Ed,
Having driven double bottom gravel trains during the sixties (11 axles with semi and pup). I can attest to the difference in braking performance between loads and and empty.s. Loads seemed to be easier to stop due to better traction between the tires and the load.and empties. Three hundred foot skid marks suggest the truck was empty. and going too fast.
It will be very interesting to read the NTSB's final report.
Norm
Getting back on the Topic at hand remember this Yes Davis has to give UP and Amtrak access to a Typical Truck from the Fleet you can almost bet that Davis is going to go over it with a comb to make sure everything is Perfect on it to show what the Brakes should be like on the truck. Also if they are smart they will have another one do a Demo if this gets up to Trial that shows the Braking Distance for an Empty for the Jury with the Standard Markings from RT 95 on the road and a copy of how the road is laid out say on a parking lot or in a empty Quarry someplace and show the Jury how far it TAKES to stop one of these combos to go even if he saw the Lights at the Spot he was supposed to he could NOT HAVE STOPPED. Boy that would take the Wind out of the UP and Amtraks case.
The discussion has occasionally gone a little bit off on a tangent, but we have for the most part been "Playing Nicely" without too many rude comments and personal attacks. We have pretty well avoid Politics, Religion , Abortion and Graffitti. A few have told some stories that some have found interesting, so far everyone seems to be having a Good time.
Has that serious an infraction been commited??
I hadn't been very active on the Kalmbach forums for awhile, now I remember why.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
As for my post it did fit some of what was being discussed...I was talking about how we can actually not notice things...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Is this category of topic one that should not be discussed on this forum? I am beginning to wonder if edgy topics such as grade crossing accidents, train wrecks, and other controversial topics are not wanted by the moderators or the editorial staff. I can understand that there are some off topic posts here, but we have threads that are all off topic, so why should a few off topic posts matter in a thread where all the other rules are being followed?
This thread is drifting
I think it is about time to move on.
Ed's Philly story - I believe it ! (My cousin used to do a lot of locksmithing in South Phila., and after any mob 'hit' there was usually a rush of key changes, etc.) Once I hired off-duty cops to provide overnight security for our on-track and other expensive equipment near the PHL airport.. In 2 or 3 weeks they made something like 40 arrests of trespassers and traffic violators (plus many warnings), and there was at least one they wanted real bad - chased him about 5 miles south down I-95 before stopping him at the PA Rt. 420 interchange. Then there was the stolen tool truck and air compressor . . .
- Paul North.
Damnn, Ed You get all the FUN, 24 years and over 2 Million miles, I've never had a cop tell me to run over a Caddy, or I get a ticket and my truck impounded, you must buy them boys in blue Lots of Coffee and doughnuts.
But, But Boss the Officer TOLD ME to run it over, What was I SUPPOSED to do??? Man I would love to say that JUST ONCE!
With all the things that I have seen and heard in all those years and miles, almost NOTHING surpizes me any more, I can actually believe that happened.
About the Worse thing I ever did was Crush that Guys Caddy in Philly but he was parked in a No Parking Zone the Philly PD said either YOU RUN IT OVER or I will give YOU THE TICKET for Obstructing Traffic and then have YOUR Rig Towed. So I grabbed a Granny and Splat went that Brand New Eldorado. Then the Owner came out of the house he was in madder than hell. Then he saw the Cops and his color Drained out of his face why wanted in Philly and the Big Apple on a total of 3 counts of Murder of a Police officer IIRC and Drug Traffic offenses in Philly. Needless to say he was Stuffed into a car real fast.
Getting back to the To the Crossing for this accident when I had to basically say my Hail Mary to AVOID the train throw out an Anchor and dang near Dyanmite the Brakes to the Drums to stop her I had just gotten up from a 12 Hour Sleeper Berth Break and had not had to push hard for 2 days. So Lack of Sleep was NOT an ISSUE for me.
blownout cylinder I remember one morning going through one of our major intersections and feeling the truck I was in start to feel woobly...after I got through said intersection I looked and did behold a wondrous sight...a geyser from a burst water main shooting about 40 feet into the air.... While I was driving to the intersection there was no sign of trouble....
I remember one morning going through one of our major intersections and feeling the truck I was in start to feel woobly...after I got through said intersection I looked and did behold a wondrous sight...a geyser from a burst water main shooting about 40 feet into the air....
While I was driving to the intersection there was no sign of trouble....
Blownout Cylinder:
Seems like this is getting "Off the Reservation!" But in a spirit of Cooperation. I can't speak to what happened, specifically, to the fire hydrant, mentioned in your description of the fountain created along your route to work. My educated guess is it was created bya random act of automotive violence, possibly, road rage enactd on the offending hydrant(?). You did not mention it was located on a street corner, but had it been and there were trailer trucks there, it (the Hydrant) might have been the victim of a turn cut too short ( sometimes, called 'bridging').. 'Bridging' is a very effective method for removing offending obstacles located right on street corners.corners. My personal experience with this effect was in about 1970/71(?) when negotiating a corner in Downtown Memphis, my spotter told me I was clear and pull ahead. The victims were a couple of newspaper vending boxes and a Fire Dept call box. The first clue of anything amiss was the intersection I was partially occupying with the rear of the trailer, (the tractor being in mid block). It is actually amazing the compression that can be caused when applying 45 or 50 tons to an object.
Then there is the time the lights went out in Coraopolis, Pa... But I digress.
Bothtales are a tribute to the old saying that "[Stuff] Happens!" and when you are new and young while learning a job. The potential for [stuff] happening goes up exponentially, when multiplied by the factor of individual's fatigue.
Situational awareness.......
suv goes airborne road buckles 124323974.html
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus tdmidget: Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it. I have not said that or implied it.
tdmidget: Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
I have not said that or implied it.
Excuse me?
Bucyrus BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing. Tree, Yes, that is what I am saying.
BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs.
Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
Tree,
Yes, that is what I am saying.
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...
BaltACD A picture I have seen of the crash site was taken well beyond the 'official' warning zone - and the lights were plainly visible, approximately 1/2 mile or more in advance of the crossing. From my observations, the only possible excuse for a alert, responsible driver to miss them would be some kind of sun glare situation hiding them. Outside of sun glare, the only other possible 'excuse' is not paying attention to the duties at hand - driving the truck in accordance with the surroundings ie. 4 red flashing light - 2 above the lane of travel and 2 to the right of the lane of travel.
A picture I have seen of the crash site was taken well beyond the 'official' warning zone - and the lights were plainly visible, approximately 1/2 mile or more in advance of the crossing. From my observations, the only possible excuse for a alert, responsible driver to miss them would be some kind of sun glare situation hiding them. Outside of sun glare, the only other possible 'excuse' is not paying attention to the duties at hand - driving the truck in accordance with the surroundings ie. 4 red flashing light - 2 above the lane of travel and 2 to the right of the lane of travel.
BaltACD,
If you have a picture of the lights being plainly visible at ½ mile, I would like to see it. Can you post it here?
This link has several photos of the approach to the crossing.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120628/NEWS/306280101/Amtrak-crash-lawsuit-Rail-gates-broken-at-crossing?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Cimg%7CNEWS&nclick_check=1
If you open “View thumbs”, it shows the index of all 23 photos. Number 16 shows a view with the pavement painted RXR. The advance warning begins at the RXR sign, which is maybe 200-400 feet further back from the pavement RXR painting. In this picture, the signals are not activated, so you cannot see how visible they would be. But the assumption of the warning zone is that the signals are visible within it.
Picture #15 shows a view from the RXR sign, however, this is a telephoto shot. You can see that it appears to be much closer to the crossing than picture 16, however it is further from the crossing. Also, the caption says the RXR signs in 1/10th mile (528 ft.) from the crossing. That is incorrect. The best I can scale from the satellite maps is 900 feet.
Now a lot of people want to say that the driver had a vastly larger warning than the visible warning within the advance zone. Look at picture #1, which shows the red flashing lights. I would estimate that distance at about 225 feet. The lights are certainly plainly visible. Now go back 4 times further. Do you think those lights are going to be obvious at 900 feet? I don’t. Look again at picture #16. That is about 600-700 ft. Do you think the lights will be obvious at that distance?
So, 900 feet is where the official warning zone begins, and that is about where the lights become visible. I went out last summer in midday sun and looked at grade crossings and traffic lights. I could not find an activated grade crossing, but I could find traffic signals. At about ¼ mile, traffic light illuminations are visible, but not at all attention getting. No way can you see them at ½ mile.
Moreover, at the Nevada crossing, there is a curve just ahead of the start of the advance zone, so the beam spread of the flashing lights would have to account for that curve in order to be seen at a greater distance.
tdmidget Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it.
I have not said that or implied it. People familiar with railroading, of all people, should be able to understand my point. The engineer of the train understands it.
Bucyrus, it is you who seem to think that a driver should be oblivious to his surrounding unless there is a sign or gaggle of flashing lights . A driver does not drive in a bubble ignoring everything outside it. The crossing was well known to him. If not then he should be constantly looking for the unexpected. You have a very strange idea of the responsibilities of operating a motor vehicle.
tdmidget ... Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
... Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
These issues are about the crossing. They may or may not have anything to do with the driver in the crash. But regarding that driver or any driver, the fact that a driver had been over the road multiple times is irrelevant. That comes up repeatedly. Are people saying that it is okay to violate the crossing if it is your first time through?
I've worked at that crossing. Visibility is good and at the time of day the accident occured the sun would have been behind the driver's right shoulder. To put it another way there would have been no problem with glare.
It seems to me that you're simply to trying to make a point to a person who knows more than everyone else.
Bucyrus BaltACD: tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing. Tree, Yes, that is what I am saying. BaltACD, If you see the lights ahead of time, fine. Take action. But not everyone will see the lights at the same distance. So they establish a distance zone in which every qualified driver should be able to see the flashing lights. They mark the beginning of that zone with an RXR sign. And they make that zone long enough to react and stop. The problem with the Nevada crossing in question is that the warning zone is barely long enough for the speed limit for the class of truck that was involved in the 6/24/11 crash. The NTSB is blowing smoke when they say the crossing was visible for a mile. Maybe so if you are wearing microscopic glasses. But the warning zone begins at about 900 feet from the crossing.
The NTSB is blowing smoke when they say the crossing was visible for a mile. Maybe so if you are wearing microscopic glasses. But the warning zone begins at about 900 feet from the crossing.
Here's some interesting research:
http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/jun12/truckcrashes61412.html
There is way too much speculation on what finally caused the accident, or what the driver should have or could have done to prevent it.
The only fact I can see is, that tracks crossing a 70 mph highway with no other protection than flashing lights and maybe a bell is by far not enough.
