Attys are the Reason that the HOS that served Great for over 70 YEARS have been REWRITTEN 3 times in less than 10 years. Why they keep trying to force major changes and a One Size fits all onto an Idustry that is NOT ONE SIZE fits all. Yet our Accident rate Per Million Miles has Dropped Every Year. Now they are Screaming we need EBOR's since one driver in 1000 might run Illegal to get that load of Roases there that he was loaded late.
Here are some of the things they have taken from us the Ability to Take a Break during the Day to get a MEAL now once that truck starts to move our so called 14 hour clock starts and YOU better not stop moving for 11 hours our YOUR SCREWED. That leads to another Problem we can not get a nap if we get tired during that 11 hour stretch of driving and have to push thru and drive FATIGUED.
Next we used to be Restricted to no more than 70 hours in 8 days now with a rest there are weeks you can work more than that in the same amount of time so how is that helping. Last is CVSA 2010 or as Drivers are calling it Can the Feds SCREW us ANYMORE. We can have a tailight go out during the Day while Driving and Guess what it is 22 Points on our CVSA Chart Scale 30 is a 6 MONTHS UNPAID VACATION. How is suspending a driver for 6 months for a Blown Tailight or a Mudflap that gets rtorn off from running over a piece a debris in the road Promoting Highway Saftey.
All these Programs are Brought to you by USDOT LAWYERS that have never spent one day in a truck. Not to Mention all the Other BS the States have thrown at us like Anti-Idle laws were it can be over 100 outside hot enough to fry an egg on your Dash BUT SORRY YOU HAVE TO SLEEP IN YOUR TRUCK FOR YOUR MANDATED 10 HOURS. Or the Crap the NE is pulling with the 2 grand fines if we fail to clear the roofs of our trailers off from snowand Ice. Word to the Wise we Can't not without OSHA approved Saftey Railings.
Then we have the fact that States see us as Rolling ATM''s Rhode Island has a Bridge on I-95 a Federal Highway the Only Interstate in their State needs Replace instead of doing it what did they do Lowered the Weight limit on it and are now FINING trucks 3 Grand everytime they Cross it.
Why was the Driver of this truck Hired more than likely he had a CLEAN CVSA Score and the INSURANCE company cleared him. The cost of Complianing with all the DOT Regulations is what Drives compaines out of Business. I asked what it costs a small trucking company near here to stay legal with all the DOT regs and he runs Haz-Mat Tanks and Van Freight. He told me about 10K a year per Truck he has 250 Trucks. The 10K he is talking about is just the Paperwork fees he has to pay not including Insurance Fuel his Taxes and Driver wages.
Nothing I can (or care to) disagree with there, "tdmidget". Driver failed to control his vehicle, and this was a professional driver to boot. No argument.
That fact, with which we both agree, does not, however (in my personal opinion), negate the possibility that there perhaps could be -- or even should be -- some improvement in this particular highway/railroad interface. (Of course, I can't say that this is my legal opinion, because we don't know all the facts -- and, I'd have to charge you for it!)
Agreed, that a law degree is not required to understand basic traffic laws. I have held driver licenses in at least 6 states and in all it was very clear that a speed limit is just that, a limit. It is not a specified speed nor a recommended speed, although when I am behind a cretin(especially two who feel the need to drive side by side at what they see as the proper speed for all) between Tucson and Phoenix) I wish it were the required speed. However these types are already over their heads so it might be even more dangerous if they traveled the speed limit.
We are talking here about a professional driver, a CDL holder, a driver for hire, one who is expected (as your legal education surely tells you) to exercise extraordinary care in the performance of his duties as a driver. He is expected to know the laws, the limitations of he and his equipment, to anticipate hazards and to act accordingly. This is not a kid with a new license and limited experience, but a professional driver, expected to exercise the same cautions as an airline pilot or ship captain in the execution of their duties. He has failed miserably and to attempt to blame anyone else demeans every professional by saying that they have no control over such incidents. The truth is that they are paid (fairly or not, immaterial) , to exercise this extraordinary care and he did not.
Examine this in the light of your legal education. The driver has failed his legal and moral obligations. He is not a victim.
Regardless of visibility, signals, advance warnings, (900 feet and 650 feet), he has failed in his burden of extraordinary care.
