How do you comply with the Nevada driver's manual requiring a driver to slow down when they don't tell you how much to slow down? If you are going 70, are you legal to slow down to 69?
Mr. Macgruder needs a copy of the Nevada drivers handbook, apparently.
Bucyrus The road is flat with few visual obstructions, and relatively little traffic.
Today, I talked to the Scott Magruder, Public Information Officer of the Nevada DOT, and received some preliminary information. He said that, including the crossing of the 6/24 crash, they have five grade crossings in the state that are on 65 and 70 mph roads, and host fast passenger trains. In the wake of the crash, they are looking at ways to improve the safety of all five crossings, and particularly the crossing at the crash site.
They are considering lowering the speed limit to 55 mph or lower in the vicinity of the crossings in conjunction with signage explaining that the speed reduction is due the crossing danger. They acknowledge a downside to lowering the speed limit, in that it creates a rear-end collision hazard.
They are also considering adding some type of advance warning lights, either as an alternative to lowering the speed limit or in conjunction with it. They see the ultimate solution as building a bridge, but they consider it to be cost-prohibitive. It is also possible that the state will decide to do nothing with the five crossings. Mr. Magruder did not know when the state will announce their intentions regarding their review of these crossings.
According to information published in the news coverage of this crash, Mr. Magruder is quoted as saying that this crossing signal warning is visible from 2000 feet, which meets the national standard. I mentioned that the highway makes an angle change of 30 degrees about 900 feet south of the crossing, and asked him if the signals are capable of projecting a visual warning for 2000 feet despite that angle change of the highway. He said that was a good question, but he did not have the answer. Others in their organization can provide the answer to that question.
He also informed me that there is no legal requirement to slow down for the crossing if no trains are approaching and the signals are not activated. Crossing at the 70 mph is permissible. He also mentioned that speeding on that highway is very common, and that the public is constantly pressuring the legislature to raise the speed limit. The road is flat with few visual obstructions, and relatively little traffic. These characteristics combined with the large sense of open space, make most drivers feel that 70 mph is too slow.
Very easy to pick the lock!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It will show locked if the last post is locked.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This thread is not locked. It never was. It only said it was locked.
OTR carries 80% of the Nations Freight,so 20% goes to Rail / Pipelines / Watter Transportation / Air Freight,Give me a Break Please.
Russell
One more thing on the Nevada crash,John Davis Trucking is going down for this one.
Yes the trucks that haul all the fresh chickens out of NC will be out of business if the Railroads did not deliever all of that chicken feed here,That i know is Case Farms feeds all of their chickens by feed brought in by Rail.And trucks did not save this Nation,Rail was dying off because trucking was getting a allmost FREE ride,And still do.And Sam Walton took advanatage of that Free Ride big time.I will say this and say it again,Railroads built america and Trucking is wrecking America.
Help me out here ,Ed. In the first paragraph you say that you lost your medical card. In the second paragraph we find "we do not", "we always have to", "will fire us","We can sit", and "yet if we log it like we do it".
So, are you driving or not? Legally or illegally? And regardless why must you subject everyone on a railroad forum to your repetitive whining and snivelings about something that it appears that you don't even do?
Russell I have loved Trains alot longer than I drove Trucks my house Overlooks the BNSF Transcon Mainline. My Basset hound is named GEVO. I have been to every major Midwestern RR museum there is and make at least 4 trips to Rochelle a Year. I was all set up for Parlor class seat behind 3751 but when she did not make the trip east I cancelled sorry Been pulled Behind 765 Do not need another trip behind her.
Just because I am defending the Driver and the Trucking industry does not make me Anti train there are alot of OTR drivers that are Railfans also. I have railfanned Cajon Pass while Driving OTr Techachapi Loop Donner Pass Colombia Gorge Sherman Hill the Triple track arcoss Nebraska. Hell I have seen more of the Rail than I think some of the CEO's People need to Realize this the Railroads Built this Nation but when they wer Dying off the Trucks Saved this nation in the 50's 60's and 70's Before they were Deregulated. Even after OTR trucking still carries 80% of all the freight on a tonnage basis of the fright moved in this Nation. We have about a lock on the Produce market. Wal-Mart not one of their DC's Nation wide has a rail siding into it when asked 30 years ago Sam Walton answered this way I need my Products on a Certain Day the only way I can get that is with Truck not Trains.