Bucyrus, your fanaticism is tedious. You claim that there was only 900 ft warning because the painted warning on the pavement was 900 feet from the track. Were you expecting the driver to have a glass bottomed tractor and look down to see it? Of course not, it was visible 300 ft before he got to it. So he had 1200 feet warning. Couple that with the fact that this was a regular run, one he had run earlier in the day, and his negligence is criminal. He had every kind of warning and ignored them all. Yet you constantly defend the total lack of responsibility on his part. Why?
BaltACD tree68: Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign... ***! All these years I always thought when you saw the lights flashing on the crossing, even though you were a thousand feet or more from the first sign announcing the RR crossing you took actions based on the flashing crossing protection. What have I been missing? I guess the one thing I have been missing is running into a train in the crossing.
If you see the lights ahead of time, fine. Take action. But not everyone will see the lights at the same distance. So they establish a distance zone in which every qualified driver should be able to see the flashing lights. They mark the beginning of that zone with an RXR sign. And they make that zone long enough to react and stop. The problem with the Nevada crossing in question is that the warning zone is barely long enough for the speed limit for the class of truck that was involved in the 6/24/11 crash.
Bucyrus And, even though it is compelled by statute, it would have to be a subjective judgment call on the part of the driver and or any police officer that happened to question it on site; as to the proper response for driving according to conditions. Drivers must yield to anything in their path as long as that obstacle does not enter their path so abruptly that it makes it impossible to yield in time. Maybe Edbenton could chime in on this. Ed, in the case of the Nevada crossing crash, what would have been the legal, proper, and responsible speed limit for the driver while approaching the crossing had he been exercising all due care?
And, even though it is compelled by statute, it would have to be a subjective judgment call on the part of the driver and or any police officer that happened to question it on site; as to the proper response for driving according to conditions.
Maybe Edbenton could chime in on this. Ed, in the case of the Nevada crossing crash, what would have been the legal, proper, and responsible speed limit for the driver while approaching the crossing had he been exercising all due care?
Personally considering conditions Empty set of doubles, Approaching conflicting traffic(the train), the greater hazard of the collision(car gets in front of train too bad for the car, truck gets in front of train, train crew is extremely worried). The personal knowledge of how long the signal will come down in front of tracks. It is a very long decision tree, to be made in a very few seconds.
I do not know the experience level of the driver with that kind of equipment. I will state that he was not a rookie, but had I think 3+ years of local driving, and had been driving his current job 3-6 months.
Personally with a train on the horizon at an unknown speed I would have reduced speed going near a railroad crossing.
But that comes from both having 16 years as a driver and the knowledge of what a truck can do to a train. Yes I've seen pictures of a tractor getting under a locomotive frame and derailing the train(a few years back the City of New Orleans in Il). Very few truck drivers are aware of the consequences of a grade crossing accident.
My personal opinion of this wreck is that given the conditions the accident was non preventable. At closing speeds above 60 mph it is very difficult to gauge at a mile or more a point of conflict. At 1/2 mile and a closing speed of 130 mph( presuming that both vehicles were doing about 65 mph) you now have about 7 seconds to make a decision. If you misjudge for even a couple of seconds the consequences are
Rgds IGN
tree68 Bucyrus: But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. Interesting concept. What you are saying, then, is that if a driver is approaching a crossing which is occupied by a train, said driver is under no obligation to take any action to avoid a collision until he/she passes the RXR sign...
BucyrusBut he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs.
edbenton I can Compare Both of those Crossing for you if you want. The one on Rt 58 in CA has the Extra Warning we as OTR Drivers WANTED installed and the State had installed in IIRC the early 90's I know it has saved a few lives why we as OTR Drivers get the WARNING WE NEEDED to STOP IN TIME. More than one time on 58 you would be Just Passed it and here be ready to stop at the crossing they are going. So you would stop at the Crossing and wait out the Hotshot coming thru. I know this because I hauled ALOT and I mean ALOT of Carrots and Grapes out of the Bakersfield area. Compare that to the Crossing on Rt95 in Nevada if your Lucky and can see the SOB your only Option is to Stand on the Brakes PRAY LIKE HELL YOU GET STOPPED and hope like HELL YOU DO NOT RUN INTO THE TRAIN. Yep that is basically the standard option everytime coming north. It may look like a SAFE CROSSING but IT IS NOT ONE. Sorry but I almost piled my truck into a Train on it a one time and saw a couple OTHER drivers do the same. Reported the Problem to the NV DOT in the 90's was anything done HELL NO then in 2011 the crossing bit them in the$1***$2and man are they going to SQUEAL when all this comes out. 14 YEARS at least they new it was a BAD CROSSING and did NOTHING.
I can Compare Both of those Crossing for you if you want. The one on Rt 58 in CA has the Extra Warning we as OTR Drivers WANTED installed and the State had installed in IIRC the early 90's I know it has saved a few lives why we as OTR Drivers get the WARNING WE NEEDED to STOP IN TIME. More than one time on 58 you would be Just Passed it and here be ready to stop at the crossing they are going. So you would stop at the Crossing and wait out the Hotshot coming thru. I know this because I hauled ALOT and I mean ALOT of Carrots and Grapes out of the Bakersfield area.
Compare that to the Crossing on Rt95 in Nevada if your Lucky and can see the SOB your only Option is to Stand on the Brakes PRAY LIKE HELL YOU GET STOPPED and hope like HELL YOU DO NOT RUN INTO THE TRAIN. Yep that is basically the standard option everytime coming north. It may look like a SAFE CROSSING but IT IS NOT ONE. Sorry but I almost piled my truck into a Train on it a one time and saw a couple OTHER drivers do the same. Reported the Problem to the NV DOT in the 90's was anything done HELL NO then in 2011 the crossing bit them in the$1***$2and man are they going to SQUEAL when all this comes out. 14 YEARS at least they new it was a BAD CROSSING and did NOTHING.
In all my times thru there I do not remember having a train at that crossing. The only times I remember stopping was when I had a Haz Mat load(mandatory stop before crossing).
Thx IGN
I have a question. Can anybody compare this crossing to another?
The crossing I would compare it to is in California the SR 58 crossing of the BNSF(former Santa Fe) east of Mojave, Ca(near Boron, Ca).
This is a very heavily traveled highway that is in need of upgrading but because of a variety of reasons has not been. Similarly a flat crossing with very good visibility(3 +miles) . A lot of both highway and rail traffic.
What kind of accident record does this crossing have? And where would one find the data?
One big difference is this crossing has flashing signs warning of the approach of trains. The sign is 1500 ft from the crossing and is visible from a considerable distance beyond that.
edblysard Actually, I can answer that...(not the Ed he was asking) Try "restricted speed" which is defined as "a speed that allows the train (truck) to stop within one half, (1/2) the visual distance from men, equipment, railcars and locomotives fouling the track,(road) switches and derails lined improperly for the movement. In other words, go slow enough to stop before you hit something in front of you.... Most states have a "failure to control vehicle "law....it's not the responsibility of the idiot on the freeway to not slam on his brakes and stop in the middle of traffic, it is up to you not to run into the dummy if he does. Legally, it's not up to the railroad, or the DOT of most states to prevent a driver from hitting a train, all most state laws require is a warning of a train approach, it is left up to the driver to control their vehicle and not hit the train. Yes, it would seem that providing a sufficient warning time makes sense, but so does going slow enough to be able to stop before you run into a train , that too make sense, especially if the driver was a professional driver, aware of the capabilities or lack therein of his truck.
Actually, I can answer that...(not the Ed he was asking)
Try "restricted speed" which is defined as "a speed that allows the train (truck) to stop within one half, (1/2) the visual distance from men, equipment, railcars and locomotives fouling the track,(road) switches and derails lined improperly for the movement.
In other words, go slow enough to stop before you hit something in front of you....
Most states have a "failure to control vehicle "law....it's not the responsibility of the idiot on the freeway to not slam on his brakes and stop in the middle of traffic, it is up to you not to run into the dummy if he does.
Legally, it's not up to the railroad, or the DOT of most states to prevent a driver from hitting a train, all most state laws require is a warning of a train approach, it is left up to the driver to control their vehicle and not hit the train.
Yes, it would seem that providing a sufficient warning time makes sense, but so does going slow enough to be able to stop before you run into a train , that too make sense, especially if the driver was a professional driver, aware of the capabilities or lack therein of his truck.
I understand your analogy to railroad “restricted speed.” Coming upon the activated crossing signals would be coming upon a fouling condition. But I wonder whether “restricted speed” is actually called for at that crossing. There is no order directly stipulating it. The speed limit is 70. Trains don’t have to be able to stop under the terms of restricted speed if they are being allowed track speed.
It is easy to conclude that the truck driver in the Nevada crash should have slowed down because then he would not have hit the train. But he is not required to acknowledge the crossing until he enters the warning zone at the RXR signs. If there is a legal requirement to assume a version of railroad restricted speed, it could not exist before entering the warning zone because there would be no way to know about it. In this case, the crossing signals were activated when he entered the warning zone, so he was required to stop. But according to my calculations, he only had 2.9 seconds to react. And if he waited the full 2.9 seconds, he had to produce maximum possible braking effort for the balance of the warning zone in order to not hit the train.
So I conclude that he is guilty of delaying his reaction by at least 2.9 seconds. Evidence suggests that he probably delayed it more than 2.9 seconds, because he only left 300 feet of skid marks and he was apparently moving maybe 30 mph upon impact.
My belief is that the crossing is defective because it has too short of warning for the speed limit. But I am not saying that this proves the truck driver in the 6/24/11 crash was innocent. He may have only been going 55 mph, and distracted up until he hit the brakes at the start of his 300 ft. skid marks.
The point is the crossing, but many people cannot accept that point because it seems to let the truck driver off the hook. In the meantime, I would not be surprised if we have a replay of the 6/24/11 crash. There have been two near misses plus the 6/24 crash inside of 19 months at that crossing. Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow says there has been many more near misses there were reported by train crews, but they are not made a part of the official DOT/ UP record unless a vehicle actually touches a train.
23 17 46 11
Schlimm,
Well, I could be wrong, but I believe that adjusting speed to conditions is compelled by statute. And I believe that driving according to conditions refers to natural variables such as rain, snow, ice, wind, dust, smoke, smog, wild animals, grasshopper swarms, etc. And, even though it is compelled by statute, it would have to be a subjective judgment call on the part of the driver and or any police officer that happened to question it on site; as to the proper response for driving according to conditions.
What I do not believe is correct is that a driver must adjust speed to conditions such as vehicle type, dangerous intersections, badly designed grade crossings, etc., unless those hazards are marked with signs calling for a reduced speed.
And certainly a posted speed limit does not permit a driver to continue traveling at that limit, and overtake and run over a slower vehicle as in your example. Drivers must yield to anything in their path as long as that obstacle does not enter their path so abruptly that it makes it impossible to yield in time.
