Ed,
With the type of truck involved with this crash, running empty on dry pavement in a straight line at 70 mph, what would you estimate the total braking distance to be?
I am referring to braking distance only; not factoring in reaction time. I am referring to the distance from the point of maximum application of the brakes to the point where the truck stops.
References vary on this point, so I am asking for your informed opinion.
Current FMCSA regulations ONLY require a Driver to Stop at EVERY CROSSING when Hauling Haz-Mat or Passengers on a Bus unless the Crossing is mark with the Excempt signage. Otherwise they can go right thru the Crossing unless there is a Train VISABLE or the Warning signs for the Crossing are Activated and down if it is equipped with Crossbars. Now from that Picture series I posted from that Blog from 900 feet away YOU cna not EVEN see the freaking crossing 650 which would have been the LAST time the Driver would have been able to Safely stop beyond that by the time the rear axle engaged on the back trailer HE WAS SCREWED.
The Tractor has what is called a TPS or Tractor Protection System that makes the Tractors brakes the LASTbrakes to apply at least they did when I drove it helped prevent Jacknifes. Well the way the system works is the in an OTR truck is our Brakes are held off by Pressure and use Pressure to APPLY also. So when we apply the brakes we are feeding pressure thru another separate set of lines to apply the brakes. Best of both worlds lose the air pressure we still stop also. Well problem is it will not apply the brakes Closest to the Driver til the ones Farthest AWAY from the Driver have been applied at the Pressure the Driver wants. So if yoru wanting a Emergancy stop the delay can be around .4 seconds total. So say he saw the train at 400 feet away slammed on the brakes by the time everything applied he would have been in the 330-320 foot range. His last act was problay scream on the radio to the 2 behind him Stop NOW.
Even the New Regs the Feds are pushing to shorten Stopping Distances on Heavy trucks would not have stopped this accident from happening why your going to ask. They are designed for a LOADED truck not an EMPTY truck. An unladen truck takes about 20% longer to stop than a loaded one since they have a tendancy to hop on a stop.
The key is situational awareness (AKA defensive driving). If I've been looking at a green light for more than a short time, the odds are rising that it's going to change on me as I approach it.
Yes, I do look both ways on approach to a crossing, as much as possible.
And I also drive emergency vehicles. Our state law says that when running red lights and siren we have to drive with "due regard." That essentially translates to "if you have an accident, it'll be your fault, no matter who is truly to blame."
This discussion isn't going to end until:
1. Bucyrus is proven right by the final report, or
2. Everybody agrees that Bucyrus is right.
If the final report comes out and does not agree with Bucyrus' assessment, we'll be treated to pages and pages of why the report is wrong.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I slow down at EVERY crossing or intersection. I slow down enough to see if there is a hazard when visibility is bad. I slow down for rolling hazards described. And no I won't likely get hit from behind. Even with these cautions I seem to be in the faster percentiles. It is entirely possible to be an alert defensive driver who anticipates hazards and not drive like a grandma. This driver was not aware of his situation or he was reckless.
Ed, chime in here, is either of these excusable in a professional driver?
@tdmidget: If you slow down at every green light or rail crossing (even when there are no flashing lights or gates coming down), sooner or later you will get run over from behind because of your unsafe driving practices. Why you can't see the need for better protection from human error at crossings, as Semper Vaporo said, is beyond me and not worth additional discussion.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I want more protection from the HUMAN driver (which we ALL are). EVERYBODY can make a mistake. We are ALL subject to moments of distractions, lapses in skill, confusion, befuddlement, and simple failure to process the external stimuli that driving presents.
If we were all perfect we would not need CDL's or any sort of driver's license, nor would we need traffic controls, nor any sort of warning signage or signals at RR crossings. We would all know how to drive perfectly in all situations. ACCIDENTS would only be caused by mechanical failure... Not HUMAN failure.
BUT... There NO perfect drivers. None, Nada, Psylztche... Not me, not you, not anybody..