The Fresh Poultry Indusrty in the Carolinas would Collaspe without the Trucking Indsutry just who do you think hauls all those Chickens and Turkeys out of there. Let alone the Processed Birds I can tell you this it is not the Boy scouts.
Look I drove OTR a total of 7 Years a combo of Intrastate and Interstate til I devoleped Epilepsy and lost my Medical Quals. I myself am not resolving the Driver of all blame however that Crossing has a History of Near Misses and the UP has a History itself of not doing ITS job at least here in IL of maintaining Crossing signals like they should. When this accident happened I knew it was going to be a HUGE black eye on the Trucking Industry however it might just be the Wake up call that the Feds need to realize that more REGS on top of ervrything they have thrown at us are NOT the answer.
Things worked great for over 70 Years with a 10/8 Scheduale with 70hours in 8 days with No Reset it forced us to Use our Hours WISELY not waste them. Now with a reset we do not care how they get used. Drivers get Burned out because they are forced to run harder now than 10 years age Why 10 years ago we could STOP and take a Break and get something to ea. Now we always have to hammer on it to make scheduled delivey times if not our carriers will fire us for being late. Yet the FMCSAA still to this day refuses to do anything to anything about the massive abuse of wasted time we have at shippers and Recievers. We can sit a some places for 12-14 hours with no access to Food Drinks Bathrooms and are still expected to run 11 hours after leaving there. Yet if we log it like we do it our Earning Potential suffers BIG TIME. See the Catch 22 truckers are in.
What needs to be done to improve Rail crossing saftey and hell Highway saftey in Genral First get rid of People that Never have been in a Cab or behind the Wheel of a truck writing the Rules and Regulations we have to Obey. You honestly think some wet behind the ears Lawyer that thinks trucks should only run at night or be only allowed to take their trailers to the nearest rail yard knows what the Industry needs. Some of the People at teh FRA still think the Steam engine runs I bet or the Chattanooga Choo choo is real. Best one was a rookie DOT officer I had 10 Years ago that thought his badge could make a PO heifer move back into her spot because the truck was overaxle.
edbenton I have a Question for everyone on this forum. Name one thing in your house that a Truck played no part in Delivering to the Store were it was Purchased. BTW that includes the Manufacturing side and production side. Since I have Yet to see a Menard's Home Depot Ace Hardware with a Siding Behind it. Also Target Kmart and Wal-mart do not have sidings behind their Stores also. Wal-mart is one of the Largest Private Fleets in the Nation with close to 10K trailers and 4K trucks do the math.
I have a Question for everyone on this forum. Name one thing in your house that a Truck played no part in Delivering to the Store were it was Purchased. BTW that includes the Manufacturing side and production side. Since I have Yet to see a Menard's Home Depot Ace Hardware with a Siding Behind it. Also Target Kmart and Wal-mart do not have sidings behind their Stores also. Wal-mart is one of the Largest Private Fleets in the Nation with close to 10K trailers and 4K trucks do the math.
mr. midget: Perhaps you are the one who needs a rest. You jump around on here insulting any and all who you perceive to disagree with your points. You seem to have some personal grudge against Bucyrus or anyone else who dares to suggest that the status quo in rail crossing protection might need examination. So to turn your own argument back on you, what's your angle? What vested interest do you have in assuring a simple whitewash of the Nevada accident, that it's 100% human (the truck driver's) error? Is it just possible that some percentage of the fault could be in the crossing design and warning signaling?
Give it a rest. You're way off topic.
A long blast on a Five Chime Air Horn, followed by a second long blast, followed by a short blast, and then a long blast overlaping the crossing!