Yes, various states have different speed limits in different areas and some still have lower limits for trucks, trailers, etc. That isn't the point. This isn't only about the legal requirements. Every driver has an awareness (or should) of his/her own vehicle's stopping distance at different speeds, and drives and makes continuous judgments and adjustments to conditions accordingly. That is simply an integral component of how to drive a vehicle, not merely follow the statutes, as you keep saying. (However, the Driver's rules in many states do require the driver to exercise judgement in adjusting driving to conditions) It's as though a guy is driving at the 65mph non-Interstate limit when there is a farm vehicle ahead legally occupying the road, moving a 10 mph. So you think it's OK to just ram the tractor and then claim, "But I was obeying the speed limit"?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
States have differing speed limits, and some of them have different speed limits for cars and trucks. A speed limit for all vehicles already allows for the longer stopping distance of trucks. They don’t require that a driver use his or her personal discretion to determine the proper speed that is less than the posted limit. How could they? No two drivers would come up with the same result?
Other than what is posted as a speed limit for cars and/or trucks, I know of no additional rule or law that compels a truck driver to run slower than what it posted.
If there is something in the law that required the driver in the Nevada crash to slow down for the crossing, what does it say? What speed limit does it establish for the crossing?
That will be for the Courts to decide on that one. However if it comes out that with the History of the Gates NOT working in the past you can bet that the Percent for the Trucking Company will Drop Big time to less than 10 amybe 20% and the State and UP will be on the hook for the Rest. Also remember this that Amtrak had Doors locked on the train and the Guests could NOT get out of the car that was on fire. Yes the crash was the reason they had to get out but Locking the doors will be a HUGE Factor in the case.
The Lawyers for everyone are going to have a Field day with this one for a LONG TIME.
All drivers adjust for the different stopping distances of the vehicles they are driving. I would expect nothing less, surely, from a professional truck driver who had driven this route many times (does anyone know about how many?) before and was aware of the terrain, visibility, etc. yet chose to ignore those factors. Sure the road could have better warning, but that benefits the driver unfamiliar with the crossing more than it would him. The term relative contributory negligence would seem to apply here. Pick your number, but my guess is the driver 80-95%; NV DOT 5-20%
Yes that is the one reason they would give, and it has validity. But withholding stop signs or lowered speed limit is normally applied when there is another reasonable, alternative option. Some say that trail crossings should be treated like crosswalks, so drivers have to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists. Highway experts believe that would pose a risk of rear end collisions because many trail crossings are on fairly fast roads, and so they have decided that the more reasonable approach would be to have trail users stop and yield.
Besides, there are plenty of places where traffic is made to slow down from say 55 mph to 30 mph for going through towns, etc. Slowing traffic at that Nevada crossing from 70 mph down to say 45 or 55 would not be a big risk for rear end collisions. But the most obvious solution to the Nevada crossing is Advance Distance Warning system. It is an off-the-shelf item in the traffic control device inventory.
And to the point that the driver should compensate for the truck’s extra stopping distance:
When traffic engineers approve an extra large truck, it is up to them to make sure the roads are engineered to accommodate it. That is why they often restrict such special trucks to certain highways and roads.
Bucyrus What can possibly be Nevada DOT’s reason for not posting “REDUCE SPEED 50” signs approaching that crossing?
One is that inattentive drivers may rear-end vehicles that slow down for the reduced speed zone. You did ask for "possible" reasons and I'm playing devil's advocate.
I understand the point that a driver should drive according to conditions, but I do not think this can be carried so far that anything that goes wrong is the driver’s fault for not being cautious.
How many people would be willing to follow a truck on a two lane highway if the truck is doing what the driver decides is a "safe speed" for the situation?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
schlimmThis driver had apparently driven this route many times, so he should have exercised more caution as he neared the crossing. He really shouldn't have needed to rely on a warning sign to alert him to the crossing. Bucyrus: Your analysis is interesting, but you approach this as though the driver were new to the route and unfamiliar with the terrain and crossing. He wasn't. He exercised poor judgment by not reducing his speed from 70 or more to 50.
But driving the route several times will not familiarize a driver with the risk associated with a short warning if the driver encounters no trains during those several times. Traffic controls are not set up with sufficient risks and unique hazards so as to require studying them ahead of time or making a cautionary run in order to become familiar with the territory.
In fact, it is possible that the repeated runs past that grade crossing with its gates, tall, cantilevered signal masts, and advance warning built confidence in the driver that he was well protected from a hazard. Most people drive the speed limit unless a sign tells them otherwise.
I cannot think of a single case of a road feature or traffic control point that required slowing down that did not have a posted speed limit sign for the reduced speed required.
The crossing warning is composed of distance and road speed. If that Nevada crossing has such a short warning that 70 mph is too fast, the obvious design flaw is not posting a reduced speed through that zone. Speed limit signs are cheap. What can possibly be Nevada DOT’s reason for not posting “REDUCE SPEED 50” signs approaching that crossing?
BaltACD If it takes a crossing gate to get your attention in spite of the two sets of flashing lights - one above your driving lanes and one to the right of the lane you are too brain dead for it to matter. At gated crossings the lights begin to flash and the bell begins to ring several seconds before the gates begin to activate as a warning to those in the immediate area that the gates are going to operate. If you don't take any actions upon observing the flashing lights but wait for the gate to begin its operation you are guaranteed not to have sufficient time to take meaningful actions.
If it takes a crossing gate to get your attention in spite of the two sets of flashing lights - one above your driving lanes and one to the right of the lane you are too brain dead for it to matter. At gated crossings the lights begin to flash and the bell begins to ring several seconds before the gates begin to activate as a warning to those in the immediate area that the gates are going to operate. If you don't take any actions upon observing the flashing lights but wait for the gate to begin its operation you are guaranteed not to have sufficient time to take meaningful actions.
BaltACD: I'm with you on this one. This driver had apparently driven this route many times, so he should have exercised more caution as he neared the crossing. He really shouldn't have needed to rely on a warning sign to alert him to the crossing. Bucyrus: Your analysis is interesting, but you approach this as though the driver were new to the route and unfamiliar with the terrain and crossing. He wasn't. He exercised poor judgment by not reducing his speed from 70 or more to 50. Having good judgment is not such an unreasonable expectation of drivers, especially professional truck drivers like this one. Had he done so, he would have had ample time to stop his truck.
Yes, the driver may have been distracted. However, whether he should have reacted when the lights began versus when the gate came down is beside the point because he was too far away to see the crossing when the warning system activated. You may dismiss the failure of the gate arm, but I am betting that it will carry a lot of weight with the jury. I believe I have read that there are now 15 lawsuits underway concerning the 6/24/11 crash. For it to now be discovered that the warning system had partially failed is huge.
If the gate was raised during the collision, and down after the collision, I wonder if they will ask the witnesses if somebody pulled it down after the collision.
Bucyrus blue streak 1: Now another lawsuit http://www.rgj.com/article/20120628/NEWS/306280101/Amtrak-crash-lawsuit-Rail-gates-broken-at-crossing?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Cimg%7CNEWS&nclick_check=1 This is truly an amazing development. There are reasons to believe that the crossing is unsafe because it does not give enough warning. If so, that may or may not have had something to do with the 6/24/11 crash. But now we are being told about evidence that the crossing gate did not lower for the Amtrak train involved with the 6/24 crash. That's a bombshell. Interestingly, about 9 months before the crash, there was a near miss between an Amtrak train and another truck. As the truck skidded toward the train, the truck hooked the guard rail and tore it out. Then it knocked down the signal mast, which I believe includes the crossing arm assembly. I wonder if that entire crossing signal/arm tower assembly was replaced, or if it was stood back up with a few repairs and put back into service.
blue streak 1: Now another lawsuit http://www.rgj.com/article/20120628/NEWS/306280101/Amtrak-crash-lawsuit-Rail-gates-broken-at-crossing?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Cimg%7CNEWS&nclick_check=1
Now another lawsuit
This is truly an amazing development. There are reasons to believe that the crossing is unsafe because it does not give enough warning. If so, that may or may not have had something to do with the 6/24/11 crash.
But now we are being told about evidence that the crossing gate did not lower for the Amtrak train involved with the 6/24 crash. That's a bombshell.
Interestingly, about 9 months before the crash, there was a near miss between an Amtrak train and another truck. As the truck skidded toward the train, the truck hooked the guard rail and tore it out. Then it knocked down the signal mast, which I believe includes the crossing arm assembly.
I wonder if that entire crossing signal/arm tower assembly was replaced, or if it was stood back up with a few repairs and put back into service.
I am not a shyster looking to loot the money tree....
With the pictures that have been shown of the crossing, from my vantage point, there are only two reasons that explain the drivers action -
1. Inattention to what he was doing - driving in 'the zone' alert enough to keep the truck between the white lines, but basically oblivious to all the other surrounding stimuli (which from pictures of the area are few and far between).
2. The functioning of the crossing protection was blinded by glare from the sun until taking action was too late to avoid the collision.
blue streak 1 Now another lawsuit http://www.rgj.com/article/20120628/NEWS/306280101/Amtrak-crash-lawsuit-Rail-gates-broken-at-crossing?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Cimg%7CNEWS&nclick_check=1
Schlimm I can do 500 bucks worth of damage to my van by breaking the Headlight and turnsignal Lenses alone. The reason the limit was raised was the Cost of replacement parts alone and to Prevent IL insurance rates going up source on that my BIL a Executive VP at State Farm that demanded the change along with Allstate and the rest.
Also most RR Crossings are NOT even marked til your Less than 1/4 of a mile away that your Approching one I measured one here in IL on a Country road for the Transcon that gets all kinds of Truck Traffic on it as there is a Shuttle Elevator on it down the road. The Warning sign by my GPS is 1200 FEET from the Crossing that is it. I contacted the County and they told me that per the USDOT that is ALL THE WARNING THEY NEED TO PUT UP. The gates are not noticable for more than 600 feet and this road is DEAD FLAT and the Tracks are Higher than the ROAD with NOTHING IN THE WAY AT ALL and have crossing arms on them without the cantilevered signals over head.
I would have had issues stopping if the gates started to come down on me in the late 90's there luckily the Warning standard here is 30 Seconds so I would have had time. See the DOT forgets that Trucks can not Stop as fast as a car. Just because we have more axles and Tires does not mean we can stop faster. Most of the time my TARE or Empty Weight was over 31K lbs to put that in perspective that is about 7 Chevy Tahoes or a DOZEN Toyota Camaries all at one time. Then throw in 46-47K lbs of cargo and without adding axles or brakes I have to be able to stop and move it. The Brakes are DESIGNED to work best when LOADED NOT EMPTY.
The traffic design that is increasingly being used on surface roads (as opposed to Interstates) where speed limits are in the 60+ area is to have a advance flashing warning that is interlocked with the traffic light at the intersection. The advance warning is set, such that when it starts flashing, by the time you get to the intersection the light will just be turning red. The advance warning is normally about 1/2 mile from the traffic light at the intersection. When the advance warning is not flashing, and you are running the speed limit, the light will not change on you at the intersection.
