Trains.com

Pickup collides with train locomotive, 2 injured

2521 views
21 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Pickup collides with train locomotive, 2 injured
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:47 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-2-injured-when-pickup-collides-with-train-20110703,0,6360030.story

Gated crossing, 2:53 am; alcohol suspected.  Fortunately this driver caused accident wasn't at 11:25pm, at a higher speed striking a Metra train with many passengers onboard returning home from Taste of Chicago.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:34 PM

The National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged a they had funded with the U.S. auto makers for the past five years.

The NTSB covertly funded a project whereby the auto makers were installing black boxes in four wheel drive pick-up trucks in an effort to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.

They were surprised to find in 49 of the 50 states the last words of drivers in 61.2% of fatal crashes were, "Oh, ****!"

Only the State of Texas was different, where 89.3% of the final words were, "Hey, hold my beer.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, July 3, 2011 1:47 PM

The sad fact is, you can put up crossing gates, bells, lights, sirens, warning horns, loudspeakers, rumble strips, even speed bumps, but in the end you can't save some people from themselves.  Nothing new in this, it started back in the days of the rise of the auto, and drivers didn't have a horse to help them with their thinking anymore.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:31 PM

And in the remaining % of the cases, likely the final words were: "Hey, you all, watch this !" 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:19 AM

Honestly I'm just beyond sick of the whole grade crossing safety discussion - as mentioned previously in this thread you can put down gates, light up the lights, sound the bell, but some idiot will always want to make it across. 

When it comes to safety, as in most things in life, there is a law of diminishing returns where our efforts are better spent elsewhere rather than fretting about why people ran crossing gates. Fact is, as long as the gates were working it doesn't really matter why someone ran them it's their own stupid$1***$2that did. 

I saw some kids playing on Illinois Railway tracks today - playing in the spilled silica sand between the rails...

Seriously parents? I'm only 25 so I'm not old by any means but my parents taught me when it comes to train tracks always look both ways and make sure there is no train coming, and if you're on the tracks then be very alert regarding trains. To let small children play on the tracks? No wonder these people grow into adults WITHOUT a healthy respect for trains....

Buy a sandbox... seriously! I shed no tears for people killed / injured who run the gates. 

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 5:43 AM

We should have started 50 years ago eliminating crossings.  Instead we are still building more of them.  Too many people are too stupid to deal with crossings.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 6:54 AM

sawtooth:  Shedding tears and children playing on the tracks aren't what this thread and the Nevada thread were about.  It was about protecting the trains from irresponsible drivers.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 3:20 PM

Phoebe Vet

We should have started 50 years ago eliminating crossings. 

Absolutely

Instead we are still building more of them. 

I believe that may be incorrect. Some of you posters can maybe cite more but I know that not a sigle new crossing has been built anywhere near here.  In your neck of the woods hasn't NC DOT eliminated quite a few although I will conceed that maybe 2 separate crossings have been consolidated into one new one!

However I will stipulate that there certainly are more light rail crossings now. 

Too many people are too stupid to deal with crossings.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Tuesday, July 5, 2011 4:37 PM

The FRA has an active program to close grade crossings, check their webpage for details.

 

And the reason you have to hold my beer is because I have to have a free hand for the stick shift and a free hand for the beef jerky stick, and the cup holder dont work worth a darn....

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 371 posts
Posted by ButchKnouse on Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:44 PM

Like Jeff Foxworthy said, if your last words on Earth were, "Hey everybody, watch this!" you might have been a redneck.

Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, July 8, 2011 12:47 AM

edblysard

The FRA has an active program to close grade crossings, check their webpage for details.

 

And the reason you have to hold my beer is because I have to have a free hand for the stick shift and a free hand for the beef jerky stick, and the cup holder dont work worth a darn....

As stated by my favorite swamp denizen, the FRA has actively and notoriously been on a crossing reduction progam, starting in 1994. Most state railroad commissions, AASHTO and some DOT's bought in - but the political and legal challenges are flippin unbelievable. Everybody wants to be the exception, because grade separations either cost too much or are inconvenient. Private crossing elimination has garnered the most flak recently, mostly because of local good-old-boy / above the law baloney....We are well on our way to 50% reduction of at-grade crossings, just not as fast as they had hoped. .....read the umpteen Bureau of Transportatio Statistics reports since 1988....

The driver in the linked article should lose their driving priviledges, period. The folks asking if Nevada is somehow at fault for the stupidity of an individual trucker - get over it.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Friday, July 8, 2011 12:55 AM

Fact is that outside of the cost of lost human life, which you can't measure, if you go with straight equipment and cleanup costs the costs of the occasional grade crossing collision are FAR cheaper than the costs of massive grade separations. It comes down to money. 