Hard to miss that even with the windows closed and the Stereo blasting.
What about the two other trucks following? Wait until we hear from the drivers, is there a locomotive cab video, we know the Amtrak engins have Black Boxes. Lots to come out.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
tdmidget Re: the Nevada driver's handbook. What part of "always" do you not understand? " But, as I say, yielding does not necessarily require a driver to slow down." What planet are you from? "Yield" means be prepared to stop. If that requires slowing down, then it is indeed required. One of the required conditions in Nevada for a complete stop is when a train "clearly visible". Nuff said here I guess, hard to hit one that isn't clearly visible.
Re: the Nevada driver's handbook. What part of "always" do you not understand?
" But, as I say, yielding does not necessarily require a driver to slow down."
What planet are you from? "Yield" means be prepared to stop. If that requires slowing down, then it is indeed required.
One of the required conditions in Nevada for a complete stop is when a train "clearly visible". Nuff said here I guess, hard to hit one that isn't clearly visible.
tdmidget,
Thank you for your lively reply.
Yes, if a train is coming, then there is a stop requirement, but we are talking about what a driver is supposed to do when a train is not coming. I am talking about the normal required driver routine at this crossing, not the specific action of the driver in the crash.
Regarding that point; you say that IF yielding requires slowing down, then it is indeed required. So from your own words, it follows that if yielding does NOT require slowing down, then slowing down is not required.
That is what I meant when I said, “yielding does NOT NECESSARILY require a driver to slow down.”
So we are saying the same thing. Yield only means “give way.” That requires a driver to be prepared to give way or even stop if necessary. If the visibility is limited to what a driver is supposed to give way to, then a driver must not exceed the speed at which it is possible to give way. If that speed is the speed limit or higher, the the driver may properly yield without slowing down.
I prefer to wait to see the NTSB report before speculating on things like highway conditions. This may be a case where the driver was aware of the train and thought he could beat it (the fact that approaching trains may appear to be going slower than they are is a well known phenomena). I don't know this as a fact, but I think NTSB will be able to sort this out. They're good at this sort of thing.
I agree, by the way, that the highway configuration approaching the crossing would be unsafe if a driver approaching the crossing at maximum permissible highway speed had to essentially lock up his brakes the instant the crossing signals actuated to avoid hitting an approaching train. But, if the driver in this situation had enough time to make a controlled, non-panic stop when the signals actuated, then it is clearly the driver's fault, and no one else's. I also note that, under FRA rules, grade crossing signals must activate a minimum of 20 seconds before a train occupies a crossing (49 CFR 234.225), and many crossing installations are designed for a longer advance warning. I'm not a truck driver, but it's a little difficult to see how a truck going 70 mph could not be brought to a complete stop in 20 seconds, unless it was on a heavy downgrade, which doesn't seem to be the case here (and, if it was, the driver of a heavy truck shouldn't have been going 70 mph down such a grade). Also, based on the reports I've seen of this accident, the truck was still going pretty fast when he hit the train. That suggests that the driver didn't even try to stop when the signals actuated, and only attempted to stop when it became obvious that he was not going to beat the train. But we'll see for sure when NTSB issues its report.
Re: your obfuscations about minneasota laws and nonbinding opinions from people obvious not qualified to comment. lotsa luck with that in a Nevada court. Again this was a professional driver and his burden of "extraordinary care" required him to know these rules better than you or I.
Guilty.
schlimm tdmidget: Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses. I do not believe that ANY state says that a posted speed limit is a safe speed. It is the MAXIMUM legal speed. So are you suggesting (besides your insulting remark) that all states post a maximum speed that is unsafe, but legal? That is clearly the logical conclusion if one accepts your belief.
tdmidget: Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses. I do not believe that ANY state says that a posted speed limit is a safe speed. It is the MAXIMUM legal speed.
Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses. I do not believe that ANY state says that a posted speed limit is a safe speed. It is the MAXIMUM legal speed.