I have also seen this type of installation installed with railroad grade crossing protection.
schlimm,
I am not sure where to draw the line with being prudent. It would be prudent to drive slower than the speed limit even if conditions were perfect.
With traffic lights, there is adequate warning, and with the Nevada crossing there is not enough. So, I don’t think there is an analogy. When you approach a traffic light at the speed limit, if it turns yellow, you know about how much time you have before it turns red. If you are too close to stop short of the light, you know you will have enough time to make it through. There is no reason for a driver to slow down at a green light in case it happens to turn yellow.
If the highway has a 70 mph speed limit and allows trucks requiring 900 ft. of stopping distance, then the signals should be set up to provide that braking zone distance. Drivers expect that and highway engineers provide it. Drivers do not expect to have to slow down at green lights in case it turns yellow.
The Nevada crossing is like a traffic signal with no yellow light. The only practical effect of a yellow light that is offered by the crossing is the time between activation of the lights and the dropping of the gate. I do not know what that time interval is. Some have said it is 3 seconds. So if a truck requiring 900 ft. for stopping is 3 seconds from the crossing at the speed limit, it is 306 ft. away. So the driver will bust through the gates and stop 594 ft. after crossing the track. But the truck won’t get hit by the train.
I speculate that the main thing that prevents crashes between trains and these heavy trucks at that crossing is the low odds of the two showing up at the same time.
The photo in Blue streaks link does appear to be quite damning but when was it taken? There are no emergency vehicles in the image and we know that the train or part of it was on the scene for a couple of days for investigation. Would the cross arm have been replaced that quickly? Had the signal been checked that quickly and released for repair? Lots of questions here.
If you know as a driver it takes your vehicle 900 ft. (almost 1/6 mile) to stop at that speed for the crossing you know is ahead, wouldn't a prudent person slow down? He apparently was going full speed (70 mph, maybe more?) and did not deem it necessary to slow down because there usually isn't a train coming when he gets to the crossing. Applying Bucyrus' logic to a truck on the highway, how much warning is there for a traffic light that turns? Or I suppose it's OK if he blows the light because he can't go from 70 to 0 in less than 900 feet? Is this common practice? I doubt it. I hope not.
Well, that is interesting. We have people here saying that the accident could have been prevented if the truck driver were properly doing his job with caution. And we have people suing Nevada DOT and saying that the fiery crash could have been avoided if the people maintaining the crossing were properly doing their job.
efftenxrfe There's another problem with that 2.9 second warning the driver received. Let's say that his reaction to the warning resulted in 1/2 a second until his foot put the brake pedal to the metal. and let's say he was making 60 per which is 88 feet per second. 44 feet from the warning, the brakes apply. now some time for the brakes to build up enough power to lock the wheels..now the skid marks start. 300 feet further the marks extend to the crossing and impact. If locked wheels provided no slowing of the rig, and the driver saw the warning at 60 mph. Reaction time, brakes build pressure, wheels lock and skidding results in no slowing from 60 per, the vehicle needed at least (300 ft skid at undiminished 60 per,44 feet reaction time, 20 ft for the brakes to lock) 334 feet from time of warning....at a constant 60 mph. If the brakes slowed the truck at all on the approach, the driver locked the wheels for amusement, I guess, seconds before he received the 2.9 second warning. Again: trying to beat the gates. Crossing gates take about three seconds to lower....longer for multi-highway- lane gates. At 60 per the driver needed more than 2.9 seconds to skid mark the pavement 300 feet.
There's another problem with that 2.9 second warning the driver received.
Let's say that his reaction to the warning resulted in 1/2 a second until his foot put the brake pedal to the metal. and let's say he was making 60 per which is 88 feet per second. 44 feet from the warning, the brakes apply. now some time for the brakes to build up enough power to lock the wheels..now the skid marks start.
300 feet further the marks extend to the crossing and impact.
If locked wheels provided no slowing of the rig, and the driver saw the warning at 60 mph.
Reaction time, brakes build pressure, wheels lock and skidding results in no slowing from 60 per, the vehicle needed at least (300 ft skid at undiminished 60 per,44 feet reaction time, 20 ft for the brakes to lock) 334 feet from time of warning....at a constant 60 mph.
If the brakes slowed the truck at all on the approach, the driver locked the wheels for amusement, I guess, seconds before he received the 2.9 second warning.
Again: trying to beat the gates. Crossing gates take about three seconds to lower....longer for multi-highway- lane gates.
At 60 per the driver needed more than 2.9 seconds to skid mark the pavement 300 feet.
I do not follow what you are saying. The 2.9 seconds begins at the start of the 900 ft. warning zone. The 300 ft. skid starts 600 ft. into the 900 ft. zone, and it extended to the end of the warning zone.
Look at it this way: If a truck like the one in the crash just happens to approach the crossing timed to be on a collision course with an approaching train, the truck driver has to react within a couple seconds, and then he has to stand on the brakes in a full panic stop.
Probably the main thing preventing crashes at that crossing is the fact that a truck and train do not often show up at that same time.
edbenton IL got rid of ALL speed Differantials Finally last year and statewide the Accident rate dropped 30% why Distracted Drivers were no longer REAR ENDING TRUCKS.
IL got rid of ALL speed Differantials Finally last year and statewide the Accident rate dropped 30% why Distracted Drivers were no longer REAR ENDING TRUCKS.
from IDOT: "Effective January 1, 2009, the legal reporting threshold for traffic crashes
involving only property damage increases from $500 to $1,500 when all drivers are
insured. However, if any driver does not have insurance, the threshold remains $500.
In both cases, the investigating enforcement agency must complete and forward a written
report to IDOT, on a form provided/approved by IDOT, within 10 days of the crash
investigation. The noticeable decline in crashes is partially attributable to the change in crash
reporting threshold effective January 1, 2009." Elimination of the speed differential in Illinois was
effective Aug. 2009, so clearly that is only responsible for part of the change.
In any case, speed limits are that , a limit, not a minimum. Drivers are suppose to exercise caution and restraint based on local conditions. Since the truck driver in question was very familiar with that road crossing and his truck, he should not have been driving at 70mph. Just as with some/all automobile drivers who get into rail crashes, isn't it just possible that this driver was at totally fault? Probably the crossing should be improved, however.
I've said nothing about mandating different speed limits for different vehicles. All i'm saying is that some/many accidents could be avoided by simply slowing down and taking other precautions. If you're new to the route then slow down and give yourself an extra margin of safety. If you know there are hazards along your route then again slow down to give yourself that extra time to react. I don't believe in assigning blame to others and expecting others to make it a perfect world for me to live in. The equipment always has some kind of flaw through design or for other reasons like age or poor maintenance. Roads also are often badly flawed. The regulations are sometimes flawed too... but they're not excuses for not doing one's job properly.
Ulrich you need to read up on your OWN Providences Court Rulings then they have Ruled that Speed Differantials are UNSAFE and undermine COMMERACE and ARE ILLEGAL and Mandating SPEED GOVERNORS on COMMERCIAL VEICHILES IS ILLEGAL. http://www.cdllife.com/2012/top-trucking-news/canadian-truck-driver-wins-speed-limiter-court-battle/ IL got rid of ALL speed Differantials Finally last year and statewide the Accident rate dropped 30% why Distracted Drivers were no longer REAR ENDING TRUCKS.
CCL do you know what teh Standard fine is for the Carrier during a Compalince review anymore for Falisification of ANYTHING try 10K PER thing they find I am talking 10K per False logsheet 10K per False Maintance Record 10K per anything they find. Then they hammer you with ratings that raise your INSURANCE then they REvoke your Auth to RUN and CLOSE YOU DOWN. The FMCSA takes Trucking Saftey Very Seriously there are carriers that are 80 Years old that are about to be CLOSED forever because they are so poor in how they run. The era of running OUTLAW with Multiple Logbooks and the Company looking the OTHER WAY are over and have been for about 10 years. The costs are way too HIGH anymore.
Regarding the thread: Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault? http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/193774.aspx?PageIndex=1
My point in starting that thread last summer was that the crossing was not adequately protected. I believe the warning time for the crossing is too short for the speed limit of the highway. What makes this confusing is that the warning interval from signal activation to the train arriving at the crossing is 25 seconds, and that seems like more than enough time to stop a vehicle. But that warning interval is not the point. What matters is the interval between the point where a driver can clearly see the signals and the time he or she arrives at the crossing.
Moreover, the point where a driver can clearly see the signals is not just left to the ability of drivers to discern that point because it will vary from one driver to another. Therefore, it is the RXR sign that alerts drivers to look for trains and activated crossing signals. The RXR sign establishes the point where all drivers should be capable of discerning the warning signals.
Prior to that point, drivers may discern the signals, but it is not expected of them. According to various sources, the RXR sign is about 900 feet from the Nevada crossing. At 70 mph, that is 8.76 seconds. That is the warning. If it is true that the type of truck involved in the crash requires at least 720 feet to stop, that leaves 180 feet to recognize and react to the warning. At 70 mph, 180 feet goes by in 1-3/4 seconds.
I believe one of the most disingenuous comments made by the NTSB is that the crossing sight distance for an approaching driver is one mile. Do they mean that the maximum, unobstructed line of sight is one mile? Do they mean that a driver can see an activated crossing signal on a sunny day at one mile? Do they know what the actual visibility was at the time of the crash?
Clearly the NTSB is implying that an approaching driver has 51 seconds warning to stop at 70 mph. However, the crossing warning only provides 25 seconds from point of activation to the point where the train enters the crossing. So what is the point of the NTSB saying that the driver has a mile of visibility?
Even with a clear line of sight for a mile, you will not be able to see an inactivated crossing signal and gate system from that distance. It is doubtful that you could see an activated crossing signal from a mile. Go out and try it for yourself. So what is a responsible driver supposed to do with that mile of warning?
Unless the driver was somehow incapacitated (which certainly is possible) these accidents can be prevented by simply being more careful. Speed limit postings are for cars and for ideal conditions only. They do not indicate that it is safe for all vehicles to go at that speed at all times. You can get a speeding ticket for going 30 mph on the interstate if the officer in his/her judgement finds that you were going too fast for conditions.
Well, that's the thing...the only way to really prevent that type of accident may just be to have underpasses or bridges...actually, strike the underpasses...just bridges...
I suggest that trucking companies (not all) do fudge their records. A friend, who is a highway patrol officer says that they can find at least 5 violations of the rules when they fully inspect a truck. Why do we have weigh stations if the truckers are following the rules and not overloading (and damaging the roads)? When was the last time you saw a truck obeying the speed limit? I am not anti truck but would like everyone to at least try to obey the rules of the road.