IF there is a way to help ALL of US HUMANOIDS to be more attentive to our skills as drivers then lets get off our "high horses" and find ways to do so and demand they be implimented.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
If I can't see what's coming, you bet I do. And if I see a dingbat talking on the phone, applying makeup, reading (yes, I've seen it) or looking the other way I slow down. It's called defensive driving. You should check it out.
Well you have come full circle. Now you agree that there WAS visibility AND there was plenty of room to stop. So there is no need for a star wars warning system. Just need a better driver.
@midget: So, according to your logic, you slow down [you don't specify the speed] every time you see a green light ahead of you on the chance it could turn red before you clear the intersection? Especially since there are always cars and trucks bearing down on the intersection from two directions?
Falcon48 Bucyrus: But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet. It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet. Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop. So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds. Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf This analysis is not correct because it neglects the fact (as discussed in my previous post) that the crossing signals (which, according to all reports I've seen to date, were functioning properly) would have actuated at least 20 seconds before the train entered the crossing. Therefore, the truck driver had at least 20 seconds advance warning of the approach of the train. If he had been "distracted" for 2.92 seconds, he would still have had 17.08 seconds to stop from 70 mph. That's over 5 times the amount of time he would have needed to safely bring his truck to a stop from 70 mph according to your figures.
Bucyrus: But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet. It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet. Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop. So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds. Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet.
It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet.
Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop.
So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds.
Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31:
http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
The signals do provide a warning between the time of activation and the moment the train arrives at the crossing. I understand that warning lasts 25 seconds. However that warning is of no use to an approaching driver if that driver cannot see it because of a bend in the road, as there is in the northbound approach. When a driver rounds that bend and sees the warning, he or she is 900 feet from the crossing or 8.76 seconds at the 70 mph speed limit.
For a truck such as the one in this particular crash, requiring 600 feet to stop, that leaves a warning of 2.92 seconds, as I detailed in the post you quoted above.
tdmidget ... then you must be prepared to stop and if that means slowing down, then you must do so.
... then you must be prepared to stop and if that means slowing down, then you must do so.
(My emphasis added to quote by TDM)
If a crossing has limited visibility down the tracks, and is not signalized, then being prepared to stop might require slowing down. However those conditions do not apply to the Nevada crash crossing.
There is no need to slow down there in order to be prepared to stop. Assuming that a driver is not distracted, there is ample time for a 70 mph vehicle to stop within that final 900 ft. straight approach if a train is approaching, no matter whether the signals are working or not. So there is not a need to slow down in anticipation of the need to stop.
I read it quite carefully and accurately. If you may have to stop under ANY condition, and that condition may occur at any moment, then you must be prepared to stop and if that means slowing down, then you must do so. It is asinine to think that one would cross a railroad track signaled or not with no idea of whether or not a train is approaching. Remember there is ALWAYS a train somewhere on that track and you don't know where if you don't look. A green traffic light does not protect you from someone running a light. A crossing signal is not immune to malfunction or sabotage by the same cretins that make part 223 glazing necessary.
Bucyrus But this does involve colliding with a train. Here is some interesting information from the Nevada driver’s manual on the topic of vehicle stopping distance. It factors in a reaction time of 2.5 seconds and gives definitions distinguishing stopping distance from braking distance. For a typical passenger car on dry pavement, at 65 mph, it gives a total stopping distance of 494 feet. It does not give the stopping distance for 70 mph, however it does say that if you double the speed, it increases the braking distance by a factor of four. So, if we look at the speed of 35 mph, it gives a braking distance of 68 feet. Then if you multiply that number by four, it gives a braking distance at 70 mph as 272 feet. And then if you add in the 2.5-second reaction time, it gives a total stopping distance for a typical passenger car traveling 70 mph as being 527 feet. Given the fact that trucks have a longer stopping distance than passenger cars, and given the numerical spread between the stopping distance of trucks versus passenger cars in other tables available on the web; I think that one could make a conservative estimate that the truck involved in the Nevada crash would require 600 feet to stop. So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds. Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31: http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
tdmidget Bucyrus the law says "shall stop". To stop you must conform to certain laws of physics regarding speed and inertia. There you must reduce speed to a level that will permit you to stop. Ergo, you must slow down.