So are you suggesting (besides your insulting remark) that all states post a maximum speed that is unsafe, but legal? That is clearly the logical conclusion if one accepts your belief.
Absolutely. No state says that the speed limit is safe for all drivers in all conditions. That is why a very common citation is "driving too fast for conditions". That may be weather, road conditions, traffic, or a specific hazard such as (gasp) a rail crossing. The driver was warned twice. He failed to reduce speed appropriate to the conditions, ergo , he is guilty of driving too fast for conditions as well as failure to stop at a rail crossing.
Re: the "insulting" remark? Speaks for itself. You should turn in your license ASAP.
blue streak 1 B: Very good point. my OTR experiences tell me that this is a dangerous situation and Nevada should have some way to slow trafic before the crossing. But also there may be other crossings nationwide that need NHTSA guidelines to prevent other possible collisiions. IIMHO 70 MPH is too fast to cross any railroad or another highway with traffic lights.
B: Very good point. my OTR experiences tell me that this is a dangerous situation and Nevada should have some way to slow trafic before the crossing. But also there may be other crossings nationwide that need NHTSA guidelines to prevent other possible collisiions. IIMHO 70 MPH is too fast to cross any railroad or another highway with traffic lights.
I have never seen a traffic light on a 70mph highway. They always reduce the speed before traffic signals to 55, 50, or 45mph. This seems kind of inconsistant to cross railroad tracks at 70mph. (maybe railroad crossings need a yellow before red)
You raise some interesting points. First of all, no, I am not a lawyer.
That excerpt you posted from the Nevada driver’s handbook may be referring only to so-called passive crossings (non-signalized crossings). But, in any case, yielding per se does not necessarily require a driver to slow down.
I can see two different reasons to slow down at a signalized grade crossing. One is the requirement to yield to a train even if the signals are not activated. But, as I say, yielding does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. It does require drivers to look for trains and to make sure none are approaching. The only reason the yield requirement would require a driver to slow down is if there is limited sight distance. That Nevada crossing has ample sight distance to see if a train is approaching without slowing down.
The other reason to slow down is to be able to stop short of the crossing should the lights happen to activate upon approach. Most state laws require a driver to stop for the red flashing lights. Some state laws allow a driver to proceed against the flashing lights under certain circumstances, but only after first coming to a stop. Yet it is impossible to stop for the lights should they happen to activate when a driver is say 100 feet away at 55 mph. The only way a driver could comply with the requirement to stop for the flashing lights would be to come to a complete stop, and then cross if the lights are not activated.
I can tell you that the Minnesota Highway Patrol does not want drivers to slow down in order to yield at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. And they certainly do not want drivers to slow down in order to yield to the signals in case they happen to activate upon approach. Some officers have even told me that they see no reason for drivers to yield at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. They don’t see the point. Many will tell you that the signals are fail safe, and they believe that means that the signals are infallible, which of course, there are not. The Minnesota DOT has also told me that the signals cannot fail.
If the Nevada law says to always slow down and listen, I guess that is the requirement, but I have found conflicts between the state laws and other directives. The Nevada law (according to the driver’s manual) requires a driver to slow down. How much should they slow down? The law also requires a driver to listen. Listen how? The only way listening is going to accomplish anything is to stop, shut off the engine, and roll down the windows. Is that what the law requires? I’ll bet the Nevada state patrol does not want drivers to do that. And suppose you listen and hear a train, but it is several miles away and not yet in sight. Then what do you do?