Do I understand this correctly? The site of the accident was a 70 mph highway crossing the tracks with no further protection than cross bucks and flashing lights?
I am sorry, but whoever authorized this, is as guilty as the driver. The minimum additional protection which should have been there is to slow down the approaching traffic by imposing a speed limit of not more than 30 mph to give drivers ample time to recognize the danger and to react properly.
The best way would be to eliminate the crossing and build an over- or underpass.
I would be very cautious about quoting that engineer if he is such a loose cannon. BUT, here's the facts. At 70 MPH he had 3080 ft to stop if he had 1/2 mile visibility. The NTSB has already established that he had 1 mile vislbility. So where do you get this 2.9 second number?By My calculator he had .4999998 minutes AKA 29.,99988 seconds to respond. That decimal point is a real killer.
Bucyrus Ulrich: So the driver should have known that and adjusted his speed just the same. Still not the fault of the crossing. Adjusted his speed to what? I am sure the specifcations for stopping distance, both loaded or empty, are taken into account for the design of the road and it speed limit. If the state permits that truck to run on that highway, it is up to them to make sure the truck can stop in time for the crossing if it activates. It is all engineering and regulations. If there is a defect in the engineering and/or regulations, it is not up to the drivers to learn that and compensate.
Ulrich: So the driver should have known that and adjusted his speed just the same. Still not the fault of the crossing.
So the driver should have known that and adjusted his speed just the same. Still not the fault of the crossing.
Adjusted his speed to what? I am sure the specifcations for stopping distance, both loaded or empty, are taken into account for the design of the road and it speed limit. If the state permits that truck to run on that highway, it is up to them to make sure the truck can stop in time for the crossing if it activates. It is all engineering and regulations. If there is a defect in the engineering and/or regulations, it is not up to the drivers to learn that and compensate.
Yes it is up to the driver. Roads are imperfect...signs are sometimes obstructed by trees or snow...grade crossings are sometimes not marked as well as they might or should be. A professional driver takes all of that into account along with any imperfections in vehicle function and design. I drove a large vehicle the other day that had a mix of drum and disk brakes... It didn't handle very well so I drove it slower than I otherwise would have. Sometimes shippers don't load trucks properly..the trailers are dropped at a shipper location and they are loaded with all the weight to one side. So again, we make a judgement call, and often we elect to drive it carefully instead of expecting loading perfection. Blaming others, grade crossings, vehicle design imperfections..these are simply excuse mechanisms... when you take control of the vehicle its all on you, with very rare exception...that's where the "professional" in professional driver comes in.
Have we forgotten that two other drivers, running in convoy behind the deceased, reportedly saw the crossing and were able to slow and avoid a collision?
My criticizing the crossing as being unsafe does not mean that I don’t blame the truck driver for the 6/24/11 crash. I have no idea what he was doing. He did go into a panic stop as indicated by skid marks. But he only had 2.9 seconds to work with. And if he waited the full 2.9 seconds, he would have had to go into full panic stop. He did not get stopped, so obviously he waited more than 2.9 seconds before reacting to the warning. But my point is basically about the crossing, and not necessarily about the fault for the 6/24/11 crash. I only ask the question about a possible relationship.
I began criticizing the crossing design when I started the thread last summer, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault? Soon afterward, I learned that Amtrak engineer, Ron Kaminkow has been very outspoken on this matter since he was involved in the crash. Here is what he says: http://labornotes.org/blogs/2011/07/engineer-truck-train-collision-raises-fundamental-safety-questions
The Amtrak engineer agrees with you? He's talking out of school on a legal matter that is not yet adjudicated? And what are you doing, influencing a witness?
I don't know why you continue to beat the drum for a clown that took 6 innocent people with him. The facts are that a professional driver is held to a much higher standard than the average motorist. If he rounds a turn and does not know what is there then he is expected to be prepared to stop or take what ever action is necessary. This was a regular run for him so he KNEW that the crossing was there. It was his second trip of the day, if he needed a reminder. Yet he was oblivious to the crossing until way too late. That truck does not normally leave 300+ feet of skid marks for a normal stop. That in itself shows that it was a panic stop, that he did not pay attention to his situation until too late. There is no one to blame here but the driver of the truck. You can't, unfortunately, fix stupid.
efftenxrfe That the driver had 2.9 seconds warning is fantasy. It accuses the responsible signal maintainer of gross criminal behavior, or negligence.
That the driver had 2.9 seconds warning is fantasy. It accuses the responsible signal maintainer of gross criminal behavior, or negligence.
The 2.9 seconds is my calculation. It is not a fantasy, and it has nothing to do with the signal maintainer. What it means is that when the truck entered the warning zone, where the driver was required to look for trains or signals, he had 2.9 seconds to recognize the flashing lights and begin full emergency stopping in order to get stopped before fouling the crossing. The truck driver failed to recognize the flashing lights and/or train within the 2.9 seconds.
The 2.9 seconds is a nominal figure based on my best information for the length of the warning zone, and the stopping distance of the truck. It assumes a speed of 70 mph.
The engineer of the Amtrak train agrees with me in that the crossing does not have enough advance warning for the highway speed, and he does not want to have any more railroaders killed due to the dangerous crossing.
What's not known about grade crossing protection?
This was a daylight accident, right? In desert, right? Clear visibility to the crossing and its gates and flashing red lights could not have factored.
The lights flash red when the track circuitry predicts electronically that a traIn will occupy the crossing in 20 seconds, or extremely close to it. Maintainers test the performance of the grade crossing predicters regularly.
Is it being declared that the driver saw the lights ordering him to stop and proceed if safe illuminated 2.9 seconds before the crossing was occupied.
Drivel.
The 2.9 secs. probably means the gates came down at that interval. Not stopping, but getting across before the train, like a stock car driver battling for the checkered flag, ignored the 20 seconds of flashing red lights, 20 seconds, clear visibility, 100 feet a second at 70 mph, at that speed that's over a quarter mile of warning.
Excluding signal maintainer screw-up, electronic or mechanical failure, or some freak who' s weapon shot out the flashing reds, we're left that the driver tried to beat the gates and ignored the law that required stop and proceed if safe.
Skidmarks 300 feet long; let's muse or wonder about something more obscure.
it is also
Ulrich So the driver should have known that and adjusted his speed just the same. Still not the fault of the crossing.
Ulrich Bucyrus: Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me. My point in that thread was that 70 mph speed limit, combined with such a heavy truck, resulted in a crossing with insufficient warning time. The engineer of the Amtrak train involved in the collision agrees with my conclusion, and he has publicly said so. If that's the case then the driver was speeding regardless of what the posted speed limit is. You're supposed to adjust your speed to conditions. If there's a crossing that doesn't make allowances for a heavy vehicle at 70 mph then the driver is supposed to know that and drive accordingly. If he was unfamiliar with his route then he should have cut his speed back to increase his margin of safety. But who knows what really happened..that's for the investigators to determine..
Bucyrus: Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me. My point in that thread was that 70 mph speed limit, combined with such a heavy truck, resulted in a crossing with insufficient warning time. The engineer of the Amtrak train involved in the collision agrees with my conclusion, and he has publicly said so.
The engineer of the Amtrak train involved in the collision agrees with my conclusion, and he has publicly said so.
If that's the case then the driver was speeding regardless of what the posted speed limit is. You're supposed to adjust your speed to conditions. If there's a crossing that doesn't make allowances for a heavy vehicle at 70 mph then the driver is supposed to know that and drive accordingly. If he was unfamiliar with his route then he should have cut his speed back to increase his margin of safety. But who knows what really happened..that's for the investigators to determine..
Ulrich when I drove it was Nothing for an empty combo and I was only pulling a 53 foot Single trailer to take 15-20% LONGER than a fully LADEN unit. Why the Brakes on the Trucks are desgned to work BETTER WITH MORE WEIGHT than less on them. They take speed and turn it into HEAT to stop now less weight means they have less heat to Generate and can not get up to full temp to work to their Fullest. It is strange but I was part of a test in 1999 at my last company where we compared an empty unit to a 80K unit the 80K unit from 65MPH stopped an AVG OF 100 feet SOONER than the other one did. I pulled 80K lbs from 65 to zero in less than 345 ft from the time the brake pedal was Applied Empty it took me over 450ft well less than the current Standard why my truck had Disk Brakes on the Steer and Drive Axles. Think about that even I could NOT have stopped in the time of the accident at 80K fully LADEN.
Total time it took to stop from the App of the Brake Pedal to the Stopping was just over 4.5 Seconds.
Ulrich If that's the case then the driver was speeding regardless of what the posted speed limit is. You're supposed to adjust your speed to conditions. If there's a crossing that doesn't make allowances for a heavy vehicle at 70 mph then the driver is supposed to know that and drive accordingly. If he was unfamiliar with his route then he should have cut his speed back to increase his margin of safety. But who knows what really happened..that's for the investigators to determine..
The vehicle involved in the incident had empty trailers at the time. According to comments in this thread, the empty trailers decreased the available effective braking power and thus increased the overall stopping distance of the rig.
OTR drivers are Responsible for Safe Transportation of the Load NOT HIGHWAY ENGINEERING or CONSTRUCTiON. There are a few roads that are US Highways that I would not have taken my Truck on but I had to US 550 is one and parts of Highway 50 across CO are another. Yet they are the Routes we run. So what do trucks do let people STARVE or run them and deliver the supplies needed. Look at the Ice Road Drivers you think for one Moment those roads are totally Safe your Nuts. I would rather take I-68 in WV hauling Expolsives with no Jakes than run those. BTW I did that with the Explosives.
It is a dry, sunny day with little traffic, and the speed limit is 70 mph. Even if you checked the route and noted a grade crossing, how do you know that its warning is too short for your vehicle?
Adjusting speed to conditions is related to weather, traffic, and such variables. I don't think it means that a driver is responsible for checking the road engineering to make sure it is safe.
Bucyrus Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me. My point in that thread was that 70 mph speed limit, combined with such a heavy truck, resulted in a crossing with insufficient warning time. The engineer of the Amtrak train involved in the collision agrees with my conclusion, and he has publicly said so.
Challenger I unlike you know the dread of being in a Fatal accident and KNOW the feeling of a Probing from HELL the DOT Attys and Company guys will give you. The DOT crawls over your truck Logs everything with a Microscope looking for ANYTHING to see if there was anything that could pin you for Fault and then Hammer you with Charges here in IL. I as soon as I got to the Hospital as I was hauled away in an Ambulance as NO one could Believe I walked away from my rig that had literally been DESTROYED around me. The Cab was on its side looking at the Radiator on the Chassis and the Chassis was bent like a Pretzel the Trailer had its Drivers side Landing Gear leg bent 90 to the Frame that give you a clue. IIRC the Fifth wheel plate had been removed from the Frame of the Truck. That should give you a clue on the Impact force on this one.