Bucyrus the law says "shall stop". To stop you must conform to certain laws of physics regarding speed and inertia. There you must reduce speed to a level that will permit you to stop. Ergo, you must slow down.
Given that you didn't read the law very carefully, you might go a little lighter on your condescending sarcasm. The law clearly says stop, but only under certain conditions: 1. When a device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train. 2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train. 3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard. or 4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
tdmidget,
Of course you have to slow down if you are required to stop for a train. But we are not talking about slowing down for that reason. We are talking about the reason that you brought up earlier with your contention that a driver must to slow down in order to be prepared to stop, even when a train is not present. Being prepared to stop does not require slowing down.
According to the law, and according to the Information Officer of the Nevada DOT, there is no reason to slow down for the Nevada crash crossing when the signals are not activated.
If Nevada has a shortcoming here (assuming that he had a Nevada license) then it would seem that it would not be unreasonable to have a railroad crossing on a practical test and see if he indeed was prepared to stop. If he did not demonstrate that level of competence then he should have failed. If he did the it is even more damning evidence that he was negligent.
What else should the law say? should it say "lift your foot off the accelerator and move it to the left sso that it is over the brake pedal. Now lower your foot to the brake pedal and push (should it say how hard to push?) and place your right hand on the gear shift lever. Hmmmmm this going to be a complicated law, what with different gearboxes, types of brakes, etc. Or is the law allowed to assume some things?
All railfans slow at all RR crossings in the hope of seeing a train
Non-railfans speed up at all RR crossings in the hope of not being stopped by the infernal things.'
If you asked 100 railroaders and 100 railfans if it is ever okay for a driver to drive right past the red flashing crossing lights without stopping or even slowing down, what do you suppose all of them would say?
The State issued "Driver's Manual" is often similar to those insurance documents that present an insurance policy in "easy-to-read" text . If you read the fine print it states that the REAL policy is described in the official documents and the "easy-to-read" document has no enforceable information. If the "easy-to-read" document says one thing, but the "hard-to-read" document says another, the "hard-to-read" document is the one that takes precedence. Which implies (to me) that the "easy-to-read" document is worthless... You may think you have purchased one type of insurance, but you really do not have the coverage you think you bought. In the business world it is known as "Caveat Emptor" (let the buyer beware), but in the law world, it is "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (You're screwed).
But for the average driver they are likely the ONLY source that they will ever see.
Driver's manuals are often different from statutes and thus are not the most reliable source for info.
Schlimm,
That is very interesting to see the actual Nevada law. Note that it does not even use the term “yield,” but it describes a requirement that amounts to yielding, but only if a train is approaching or if the signals activate. In reading it several times, it is not clear to me whether or not it requires drivers to look for trains in anticipation of yielding to them at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated as Operation Lifesaver, the FRA, and the state DOTS all say is required by law. The way it is written, I would say the law is ambiguous on that point.
Also note that it does not require a driver to slow down in anticipation of yielding to trains under any conditions as the Nevada driver manual says is required under all conditions at crossings.
from the Nevada Revised Statutes:
Railroad Grade Crossings
NRS 484B.553 Obedience to signal indicating approach of railroad train.
1. Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing and a clearly visible official traffic-control or railroad device gives warning of the immediate approach of a train, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest track of such railroad and shall not proceed until the driver can do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when:
(a) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train.
(b) A crossing gate is lowered or when a flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train.
(c) A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard.