Clear and simple; he has failed.
DragomanI know them well. In fact., I'll tell you where I got my law degree, and in what state I am licensed to practice law, if you first tell me the same about yourself, since you speak like an expert.
Charles W. Ainey - 1963, Dean of the Pennsylvania Bar Association
"The trouble with lawyers is they convince themselves that their clients are right."
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
td midget:
Upon reflection, I am sorry about the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" remark was uncalled for, and I do apologize.
You are absolutely right, that a posted speed limit is a maximum, not a recommendation. I am only trying to point out that, the reason some places are posted for 25, some for 45, and some for 70, is that the state has made a determination that the posted speed can be a safe speed. The state sometimes gets it wrong, and has to lower the speed limit. They have some responsibility for the limit that they set.
Example: Part of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is being rebuilt. As part of the process, an unusually tight S-curve has temporarily been built. After some 40+ accidents, including one involving a truck that flipped over and fell 200 feet to the ground below, killing the driver, new measures were taken, including warning signs reducing the recommended speed, rumble strips, etc. The truck driver was doing 10 MPH over the posted limit -- his fault. But the state still felt it had enough responsibilty to make changes.
tdmidget Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses.
Dragoman, it scary to think that some of you have drivers licenses.
Please let us not get personal here.
tdmidget I think that you need to consult your state's traffic laws and find out what a speed limit means.
I think that you need to consult your state's traffic laws and find out what a speed limit means.
I know them well. In fact., I'll tell you where I got my law degree, and in what state I am licensed to practice law, if you first tell me the same about yourself, since you speak like an expert.
tdmidget "Some men, you just can't reach"
"Some men, you just can't reach"
I was just about to say the same.
The law clearly recognizes that the state has some responsibility for how they set and post speed limits. I'm not saying that a driver has no responsibility to always be able to control their vehicle to avoid an accident, only that there are other parties that also have responsibilities, and sometimes there can be multiple causes, or contributing factors, for a mishap.
Dragoman Yes, it is about responsibility. But here (as in most places in modern life), there is a shared responsibility -- the driver's, to use due caution in driving, and the state's, to not post that it is safe to drive a certain section of roadway at a speed that is, in fact, not safe given the terrain, signalling, etc.
Yes, it is about responsibility. But here (as in most places in modern life), there is a shared responsibility -- the driver's, to use due caution in driving, and the state's, to not post that it is safe to drive a certain section of roadway at a speed that is, in fact, not safe given the terrain, signalling, etc.
Absolutely. And a grade crossing hosting passenger trains, crossing a high speed highway is just the sort of contingency that calls for a speed reduction on the highway in deference to the fact that trains have the right of way and will pose deadly obstructions to highway users.
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. Drivers are expected to adjust their speed for current conditions, which might include weather, traffic, or any warning including but not limited to, rail crossings.
IF you bother to look at the photos and Google Earth you will see that 1000 feet away he not only had a straight ahead view of the crossing but due to the angle he was to some degree looking up the track at the approaching train. How could you not see a train in that terrain?
"Well if you let people get killed for 150 years, and responsibility never gets assumed, what’s next?"
I'm not sure what you are getting at there. Are you saying that people are not responsible for their actions because someone in the past did not step up to the plate?
tdmidget:
The driver had warning of a railroad crossing, not of a train in the crosing. The crossing can (presumably) be safely traversed at the posted speed (70 MPH, right), so the warnings at 900 & 650 feet only warned him to be on guard (which he may or may not have heeded), but they most assuredly did not warn him to stop. Only the flashing lights did that, and they were apparently not visible that far.
And I think that that is Bucyrus's point -- not the need for more warning of a crossing, but more warning of an actual train in or approaching the crossing.
All of which makes me think of another point (which, if it has been noted in the last 14 pages, I missed it and apologize for being repetitious); namely, if the Great State of Nevada posts a speed limit of 70 MPH, drivers should be able to assume that they can safely drive that posted stretch of road at 70 MPH, barring unforseen hazards (such as bad weather, stalled vehicle, stray cows, etc.). And, the crossing is not unforseen. Therefore, the average driver have a right to expect that the signals give adequate warning of an actual train, present on or approaching the crossing, to allow a safe stop from the posted speed limit.
tdmidget Pretty much so. How many people do you allow to be killed before you expect responsibility to be assumed?