Yet I was walking around with No Injuries. As soon as I got to the Hospital I demanded 2 things one a UA for all Drugs be taken and a Bloodtest for the Same thing since I knew I was going to end up party for a Lawsuit as a Defendant. Then the BS with the DOT started they went over the truck with a Microscope and could not figure out why it passed everything called we took care of the equipment. Then the Insurance carrier for me called took my statement and then I had to wait for the Grand Jury to get done. At one time they were considering Vechiular Homicide against me until the Other Parties BAC came out and it was .24 and that would have destroyed the case for the State and then no charges were filed.
Then the Civil case came on and man it was a Knock down drag out affair and I was Deposed 2X for that Plus had multiple meetings with my Attys in my hometown and at their Offices plus over the phone while I was on the road. Why we settled was simple the Judge Blocked admission of the other person BAC into the case and Our Expert Witness determined that I was 2 inches over the center line with my LRO drive tire at the point of Impact. What was scary was how hard the Plaintiff raked my butt over the COALS. They cost me 2 great jobs one was with Schiender and the Other was with Wal Mart in their Private Fleet. Yet I hold no bad feelings toward his widow. It was an accident and I was the other party.
For all the pain the Atty put me thru I would love to see him Drawn Quarted and beheaded however I will be glad with his DISBARRMENT for telling the widow that her husband was dead BEFORE the Police Notified her.
I was behind one trailer that had a left rear outside tire blow and saw it rip the mud flap right off the trailer, tail lights get popped out then it went through my grill ... it was a bit of a surprise...
My suggestion of 500 feet was based being able to see the trackside crossing signals when passing the signal further down the road. The 500 feet was a WAG about how far the crossing signals could be seen on the worst conditions in which it would be safe to drive 70 MPH (e.g. no fog). I'm also guessing hat the distant light/sign would be visible for at east 500 feet which would then give a total of 1,000 feet of stopping distance.
- Erik
erikm NO like more than 1200 Feet away on a sign that reads Stop at tracks when this light is Flashing and have it tied into the warning for the Crossing Circut. The Truck we are talking about EMPTY has a stopping distance of around 800-900 feet easy. 900 feet is NOT far enough away. LCV's are not going to stop on a dime empty their Braking systems WILL NOT ALLOW IT. First teh Rear Trailer has to get the air then the Front kicks in then the Tractor the way OTR stuff is setup. That way you avoid Jacknifing the rig all over the road you want to have the rear unit slowing down FIRST and when it is 100 feet away that takes time when your only using 1/2 inch Airline.
edbenton All NV needed to do was give them a added Warning 1/4 of a mile away and all this could have been PREVENTED.
All NV needed to do was give them a added Warning 1/4 of a mile away and all this could have been PREVENTED.
Such as a flashing sign/light spaced about 500' from the crossing? Similar things were mentioned in the earlier thread on this accident. That would probably be a good idea, the question is who will pay for it?
Jeff the States that allow them are places that have them Regulated so that you can not take them into Major metro Areas or off certain Designated Highways. NY IN and OH all allow Twin 48's which can weigh 135K however they are Restricted to the Turnpikes and have to be Broken up in Bad Weather. MT ND SD ID OR WA UT CO WY NV all allow either Rocky Mountain Doubles or Twin Trailers or Triple 28's however if the weather is BAD your leaving the end trailer BEHIND in all states. None of the Canadian provindinces have that requirement.
Also They are required to be tagged in the back with Long Load signage and a few other things on them. I always felt safer around one of them than ANY CR England truck or Swift Truck as I knew the driver of the Bigger truck was not a Fresh 6 week Wonder who was still trying to figure out which pedal means STOP. Said it before and I will say it again NV screwed up on the CROSSING on this one and they know it and when the report comes out or that Video is released Look out Big TIme as it is going to clear the Driver. Something I read showed the Driver of the truck had slowed to 30 from his top speed meaning that in 320 feet he had brought down from around 60 I am going to guess and he KNEW there was no way he could have missed the train he was just hoping to avoid derailing the train. He knew when he saw it he was going to DIE and tried to minimize the damage to the company. His last act was more than likely to think of his family and go I am sorry for them.
Lets think about that last 20 Secs he had shall we in that time he was less than 1/3 of a mile from the tracks. He was 1700 feet away from the tracks and in a combo he needed over 900 feet to stop if he could see the lights. He more than likely didn't see them til around 600-700 feet due to Glare and heat distortion and 95 is Great for that Crap and heading North on 95 means he had the Sun in his Face also. So he sees the Gates are down and Knows he can not stop so what does he do Stands on the Brakes and the Lag alone took up about 100-150 of the space he had. All NV needed to do was give them a added Warning 1/4 of a mile away and all this could have been PREVENTED.
edbenton When I drove I felt safer when I was around one of them than ANY Car Driver or any Trainee as the drivers of these trucks I knew they WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING STUPID with their Rigs.
When I drove I felt safer when I was around one of them than ANY Car Driver or any Trainee as the drivers of these trucks I knew they WERE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING STUPID with their Rigs.
I don't know, but driving a heavy truck that requires a long stopping distance at higher speeds on a public road sure doesn't seem that smart to me. Even if the law allows it, and if it does then there are are a lot more at fault.
Jeff
erikem Bucyrus: Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me. The Reno Gazette Journal article linked at the beginning of this thread had a related article on the Nevada DOT NOT making any changes to that crossing since the accident. One possible reason that comes to mind is that making any sort of change would qualify as an admission of liability (note that this is from a very cynical view of the tort system in the US and may have no relation with the motives of the Nevada DOT). - Erik
Bucyrus: Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me.
The Reno Gazette Journal article linked at the beginning of this thread had a related article on the Nevada DOT NOT making any changes to that crossing since the accident. One possible reason that comes to mind is that making any sort of change would qualify as an admission of liability (note that this is from a very cynical view of the tort system in the US and may have no relation with the motives of the Nevada DOT).
Erik,
The article you are referring to must be the one linked directly above by blue streak1. It is a very interesting article, and quite interestingly, it mentions the occurrence of another near miss at the crossing last April.
It is here:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120624/NEWS49/306240059/Nevada-has-made-no-changes-intersection-where-truck-crashed-into-Amtrak-train-killing-6?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CLocal%20News&nclick_check=1
I think there is a good chance that you are correct in your speculation on why Nevada had decided not to improve the warning at the crossing of the 6/24/11 crash.
In reading the latest position of the Nevada DOT, I am convinced that they are stubbornly digging their heels in to resist improving the crossing warning because doing so would be a tantamount admission that the crossing was/is inadequately protected. They would be admitting their own negligence, and that would be a hot potato in view of all the litigation underway on the crash. I believe it has placed them into bureaucratic gridlock.
How else can you explain their insistence that the crossing is adequately protected in view of not only last year’s fatal crash, but also the near miss in 9/2010 and another one last April? In addition to those three incidents suggesting inadequate crossing warning, locomotive engineer Ron Kaminkow has spoken out on behalf of his union about the inadequate protection of the crossing. He wants to protect railroaders from a defective crossing.
As the article reports, in the wake of last year’s fatal crash, Nevada DOT conducted a study of about a half dozen grade crossings on their highest speed roads to see if the crossing protection was adequate. So obviously, they acknowledge the question. But they see no problem with those high-speed crossings. I believe it is possible to look at this warning issue in a number of different ways. One way can blind you to the other. Surely highway and safety experts must have a handle on this, but I wonder if they do.
another news report
http://www.rgj.com/article/20111104/NEWS/120622012/NTSB-recreation-fatal-Amtrak-crash-includes-horn-skid-braking?odyssey=nav%7Chead
AND ANOTHER
That is the thing I was wondering about ..I thought the original thing was that he fell asleep...
With Current FMCSA Regs if his that went into effect in 2008 if his BMI was over 25 he was required to have a Sleep Apena Test DONE to keep his CDL Failure to do so would have Dsqualified him to drive. Also with him working a set shift and getting a Regular Sleep Schedule Fatigue was not going to be an issue ESPICALLY Hauling 135K lbs Around. You do not Screw around with that.
narig01 At this point I would speculate that neither UP nor Amtrak have any access to what the safety board (NTSB) is understanding about this wreck. The more I"ve seen of it the more questions I have. Am awaiting the safety board report.
At this point I would speculate that neither UP nor Amtrak have any access to what the safety board (NTSB) is understanding about this wreck.
The more I"ve seen of it the more questions I have. Am awaiting the safety board report.
Maybe the NTSB will discover that the truck driver suffered a sudden onset of fatigue caused by a deadly sleep disorder.
edbenton I loveone line in the Article a Lawyer from the UP went to the Judge and asked so we can SEE the PARTS in a OTR Trucks Braking System. Excuse me doesn't UP have a few Air Braked Trucks in ITS OWN Fleet they could have used for this like a MOW truck or something. At Least Davis is getting ITS HANDS on the Onboard Video Footage for its Attys to go over. That should be real Interesting as the UP was screaming NO we do not want them to get that along with the NTSB why is it bad for the RR or something. Sorry when I had my Fatal accident all the Plantiff Atty did was look at the Maintance Records not need to remove wheels off another truck and such. UP and Amtrak better pray like HELL that there is nothing WRONG with that truck after they are done with it otherwise one HELL OF A CAN OF WORMS is going to get opened up BY THEM.
I loveone line in the Article a Lawyer from the UP went to the Judge and asked so we can SEE the PARTS in a OTR Trucks Braking System. Excuse me doesn't UP have a few Air Braked Trucks in ITS OWN Fleet they could have used for this like a MOW truck or something. At Least Davis is getting ITS HANDS on the Onboard Video Footage for its Attys to go over. That should be real Interesting as the UP was screaming NO we do not want them to get that along with the NTSB why is it bad for the RR or something.
Sorry when I had my Fatal accident all the Plantiff Atty did was look at the Maintance Records not need to remove wheels off another truck and such. UP and Amtrak better pray like HELL that there is nothing WRONG with that truck after they are done with it otherwise one HELL OF A CAN OF WORMS is going to get opened up BY THEM.
The more I"ve seen of it the more questions I have. Am awaiting the safety board report. I will say that the board is probably going to say something about fire supression systems on the train. Not that it would have done much.
By the by have any of the autopsy reports been released? If the victims on board the train died of smoke inhalation as opposed to trauma (breathing the smoke of the fire vs being crushed inside the car) it will say some.
All their Trucks are Locals and so he would have been in the area Multiple times and very well Aquainted with that crossing. He was paid by the hour and also worked an 8 hour Shift from what I have seen from company history. Also OTR Trucks run at 100 PSI and hold enough air that when they blow they will take off someones head if not Secured right.
Here is an Idea on the power of one of these tires when they blow I had a Steer tire Blow out from hitting a chunk of Shrapnel from a car wreck in front of me and it REMOVED THE HOOD from my TRUCK. The power of the tire coming apart at 40 MPH was enough to remove a C120 HOOD while breaking the hood Hinges EVERYTHING that held it at all at that speed.
