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?
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.
Russell
One more thing on the Nevada crash,John Davis Trucking is going down for this one.
OTR carries 80% of the Nations Freight,so 20% goes to Rail / Pipelines / Watter Transportation / Air Freight,Give me a Break Please.
This thread is not locked. It never was. It only said it was locked.
It will show locked if the last post is locked.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Very easy to pick the lock!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Bucyrus The road is flat with few visual obstructions, and relatively little traffic.
Mr. Macgruder needs a copy of the Nevada drivers handbook, apparently.
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?
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........
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........
Yes, the responsibility lies first with the driver, Stop, Look, Listen! Funny how laws reflect that.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 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.
Here is the manual and the stopping distance is on page 31:
http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dlbook.pdf
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)
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.
Driver's manuals are often different from statutes and thus are not the most reliable source for info.
But for the average driver they are likely the ONLY source that they will ever see.
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).
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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?
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.'
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.