Pretty much so. How many people do you allow to be killed before you expect responsibility to be assumed?
Well if you let people get killed for 150 years, and responsibility never gets assumed, what’s next?
You seem to have a zero-tolerance policy.
The road is straight for 1000 feet before the crossing. The terrain is as flat as a pool table. A train it self would have been visible further than that. He had warning signs at 900 and 650 feet. No excuse.
tdmidget Just can't give it up,huh? Bucyrus I would bet that it is visible for one half mile. It's Nevada, remember? There is nothing out there over 4 feet tall. The driver is sitting up high and had excellent visibility. No excuse.
Just can't give it up,huh? Bucyrus I would bet that it is visible for one half mile. It's Nevada, remember? There is nothing out there over 4 feet tall. The driver is sitting up high and had excellent visibility. No excuse.
Sorry for not getting back to sooner TDM. Did you get the answer to your question? Those crossing signals are not beacons sending light in all directions. They are directionally aimed beams of light. The light goes straight and the road does not.
One thing I would like to add. Please put your local RR's safety phone number into your cell phone and report any issues you might see while driving. My local RR is CSX and their number is:
Report a Railroad Emergency: 1-800-232-0144
BaltACD Without the crossing lights flashing I agree....With the crossing lights flashing I don't.
Without the crossing lights flashing I agree....With the crossing lights flashing I don't.
Given the quality of the photos - even on the close up of the crossing isn't all that clear. I suspect the crossing equipment would be perfectly clear at 900 feet if you were actually standing there (or driving down the road).
The point on the rumble strips is that they only work if someone heeds them, just like the lights. If you're trying to beat the train, you'll ignore the lights and curse the rumble strips because they bounce your vehicle around, potentially slowing it down.
I guess my thought is that additional warning equipment can't hurt. As I said in an earlier post, there are places that use the concept on the highway, as pre-warning for out-of-view stoplights.
However, it's my belief that this is (despite claims to the contrary) a rather one-off event. Until we hear something definitive from the investigation, I stand by my conclusion that the incident was the result of some manner of negligence on the part of the driver involved.
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...
edbenton . http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
. http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
ed: That is a good example of the road. I expect that if you had been driving a double you would have hit the train. The extra .75 seconds for the second trailer to apply its brakes would have been too much time.
Now addressing what is needed in order.
1. a rumble strip to get all driver's attention.
2. rr crossing painted on road.
3. another rumble strip along with a speed limit sign of say 45 mph
4. Flashing rr crossing ahead sign activated ahead of regular warning lights [ say 45 seconds].
5. brighter and larger flashing rr warning lights
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here is a Blog with Pics that shows what the Driver sees at Various Distances on that Same Crossing on RT 75. Now you can SEE WHY I am most ran INTO a train even with over 1,000,000 miles driven. You tell me given the time and haze of the pics what your going to see at those Distances. NOTHING. http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
Not only that, but I want to get the attention of the inattentive driver!
This is for MY safety! Not just an attempt to save the inattentive driver.
Some may say that if the driver kills himself because he is a poor driver (even he was inattentive just for a moment) that it is "just desserts" for that moment of inattentiveness. Not only is that a harsh judgement, but there are others that may be quite innocent of any infraction of attentiveness but get hurt as a result of the "just desserts" being dispensed.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Larry,
I see Dragoman has just posted much of what I was writing in response to your post. I think he summed it up extremely well. I will go ahead and post my reply even though some of it repeats what Dragoman said:
Your comment seems to assume that paying attention is a matter of either continuously paying attention perfectly, or continuously not paying attention at all. And if it is the latter, then yes I agree that no amount of warning will be enough.
But I don’t believe your scenario of prolonged, continuous, 100% lack of attention is a realistic example of something that actually occurs. It appears that you are using it just to make your case that no extra warning is needed. As I mentioned earlier, a driver has got to pay a fair amount of attention just to keep the vehicle on the road.
And also, as I mentioned earlier, no driver ever is paying perfect attention to everything all the time. It is impossible to do that, so drivers must shift their attention around so that every relevant feature in their sphere of attention gets some attention every so often. In that context of paying attention, it seems to me that a 3-second warning for fatal hazard is way too little.