Furthermore, this latest Amtrak crash being an exception the vast majority of grade crossing collisions only the people in the vehicle die or get injured, the train crew are fine. I'm not going to shed tears about people who run gates. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, July 8, 2011 7:58 AM

OK so you don't give a d**n about the lives of the irresponsible drivers of vehicles, and you don't see the economic value in doing so.   The various recent discussions have been about protecting the occupants of trains, particularly passengers, from those same irresponsible drivers.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Friday, July 8, 2011 9:05 AM

I agree with you that recent discussions have been about protecting the lives of the people on the train, and yes that it s a different matter than the idiots who run crossing gates. 

Look at http://www.gao.gov/products/PAD-82-21 - the GAO states that while politicians and government agencies many times to do explicitly calculate the value of a life, very frequently they do so implicitly because they have to. I'm sure the FRA somewhere has a value of life figure as well...

Note the wide disparity mentioned by the GAO between some of the mentioned govt. agencies regarding how much or how little one calculates the value of a life to be. 

Now take the number of grade crossing incidents where the train occupants were injured or killed and factor in the cost to do grade separation everywhere in the country - then yes you will get a monetary value of a life. 

And I bet that this number would be so high (due to the relatively low number of train occupant deaths vs the extremely high number of grade crossings) that it is just economically impractical to expect grade crossings to be eliminated and while it's a nice pipe dream and looks good politically it's not going to happen in reality. 

I'm not trying to be insensitive to people's lives here but I'm merely stating that as a country we only have so much money to go around, and as such certain things just aren't worth the monetary value to get done. Again, not trying to be insensitive but those are just financial facts. As a society our government will not spend $25 million per life to make something safer (I just made that figure up as an example). 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, July 8, 2011 12:35 PM

Sawtooth500, thanks for digging up and sharing that link and info.  Thumbs Up 

That GAO study is old - from Nov. 1981 - but of value nonetheless, so here's the direct link to the full 9-page version (approx. 1.09 MB in size), at: http://archive.gao.gov/d47t13/116998.pdf 

In particular, note that in Table 1 at the top of page 5 is the DOT's explicit "guideline" figures from back then, as follows: 

  • Fatality - $340,000
  • Critical injury - $230,000
  • Severe injury - $102,000
  • Moderate injury - $68,000
  • Minor injury - $3,400

And in Table 2 at the top of page 7, the implicit "Cost per Life Saved" that was used for the estimate of eliminating all railroad crossings was $100,000 [per reference in footnote (b) ].  

Other than drastic increases due to inflation since then - on the order of 5 to 10 times as much - then these numbers would still seem to be valid today, IMHO.  And - "YMMV !"  Whistling 

- Paul North.

 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    November 2009
  • 673 posts
Posted by Sawtooth500 on Friday, July 8, 2011 12:43 PM

Actually I think there is a newer study out from just last year but I couldn't find that one - either way, same concept just updated numbers. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, July 8, 2011 12:54 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

Other than drastic increases due to inflation since then - on the order of 5 to 10 times as much - then these numbers would still seem to be valid today, IMHO.  And - "YMMV !"  Whistling 

- Paul North.

Inflation of 5-10 times as much as 30 years ago?  How about 2.5 to 4 times as much.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: MP 175.1 CN Neenah Sub
  • 4,917 posts
Posted by CNW 6000 on Friday, July 8, 2011 2:27 PM

Sawtooth500

Actually I think there is a newer study out from just last year but I couldn't find that one - either way, same concept just updated numbers. 

Yep.  Beyond a certain point you're just burning money that could be put to better use...just because some folks can't be saved from themselves.

Dan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,011 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, July 8, 2011 2:34 PM

CNW 6000
Yep.  Beyond a certain point you're just burning money that could be put to better use...just because some folks can't be saved from themselves.

Back in the sixties there was a "big" concern about "killer trees" alongside our roads.  While all of us would agree that a big oak within a few feet of the shoulder of a high speed highway probably isn't a good idea, apparently some folks took the whole thing a bit too seriously.

One result, IIRC, was an editorial in a newspaper that said, in effect, you can get rid of all the "killer trees," force the cars to be a certain distance apart, and who knows what else, and some bozo will still manage to roll his car and kill himself.

All a foolproof method for preventing something needs to defeat it is a bigger fool...

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Friday, July 8, 2011 5:52 PM

schlimm
  Inflation of 5-10 times as much as 30 years ago?  How about 2.5 to 4 times as much. 

  Generally, I agree with you - but my subjective impression is that the 'value' of such damages has outpaced inflation somewhat, hence my estimate of the higher range.  Compare with some of the reported payments to the families of those killed in the 9-11 attacks (which I haven't done yet, either).  Certainly I'll defer to any authoritative report on the subject.

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, July 8, 2011 7:01 PM

Using CPI figures, the CPI for 1983 is a base of 100; current is 225.96, so prices, in general, are 2.26 times higher than then.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, July 11, 2011 10:18 AM

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy