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...
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/
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?
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...
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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...
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Ed,
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.
Rgds IGN
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.