But I do agree that 3 seconds would be enough warning if a driver happened to have his or her attention in the right place when the 3 seconds began. And the driver in this crash did not. But my point is not necessarily to vindicate the driver in this crash, but more to focus on the safety of the crossing in general as it pertains to future drivers.
The Amtrak engineer in this crash makes the same point. And now the Nevada DOT is considering that same point as well. I am convinced that they will add more active warning to this crossing after they consider the problem.
People keep saying "Nothing will help an unattentive driver."
But come on, now. Attention is not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Rumble strips will certainly get the attention of even the unattentive driver rummaging through the lunch box, in part because it both makes noise and creates vibration.
We may never know what, if anything, might have helped this particular driver avoid this accident. But these repeated arguments that "if you're paying attention, you're fine, and if you're not, you're done for", are just disingenuous. By that thinking, plain old crossbucks are all you'll ever need. For drivers paying attention, it's enough -- for those not paying attention, nothing is enough.
Is that what we're saying? Honestly?
Bucyrus300 ft. at 70 mph = 2.9 seconds of warning.
Or double the reaction time given in the link I posted earlier, assuming a driver is paying attention to the road ahead.
Even if a driver didn't react until the 600 foot mark, the speed of the truck would certainly have been reduced by the time it reached the point of impact to the extent that it would not cause the damage seen in this incident.
And given the driver's reported behavior just prior to the collision (ie, did not see and react as the drivers behind him did), just how likely is it he would have seen "active" warning?
If you're rumaging through your lunch bucket or typing out a text, that marching band still isn't going to make any difference.
Given that the idea of more extensive active warning had been brought up even before this incident, I can see where it provides an attentive driver with just that much more notice of the impending crossing.
But that does nothing for the driver who isn't paying attention, or even finds the earlier warning a challenge to be overcome.
Flashing lights, gates, rumble strips, you-name-it, mean nothing if the drivers ignore them.
zugmann 25 seconds isn't enough warning, according to Bucyrus. Based on what, exactly? How did you come to that conclusion? Like my old tests used to say: show all work. And what is enough warning? 30 seconds? 40? 55?
25 seconds isn't enough warning, according to Bucyrus. Based on what, exactly? How did you come to that conclusion? Like my old tests used to say: show all work.
And what is enough warning? 30 seconds? 40? 55?
At 70 mph, average largest empty truck rig requires 600 ft to stop. Driver rounds curve and sees crossing lights flashing 900 ft. away. 900 ft. minus 600 ft. = 300 ft. of warning. 300 ft. at 70 mph = 2.9 seconds of warning.
d: maybe you should write a letter to the NTSB about your experience?
Ed, since their is a 900-1000 foot on obstructed view, what was your excuse?
Schlimm; you must be looking at a different crossing. Here it is:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=churchill,+nv&hl=en&ll=39.89502,-118.752197&spn=0.005416,0.009398&sll=37.50798,-117.124885&sspn=5.733423,9.624023&t=h&
The RXR on the pavement is 500 feet from the crossing. There is at least 1000 feet unobstructed view.
I googled this road then it all came back sorry being a Double Storke Survivor will do that to you that has had to relearn alot and sacrifice parts of his LTM to lelearn alot of things. I also have had a NEAR and I mean a NEAR MISS in 1999. I was hauling Lube oils for the quarry. Was coming up to that crossing doing 65MPH and saw the gates were down. I was less than 400 feet away. I was lucky got it stopped less than 20 feet from the railheads.
What would have hitt my rig an Eastbound GM train that was pulled by 2 AC44000 and a True SD90MAC I doubt I would have survived. I needed a clean pair of Underwear and my boss had to replace a Brake drum from me breaking it from the pressure I throw at it also.
If you had actually read the Wheeler's post, you could have seen that the problem is the road running at a considerable angle to the signal (parallel to the track) until it is only 900 feet away. Given that, the signal could be only 200 feet away and you wouldn't see it because the planes of the road and front of the signal weren't at close to right angles. But I guess your personal assumptions blind you to facts.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yeah I can't wait. Waves on the lake too high? Sailboats blocking the view?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.