Bucyrus Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me.
edbenton Dump trailers like they run get beat to hell in a hurry as they are getting stuffed Dumped into them and also hit by Equipment and stuff. They are the Gondolas of the OTR industry. Also with CVSA 2010 some of the Inspections they got where Breakdowns and the issues found where from the Breakdowns that happened on the side of the road like a Blown tire taking out the tail lights do not laugh it happens. Tire Blows it can and will destroy the back end of a trailer. I saw a steer tire blow and take the entire HOOD off a Pete before. So things happen out there that will get drivers points that were working before when they left the yard and then they hammered by the DOT.
Dump trailers like they run get beat to hell in a hurry as they are getting stuffed Dumped into them and also hit by Equipment and stuff. They are the Gondolas of the OTR industry. Also with CVSA 2010 some of the Inspections they got where Breakdowns and the issues found where from the Breakdowns that happened on the side of the road like a Blown tire taking out the tail lights do not laugh it happens. Tire Blows it can and will destroy the back end of a trailer. I saw a steer tire blow and take the entire HOOD off a Pete before. So things happen out there that will get drivers points that were working before when they left the yard and then they hammered by the DOT.
Had a tire tread separate on my race car trailer at road speed - broke the drivers side mirror and left rubber marks all over the side of the vehicle and sounded like a heavy duty gun shot when it happened. There is tremendous power potential in any tire at highway speeds, more so for OTR truck tires.
On thing I haven't see mentioned - was the driver of the rig 'local', had he been driving over this particular crossing multiple times a month in making his normal runs or was this his first time in the area and thus having no prior knowledge of the crossing.
Bucyrus The engineer of the Amtrak train involved in the collision agrees with my conclusion, and he has publicly said so.
Commenting on a case you are involved with like this in public? Good way to get fired, sued, or both.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Yep the State and the NTSB know they are so Screwed on this one and that the Crossing is BAD meaning that the State could be on the hook for all the Damages in this one and they are SCARED of it. Think about it driver of the truck HAD NO TIME TO STOP COULD NOT SEE THE TRAIN TIL TO LATE AND ALSO GATES WHERE TO LATE TO WARN HIM. Boy I would love to be a fly in the room of this one right now.
Last summer, during the thread, Is Amtrak Crash Nevada’s Fault?, I had some communications with Nevada DOT, and I was told that they were committed to public communication on the accident regardless of the legal ramifications. After I sent them my analysis showing a total warning for the truck driver of 2.9 seconds, they did not answer any further communications from me.
My point in that thread was that 70 mph speed limit, combined with such a heavy truck, resulted in a crossing with insufficient warning time.
Been legal for longer than the Interstate Highway system has been Around. They have been used for about 70 years in the Western States and are Very Common in Canada also and have a Better Saftey Record than all other OTR trucks. Why they are restricted to certain Routes Certain States and require Experaince to Drive them. Drivers of them are not IDIOTS and take their JOBS Very Carefully. Drivers of these are where the Carriers that Pull Explosives like to get their Drivers from if they can. When your hauling a Full Set of Doubles like these guys do your eyes are at least 1 mile AHEAD of you at ALL TIMES and your thinking 30 secs ahead plus remembering that your braking distance is around 9-10 Football Fields long. Your not going to be Tailgating someone Speeding or weaving as any movement is Amplified over the distance of the trailers.
They are also inspected more often by Mechanics and their Drivers and also the DOT than you think. This carrier runs 4.4 Million miles in a year and had 21 OOS on 71 inspections in a Year. They run all that distance in the State of NV alone. Yes they need to be better in Maintance Hell every carrier needs to be better in that but it is hard to do that in real world. However the Driver has to INSPECT all equipment everyday and turn that in also the Equipment has to be INSPECTED annually to make sure it is safe. Also most Companies have a Maintance Schedulae of about 2 months they rotate everything in for needed service. So they can repair what is needed.
Bucyrus I would say that the title of this thread is rather misleading because it sounds like it means losing the case, especially when posed as a headline. The so-called lost battle is just a loss in a minor dispute over producing evidence within the trail. The article also cites a similar loss on the part of UP/Amtrak over revealing the locomotive event recorder data. I certainly agree with the trucking company’s lawyer in that UP and Amtrak should go out and procure their own truck rather than make the trucking company provide one. What is meant by UP/Amrak’s lawyer saying they want to take off the tractor’s tires to “see with the brake assembly is like” ? Are they referring to the tractor that was in the crash? I thought that got pretty well destroyed in the crash and fire.
What is meant by UP/Amrak’s lawyer saying they want to take off the tractor’s tires to “see with the brake assembly is like” ? Are they referring to the tractor that was in the crash? I thought that got pretty well destroyed in the crash and fire.
OK, things may have changed since I worked for IH/Navistar, but back then there were very few "standard" highway tractors produced. A trucking company would commonly "Spec'" its equipment. That is, they buyer would provide the manufacturer with specifications for buiding the vehicle.
The whole drive train could be "Speced". Different engines, different transmissions, etc.
This was a combination highway vehicle being operated with one Peterbilt tractor and two trailers manufactured by builders that haven't been mentioned. Who knows what their specifications where?
UP/Amtrak can not simply go get a Peterbilt tractor of the same model and year with any assurance that what they'd be looking at was similar to the vehicle involved in the crash.
As to the video. From the newspaper article it was the NTSB that didn't want the trucking company's lawyers to see it. Why? I don't know. The railroads don't seem to be involved in that issue.
Makes you wonder why they are legal.
From looking at teh Specs of Davis trucks they are setup for 135K when they are pulling Doubles so they are at the max for a set of Doubles in the USA. Now to stop that combo empty fast your going to be needing an Anchor you can DEPLOY as they are going to wheel hop and or be swinging side to side so hard that he would have been lucky to have it down from 60MPH to about 30 MPH in the time he had with my guess. He could Not have stopped unless he Rolled the truck and even then He might still have still taken out the CZ with a trailer that whipped into it. Can you see the problems he faced.
Bucyrus From what has been reported, the warning zone for the Nevada crossing was about 900 feet. If the truck stopping distance was 900-1000 feet, it looks like I am going to have to revise my 2.9-second warning calculation in the Nevada thread.
From what has been reported, the warning zone for the Nevada crossing was about 900 feet. If the truck stopping distance was 900-1000 feet, it looks like I am going to have to revise my 2.9-second warning calculation in the Nevada thread.
Hmmm.
Ed, thank you for the return post . Mr. Benton and I have had encounters with DOT folk . Sometime it is irritating , then comical . For the most part DOT don't like to be wrong , they are there for a reason , good or bad which ever way you look at it.
NO trains or crossings were harmed or blocked here.
Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
edbenton For the truck he was in for the weight he is was plated at my guess is empty with a set of 2 trailers your looking at roughly 900-1000 FEET to get it to stop in an Emergancy situation...
For the truck he was in for the weight he is was plated at my guess is empty with a set of 2 trailers your looking at roughly 900-1000 FEET to get it to stop in an Emergancy situation...
Edbenton,
For the truck he was in for the weight he is was plated at my guess is empty with a set of 2 trailers your looking at roughly 900-1000 FEET to get it to stop in an Emergancy situation without either having a Jacknife or ending up with the trailers Rolled on their Side along with the Tractor and a Bigger mess with the Enviromental issues from the Fuel. I had someone that code decode vins look at their Setups and he is in Agreement with those figures when EMPTY as they have a Load Compensator on them to prevent lockup on the Brakes even with ABS it could happen. Empty Trucks stop worse than LOADED as their is LESS Friction on the ground and they will WHEEL HOP LIKE A SOB UNDER HEAVY BRAKING. Sorry but short of an Anchor there was NO WAY HE COULD HAVE STOPPED from the time he saw the train at all.
Most grade Crossings are designed to give a max of 600-700 feet warning at Highway speed TO SHORT A DISTANCE HERE. This Crossing needs have a Longer warning ZONE like a 1/4 mile so the Double Trailers that use it CAN STOP.
What I am trying to learn is the shortest stopping distance at 70 mph for the truck involved in the Nevada crash. Is that distance in excess of 720 feet?
Current and Past FMCSA part 121 Regs are if a Vechile is plated for more than 120K lbs then they are Excempt from the 720 foot Emergancy stopping Distance. Why is Simple trying to stop that much weight that fast in a Semi Full trailer combo with 3 articulation points is going to end up with a W in the Highway and load all over the Place. Not a pretty sight to see. However teh Guys that drive this stuff at that weight are considered the Best of the Best and for the most part have decent Driving records plus have Years of Experiance BEFORE hauling them. This is not a job for a Steering Wheel Holder fresh out of a CDL mill these jobs go to a guy that has about 750-1Million miles + OTR in all types of weather and has seen about everything on the road.
edbenton ...the Standard for an Emergancy Brake app under all Condtions is 720 Feet and if your Plated to weigh more than 120K lbs your Excempt from that... and that was from 55 MPH. ...so we are looking at a Bad Crossing Design any way you cut it there was NO WAY he could have stopped.
...the Standard for an Emergancy Brake app under all Condtions is 720 Feet and if your Plated to weigh more than 120K lbs your Excempt from that... and that was from 55 MPH.
...so we are looking at a Bad Crossing Design any way you cut it there was NO WAY he could have stopped.
So, just to make sure I understand you: Was the Davis truck plated for over 120,000 lbs.?
And if it was plated for over 120,000 lbs., does that mean that the emergency stopping distance at 55 mph is 720 feet?
And if it was plated for over 120,000 lbs., does that mean that the emergency stopping distance at 70 mph is greater than 720 feet, but the actual distance is unspecified?
Just some of thoughts on this topic:
1. In the event of a 'major' incident ( loss of lives and heavy property damages) involving motor vehicles. A couple activities will happen:
a. Commercial driver will be advised that there must be a urine test, or if incapacitated, a blood test of that individual. (This mist be done almost immediately,timely, and promptly, as possible). Refusal can mean Termination of Job, and its' protections.
b. The enforcement agency in charge of the incident will have the ECM on the vehicle removed/confiscated(?), and taken to a location to test the information in its memory. The data stored can be downloaded and processed for behavior prior to the incident.
[an ECM memory will yield a memory of at least 7 days; data will include engine RPM records.etc.]
a. Length of time at what range of rpm ( this info will cross validate the Drivers Hours of Service, as logged)
b. Episodes of Hard Braking ( an indicator of driver following traffic too closely.)
c. How long the engine was operating from previous shut down ( again, Testing Drivers Log Book information)
2.The lawyers wanting to see a duplicate rig to the one destroyed in the aforementioned Highway/Rail grade crossing incident.
A.Theatrics on their part to support a courtroom situation.
