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.
Thx IGN
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.
Ed,
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.