I asked the UMTCD how a driver can be expected to stop for the flashing red lights should they happen to activate upon approach when the driver is too close to stop. This is what they told me; however, I do not know what authority grants this. It clearly violates state laws:
“An approaching road user who is so close to the stop line for the active grade crossing when the flashing-light signals are activated that a safe stop is not possible will be forced to travel past the stop line while the lights are flashing. This road user will have no other choice because of the laws of physics. An approaching road user who is far enough from the stop line that a safe stop is possible is expected to come to a stop at the stop line. Although the various State statutes might say that it is a violation of the law to cross the stop line when the lights are flashing, a law enforcement officer who is present at the site and witnesses the violation would have to use professional judgment to determine if a stop would have been physically possible. It is unlikely that a ticket would be issued to a driver who is obeying the speed limit for the roadway who was physically unable to stop because of the proximity to the crossing when the lights began to flash. There is no need for approaching road users to decelerate to a very slow speed so that they can quickly stop if the lights are suddenly activated.”
tdmidget Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses. I do not believe that ANY state says that a posted speed limit is a safe speed. It is the MAXIMUM legal speed.
" Bucyrus:
I agree that the posted speed limit is the maximum and some conditions require a driver to drive slower than the maximum. However, none of those conditions exist at that Nevada crossing in dry weather with good visibility. There is nothing in the law that requires any driver to slow down solely because of the existence of that crossing.
B: Very good point. my OTR experiences tell me that this is a dangerous situation and Nevada should have some way to slow trafic before the crossing. But also there may be other crossings nationwide that need NHTSA guidelines to prevent other possible collisiions. IIMHO 70 MPH is too fast to cross any railroad or another highway with traffic lights."
You're both wrong. Nevada law requires a full stop under 4 conditions. Therefore, having been warned of the existence of the crossing by two warning signs the driver should be prepared to stop as long as the crossing was visible. Nowhere does it say you can cross at 70 MPH. Having been warned, one should be prepared to stop.
One of the conditions requiring a stop is "when a train is in hazardous proximity of the crossing and is plainly visible."
Looks like that base was covered.
From the Nevada drivers handbook:
Cross railroad tracks only at designated crossings.
Railroad crossbuck signs are posted to show the location where railroads intersect every highway, road, or street grade crossing. If the crossing has more than one track, it will have a posted sign showing the number of tracks. Cross railroad tracks only at designated crossings and always obey all warning signs and signals. Always slow down, look both ways as far as possible down the tracks, listen, and prepare to stop and yield the right-of-way to any approaching trains. You must check for trains even if you do not hear any coming. If you see a train coming, stop! Never try to beat it.
Note " Always slow down".
Dragoman has fessed up Bucyrus, Tell us , you are a lawyer too, right?
edbenton BTW according to the the US Dept of Labor OTR trucking is NOT considered Skilled Labor. We are in charge of Trucks that weigh 80K or more in somne states or if oversized Yet we are considered UNSKILLED Labor like the guy Flipping Hamburgers. We deliver everything that the USA needs but the Goverment declares us UNSKILLED Labor worth no more than a HS kid that works for Mc Donalds filling a coke at teh Drive thru.
BTW according to the the US Dept of Labor OTR trucking is NOT considered Skilled Labor. We are in charge of Trucks that weigh 80K or more in somne states or if oversized Yet we are considered UNSKILLED Labor like the guy Flipping Hamburgers. We deliver everything that the USA needs but the Goverment declares us UNSKILLED Labor worth no more than a HS kid that works for Mc Donalds filling a coke at teh Drive thru.
Bucyrus tdmidget, I agree that the posted speed limit is the maximum and some conditions require a driver to drive slower than the maximum. However, none of those conditions exist at that Nevada crossing in dry weather with good visibility. There is nothing in the law that requires any driver to slow down solely because of the existence of that crossing.
Society has an objective to prevent death and injury that is above and beyond the matter of negligence or blame of the victims in deadly mishaps, and society has assigned responsibilities to meet that objective.
Nobody here is contending that the driver was not at fault. My overall point in this thread is that there are safety system deficiencies with the Nevada crossing, and that society’s assumed and assigned responsibilities to protect that crossing have not been met.
That point that I am making is actually not dependent on the facts of the 6/24/11 crossing crash. I would make the same point even if the 6/24 crash had never occurred. My point is about the crossing setup and the highway speed limit. I am not trying to vindicate the truck driver in the 6/24 crash and place his blame on something or somebody else, as you are assuming.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.