(d) An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
2. A person shall not drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1493)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.349)
NRS 484B.557 Stop required at certain railroad grade crossings. The Department of Transportation, and local authorities with the approval of the Department of Transportation, may designate dangerous highway grade crossings of railroads and erect official traffic-control devices at such crossings directing a stop. When such stop signs are erected the driver of any vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest track of such a grade crossing and afterward may proceed only upon exercising due care.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1494; A 1979, 1804)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.351)
NRS 484B.560 Certain vehicles required to stop at all railroad grade crossings; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the driver of any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, or of any school bus carrying any school child, or of any vehicle carrying any explosive or flammable liquid as a cargo or part of a cargo, before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad, shall stop that vehicle within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along the track for any approaching train, and for signals indicating the approach of a train, and shall not proceed until the driver can do so safely.
2. After stopping as required in this section and upon proceeding when it is safe to do so, the driver of any such vehicle shall cross only in a gear of the vehicle that there will be no necessity for changing gears while traversing the crossing and the driver shall not shift gears while crossing the track or tracks.
3. When stopping is required at a railroad crossing the driver shall keep as far to the right of the highway as possible and shall not form two lanes of traffic unless the highway is marked for four or more lanes of traffic.
4. No such stop need be made at a railroad crossing:
(a) Where a police officer or official traffic-control device controls the movement of traffic.
(b) Which is marked with a device indicating that the crossing is abandoned.
(c) Which is a streetcar crossing or is used exclusively for industrial switching purposes within an area designated as a business district.
(d) Which is marked with a sign identifying it as an exempt crossing. Signs identifying a crossing as exempt may be erected only:
(1) If the tracks are an industrial or spur line;
(2) By or with the consent of the appropriate state or local authority which has jurisdiction over the road; and
(3) After the State or the local authority has held a public hearing to determine whether the crossing should be designated an exempt crossing.
(Added to NRS by 1969, 1495; A 1979, 1117)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.353)
So this would confirm that the grade crossing warning for such a truck approaching the Nevada crossing northbound with its 900-foot straight approach would be 300 feet or 2.92 seconds. What that means is that a distraction that lasts 2.92 seconds would make difference between colliding with a train and stopping in time. So you can see that there would be enough stopping distance but just barely. A driver would have to be distracted for a collision to occur, but it would only take 2.92 seconds of distraction. I don’t think the victims on the train would be satisfied with the explanation that they are dead because the driver was distracted for 2.92 seconds.
tree68 We already did that math. If a driver gets caught with insufficient time to stop, the train will still be 20 seconds from the crossing when he blows through.
We already did that math. If a driver gets caught with insufficient time to stop, the train will still be 20 seconds from the crossing when he blows through.
The point of what I said in my last post does not involve a problem of clearing the train. It involves running the flashing lights when the state laws all forbid that. It is the point of the "Catch-22" so to speak. Although it is a practical point at high speeds because of the dilema it presents to a driver.
Murray Most states require a driver to treat the railroad crossing just like a stop light...and instruct you to be prepared to stop in the event of lights flashing etc........
Most states require a driver to treat the railroad crossing just like a stop light...and instruct you to be prepared to stop in the event of lights flashing etc........
Yes, that is an interesting point. You have to yield to a train, but you also have to yield to the flashing lights, and they come on without any warning. There might be a warning of the lights about to activate on the basis of a visible train, but during approach, the lights can activate before a driver sees the train, or even activate if there is no train. In any case, the lights require the driver to stop. There are certain circumstances where a driver can proceed after stopping, but the initial stop is required. The state laws absolutely forbid a driver to pass the red flashing lights without stopping.
Yet the laws of physics may prevent a driver from being able to stop quick enough to avoid passing the activated lights. Under those circumstances, the UMTCD says it is okay for the driver to pass the lights without stopping. So a driver is supposed to decide whether he or she can or cannot stop, and then act accordingly.
If a driver were to prepare to stop for the red lights should they happen to activate upon approach, he or she would have to slow way down. Actually you would have to stop in order to be really prepared to not pass the lights if they should happen to activate. The UMTCD says they do not want drivers to slow down at crossings for that reason. They say that if you can't stop, you can run the lights.
Yes, the responsibility lies first with the driver, Stop, Look, Listen! Funny how laws reflect that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.