B. Produce a film for use in the courtroom ( a staged reconstruction?)
a) Staged reconstruction of an incident is a widely used, legitimate tactic to demonstrate to a jury/judge the on-scene dynamics, as closely as possible the circumstances of what took place.
b.) Staged reconstructions take place in many cases in the aftermath of fatal incidents, and are a useful too, to determine the percentages of liabilities of the involved parties and their vehicles, as well as the contributions of those to the severity of the accident.
If further interested, here is a link to ECM's and Heavy Diesel Engines applications:
Suggestion see page 7
www.harristechnical.com/downloads/ECM_Field_Guide.pdf
Most of the shoes are Remanned by Rockwell themselves and only use OEM Materials. There are 3 Axle makes out there Spicer Eaton and Rockwell/Dana. They all use a differant Shoe and can not Be interchanged and Rockwell has about 95% of the Market why they are the Easiest ones to install and last the longest.
Cannonball,
I seriously doubt the folks from UP will even lay hands on the tractor provided, or do much or have done much beyond look at the leftovers from the tractor involved in the accident.
What they will do is hire a private repair company to inspect the comparison truck, take photos of the parts they are interested in, show those photos to a professional mechanic, compare those photos and parts to OEM ones bought new, get statements from the manufacture of the parts, and of that make and model of tractor in regards to what they, the manufactures consider safe or within limits, what they recommend for replacement parts, stuff like that.
I am using brake shoes as an example only, but during negations, they will place a new OEM shoe on the table, the recovered shoe from the accident, or a photo of it, and a photo of the shoe from the tractor provided by Davis, and use the differences as leverage in bargaining...any single item they can find that differs greatly from the OEM and any item on the truck in the accident and the truck provided by Davis can mean the difference between litigation in court or working towards a settlement.
It isn't that the UP and Amtrak guys don't know how a tractor trailer rig works, they certainly do, but it is about trying to find a significant known defect or a significant lack of maintenance on the part of Davis.
Using brake shoes again as example only, but what if they discover Davis was using aftermarket brake shoes instead of OEM shoes, and the aftermarket shoes could be shown to wear out faster, or not provide as much braking force as the OEM parts, (which won't be hard to do) then they have way to show Davis was cutting cost by using brake shoes that were not as good as they could or should have been.
After that, all they have to do is prove Davis knew the shoes were not as good as OEM, and knew the shoes they were using didn't stop the truck as well or fast as it could have been stopped, and they have a good point to raise in court....juries do listen to stuff like that, and pitched right, it can make a case.
There might be the chance the railroad attorneys don't know the difference between air brakes and air bags, but bet your bottom dollar the professionals they hire to do the inspection and testify do, and can back it up in court.
What they are doing right now is simple looking for leverage.
switch7frg Ed , it is always comical of the so called "safety experts" inspecting a truck ( OTR or others). The last Red Oval I bought was randomly pulled over in Ind. after 4 mo. of service.Then the cartoons began, as known the frame and other parts are painted black. After grovelling under the cab , he said all the brake hoses were cracked . So said truck was "red tagged". Lawyer was called and Red Oval service rep appered. It was proven that just the paint was cracked from rain and slush splashing on the lines . Lawyer threatned suit for delay of time freight. Red tag removed. E.T.A. extended to destination because of ignorance. NO Trains were harmed or delayed or blocked crossings in this matter. Respectfully, Cannonball
Ed , it is always comical of the so called "safety experts" inspecting a truck ( OTR or others). The last Red Oval I bought was randomly pulled over in Ind. after 4 mo. of service.Then the cartoons began, as known the frame and other parts are painted black. After grovelling under the cab , he said all the brake hoses were cracked . So said truck was "red tagged". Lawyer was called and Red Oval service rep appered. It was proven that just the paint was cracked from rain and slush splashing on the lines . Lawyer threatned suit for delay of time freight. Red tag removed. E.T.A. extended to destination because of ignorance. NO Trains were harmed or delayed or blocked crossings in this matter.
Respectfully, Cannonball
Here is the NEW Standard that went into Effect in August of 2011 and the Standard for an Emergancy Brake app under all Condtions is 720 Feet and if your Plated to weigh more than 120K lbs your Excempt from that per the Federal Goverment due to Saftey Standards and that was from 55 MPH. What was the Distance on he left Skid Marks 300 Feet there was No way he could have stopped under the OLD or NEW Standards. www.fmcsa.dot.gov › Rules & Regulations Brakes are in Part 121 so we are looking at a Bad Crossing Design any way you cut it there was NO WAY he could have stopped.
The Design specs are that there is Equal Brake Power on the life of the pads until you hit the Rivets at 1/4 of an inch and then you lose some power. Why most Brakes on OTR trucks last 300-400K miles and cost with labor and parts about 1 Grand an Axle to replace.
To give you an idea on the Maintance Costs on an OTR truck for a year that runs 110K miles in a normal Year just for Oil Changes the owner will spend close to 2 Grand just on changing the Oil on the truck. If it needs Tires for 18 if he buys New he is in the area of 9 Grand if he looses a Clutch that is about 3-4 grand installed Tranny is about 5 grand for the Reman Transmission alone. Differantials are about 2Grand Each. Then you have the Engine that is 15-25 grand to Overhaul it if it blows. Those are repairs you know are going to be needed. Then you have the Unschedualed repairs all the Sensors that break at about a Grand Fuel Injectors at 2 Grand Each installed and other wear and tear Items. Most O/O set aside 2=4 cents a mile to cover breakdowns. The amount a truck can need to keep it running that if they do not break the Owner can buy either a fully loaded Dually Pickup for him or a Brand New Caddy for his wife if he has a good year on Repairs. That give you an idea.
edbentonHere is a Listing of things that will get a Carrier and a Driver Points under CVSA 2010 that will lead to them being Shut down ...Brakes to Thin Brakes Out of Adjustment...
If you compare truck brakes in brand new condition versus brakes worn to the maximum legally permissible degree, is the stopping distance the same during maximum braking effort?
Or does legal wear reduce brake effectiveness?
Here is a Listing of things that will get a Carrier and a Driver Points under CVSA 2010 that will lead to them being Shut down Lights being out lack of Spare Fuses Missing Mudflaps and Missing Reflective tape all of them are NON Out of Service Conditions or OOS from here on out and weighed X5 on the Inspection. Here is a Small Listing of things that get you Placed OOS and have a Weighing on 7X on the Inspection reports Brakes to Thin Brakes Out of Adjustment Tires Less than 2/32 of Tread left Tires Improperly Inflated Wheels loose or cracked Suspension Members Cracked or Missing and the list is about 10 Pages LONG that will get you placed OOS. Now do you think a carrier that plays with Rocky Mountain Doubles is going to Screw around on Maintaince Issues THEY ARE NOT going to Risk it. Hauling Combos that can weigh up to 105K Gross in Nevada and also on some of the Steepest Roads is not something to Screw around on.
Since the Accident the DOT has been Hammering them and in 71 inspections they have had 8 total OOS Violations Word to the wise their OOS Rate is Better than Swift, Schienders, and JB Hunts and Englands. They do have a Higher Maintance Basic it high but when your getting inspected every week it seems and they are looking for anything to ding you on they are going to find anything they can to write you up. Sorry but Not one of the Inspections listed and I am going to give you a Direct link to their Safer Score shows any major issues on the Tractors the Trailers that get beat to Crap however have some but still compared to Container Chassis I see pulled around here they are Pristine. http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS/Data/carrier.aspx?enc=D1v40pJn+eZu4yUTFJlPVW667waVcl+AinHxHGQKf9s= UP needs to look at some of the Chassis they force drivers to use if they want to see Bad Brakes sorry some of those Chassis should be sent to the Scrap heap not sent out on the road. Most of the Brake issues they do have are for Missing ABS warning lites and Brakes out of adj sorry even a Auto Slack will not get them all.
Any carrier that can go 24 years between Audits is doing SOMETHING right most carriers can not make it past 3 years they made it 24 years. Think about that.
Okay, I see. They want a duplicate tractor and trailer from Davis’s fleet, and they want to look at the brakes on that duplicate. They cannot look at the brakes on the equipment in the wreck because it was destroyed. I had misinterpreted the article by Jaffe saying that UP/Amtrak should go out and find their own tractor trailer if they want to look at one. I thought they were just asking for a facsimile to see how the brakes worked.
In any event, I can surely see why the UP lawyer would want to discover everything about Davis’s truck maintenance. I guess it goes without saying that Davis has a duplicate to the truck that was in the crash. But as for evidence, I would not be surprised if Davis truck brakes are in A-1 perfect condition these days.
At some point, I am guessing that the truck manufacturer’s engineers are going to be called to explain how much distance it would take to stop that truck at 70 mph if the brakes were within proper specs.
Look at it this way, if the truck Davis supplies has perfect brakes, with lots and lots of brake shoe material left, then Amtrak and UP can ask during trial "Is that is a typical representation of all of the Davis fleet?", and if the answer is yes, the next question the railroad will ask is, "So, why are the brake shoes on the tractor involved in the accident so worn?"
Not saying they were worn out, but I doubt the shoes were brand new on the tractor involved in the accident.
If the tractor has what I would consider normal wear on a brake shoe, and the shoes from the accident truck are worn, same thing applies...and I doubt Davis will provide a tractor with bad or worn out shoes, so...
Makes perfect sense to try and get your hands on a tractor from the fleet you are suing, if you could.
If this was, say a Buick from Avis rent a car; wouldn't you want your attorney to be able to compare the car from the accident to another of the same make from the Avis fleet to see if there are any discrepancies?
Just as it makes sense for Davis to want a copy of the video and even recorder tape, surprised they didn't ask for the same info from any other accident to have something to compare it against, along the lines of when did the engineer go to emergency braking, how long did it take to stop, was the train within the speed limit, did the horn blow correctly, so forth and so on.
Gather enough evidence during discovery, and often a trial becomes un-necessary, settlement can and often is the result.
I suspect what Amtrak & UP are looking for is if the Maintenance Record accurately reflects the truck & trailer selected from the Davis fleet. No trucking company WOULD EVER fudge it's maintenance records, and if you believe that one there are a lot of other things you would believe. Maybe Davis does do a good job of maintaining their vehicles - maybe they are like a lot of trucking companies that operate in a very narrow geographical area and are running on shoe string budgets and have been known to cut corners when it comes to maintaining their equipment. I can surmise what Amtrak and UP are thinking.
OK changed title good point !!
I would say that the title of this thread is rather misleading because it sounds like it means losing the case, especially when posed as a headline. The so-called lost battle is just a loss in a minor dispute over producing evidence within the trail. The article also cites a similar loss on the part of UP/Amtrak over revealing the locomotive event recorder data.
I certainly agree with the trucking company’s lawyer in that UP and Amtrak should go out and procure their own truck rather than make the trucking company provide one.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.