truck such as the one in the crash, traveling at 70 mph, is incorrect.
I had a phone conversation with the Public Information Officer of the Nevada DOT, and ran this 2.92-second calculation past him, and he said he was unqualified to confirm or refute my analysis. He assured me that other people in their organization were qualified to address my analysis, and that they would do so if asked. I sent them a message inquiring about this on 8/16, and am still awaiting their reply.
In some of the news coverage of this crash, investigators stated that the lights were visible from ½ mile. Whether that is actually the case at this crossing through the curve in the highway, or whether it is simply the straight-line projection specification of the light beam, I don’t know. The Public Information Officer of NVDOT says the signal lamps meet the requirement of being able to be seen from 2000 feet.
The NTSB preliminary report linked above by Falcoln48, in its opening statement, says 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.”
However, this NTSB statement needs clarification, because the language of it strikes me as purposely vague. For example, if there were nothing blocking the field of vision between a person and the crossing 20 miles away, you could say that the sight distance was 20 miles. I want to know how many feet down that highway a person with good vision can see the flashing lights of the crossing.
Also interesting is the fact that this one technical detail given in the opening statement is left out of the language of the preliminary report. And yet that preliminary report contains all of the other details necessary to describe the circumstances of the crash. It repeats many of the details given in the opening statement, but not the visibility distance of the crossing upon approach. It appears, as one would expect, that the preliminary report is an elaboration of the opening statement. So it seems odd to give a pertinent detail in the opening statement and then leave it out of the preliminary report, which includes all of the other pertinent details.
Therefore, I would regard the NTSB finding to be authoritative, but I would first have to know what the finding means. So I would not jump to the conclusion that a driver has a warning of 20-25 seconds until the NTSB actually says that. Also, the preliminary report does say that the information is preliminary and may be corrected or supplemented during the course of the investigation.
I would also not conclude that warning was adequate simply because the two following drivers reacted in time. For one thing, they were not on the same collision course with the train as the first truck. But aside from that, I am not saying that the driver was blameless. He obviously was negligent. Even if my 2.92-second analysis is correct, that is still enough time to see the danger. The truck driver waited past that warning, but that does not mean that every driver will do that.
Throughout this thread, my point has not been to vindicate the truck driver, although the tread title may imply that. In fact, if I had somehow learned the details of this crossing setup, I would be making my point about this even if this crash had not occurred. My concern is about the danger of this crossing.
One other item. As I recall Battle Mountain(the trucking co) uses a commercial GMRS set up to communicate between trucks and loaders/dump operators. They usually do not talk on CB's as a result.
Thx IGN
There was some speculation about cell phones early on. Personally I did not think it would be a possibility as I remember it there is not any cell phone coverage out that way(it is as remote as you can get in the 48 states).
My company used to do 6 runs a week from Idaho down to the Los Angeles area. It's been 2 years or so since I'd been down that patch of road. Only drove it southbound though.
It tends to be a boring stretch of road. And there are any number of pullouts to take a break at.
Rgds IGN
From all the Forums I am a member of I have not heard Crap of there being a Cell phone in use. The only thing I have heard of being in use was a CB Radio and all drivers have used them for Years with no issues. No dialing involved just push to Talk.
A question: Did either the Nevada State Patrol or the NTSB find any evidence of cell phone use? Personally I would be surprised if they did as I do not remember there being service out that way.
Rough guess From 70MPH empty from what I have read and personal Experiance from driving 53 ft trailers most of my time out there. We are looiking at around 600-650 feet easy from the time the brakes applied to the time he would have been able to STOP. BTW anyone that pulls a LCV on a highway most insurance carriers demand at least 5 years accident free and also you better have better have one hell of an attention on what that back wagon is doing. I know 12 years ago Fed ex Ground offered me a run from Chicago to Dallas with a Driver I knew and Resepcted greatly. We both told them to SHOVE it. Neither one of us wanted to be pulling Wiggle Wagons in the winter. That give you a clue how much that back trailer can move around. Both of us were drivers with close to a million miles and NEITHER ONE OF US WANTED TO DRIVE THEM.
Yes that driver Screwed up by not stopping in time but he could not have stopped if he wanted to. Something tells me that there is going to be some major HEADS rolling in NV by the time all this is over. The State seems to think that one size fits all works they forget that Trucks can not stop as fast as cars. Why do you think that more and more Drivers and Companies are mounting Cameras in their Cabs that can catch what all the vechiles around them are doing. I know of a driver that was able to prove in court that he was cut off by a what we called a Diver and stopper to cause and accident. That guy tried to sue him his Insurance carrier Countersued for the Damages and Legal fees and WON with that tape. The driver is now doing 15 years and the Atty was Disbarred turns out they were running a scam against Truckers hoping for a quick settlement everytime.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.