zugmann Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
Zugmann,
Please allow me to clarify.
I was referring to “crashes” meaning all crashes in general, including those involving vehicles as well as those involving vehicles and trains. Specifically, the apt comparison would be trains and vehicles compared to vehicles meeting at intersections.
When you apply what I said about magnetism to banks robberies, this would be the analogy:
Of all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets. I believe that there is also an explanation for the magnetism of grade crossings attracting crashes.
tree68 The editorial advocated the removal of all "killer trees" from roadsides. After also advocating for mandatory vehicle spacing on highways, the piece concluded that even after all those measures, some clown would come along, roll his vehicle and kill himself. Though tongue-in-cheek, the editorial had some validity. Even today, eight percent of highway fatalities (over 3000 per year) involve a collision with a tree. That makes them more dangerous than railroad crossings - and trees don't even move!
The editorial advocated the removal of all "killer trees" from roadsides. After also advocating for mandatory vehicle spacing on highways, the piece concluded that even after all those measures, some clown would come along, roll his vehicle and kill himself.
Though tongue-in-cheek, the editorial had some validity. Even today, eight percent of highway fatalities (over 3000 per year) involve a collision with a tree. That makes them more dangerous than railroad crossings - and trees don't even move!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Yeah, and we ought to move those Deer Crossing signs to a place where it is safer for the dear deer to cross!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
BaltACD That is less than 1/100th of 1 percent.
That is less than 1/100th of 1 percent.
Or one in 38,000 drivers.
Or one per 1.5 Billion miles driven.
I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek editorial that appeared years ago in the old Pontiac (MI) Press.
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...
Since the failure of a train to sound a horn when approaching a crossing somehow transfers liability for an accident to the railroad that had the right of way at the intersection I suggest that the vehicle and traffic laws be amended to require automobiles to sound their horn when they approach any intersection where they have the right of way to warn anyone who is considering running a traffic signal or stop sign that they are coming.
If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then the driver is too stupid to be allowed to roam free anyway.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
edblysard 311,591,917 people in the United States as of July 2011. Conservative assumption is that ¼ of those are legal drivers. 77897979 drivers result. According to the FRA, there was 2054 accidents at grade crossings that year. 0.00263% of drivers in 2011 involved in grade crossing accidents. Less than a single percent. The only reason it is an issue is because we are railfans and read about it here, and because it makes spectacular press for a day or two in the real world. A crushed car photo under the front page fold in any paper sells papers.
311,591,917 people in the United States as of July 2011.
Conservative assumption is that ¼ of those are legal drivers.
77897979 drivers result.
According to the FRA, there was 2054 accidents at grade crossings that year.
0.00263% of drivers in 2011 involved in grade crossing accidents.
Less than a single percent.
The only reason it is an issue is because we are railfans and read about it here, and because it makes spectacular press for a day or two in the real world.
A crushed car photo under the front page fold in any paper sells papers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
23 17 46 11
regular intersections attract collisions, underpasses attract too high trucks, overpasses attract car and or trucks falling from the heavens....
I think this is getting a little silly, n'est pas?
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/
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Ed,
I understand your points and agree with most of them. However, I am not advocating that crossings in general need more protection equipment, and I have no ideas of what type of improvements could be made to make crossings safer. The only exception to my position on this was for the Nevada crossing with the 70 mph speed limit. I believe that crossing lacks advance warning because of the relatively high speed limit. And I am not referring to the 25 second activation warning, which confuses the issue of approach warning.
For that Nevada crossing, I do advocate adding the advanced warning system that has been designed and approved for such applications by the FRA. And I have suggested it here. But when I suggested that several times in the Nevada thread, it was met with fierce resistance. Yet the engineer of the Amtrak train that was hit by the truck at that crossing advocates the same advance warning or similar improvements. Why there should be fierce resistance to the idea is an interesting study in itself.
Other than that crossing, I have taken not advocated any crossing improvements that I can recall. I see a greater potential for improvement coming from looking at driver attitudes and perception, and possibly refocusing education on that.
In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. And I feel that if this is verified and understood, it could open the door to better crossing protection solutions or even better public compliance. That is where I see the greatest potential for reducing the problem. I do not hold the view that all drivers who have been hit at grade crossings, or just violated them, were simply incorrigible and would stop at nothing. I think that is the wrong explanation for their crossing behavior in many cases.
Earlier I did mention that flashing red crossing signals lack any advance warning such as would be provided by flashing yellow preceding flashing red. But I don’t know if that would help, and I am not advocating it. My larger point is that the law about the crossing is technically defective because it requires a driver to stop instantaneously if the red lights activate in the driver’s face on approach. It may not pose an immediate risk, but it does require the driver to break the law. And when we are carefully allotting and counting seconds in the various phases of the activation warning cycle, I think it is amazing that we have this timing ambiguity built into the front of the cycle by a law that requires the impossible.
I understand your point that some drivers will defeat every type of safety device. But I do not believe that all drivers who defeat some of them would stop at nothing no matter what else was done to thwart them. So all I am doing is looking mainly at the law, the warnings, and what goes on inside the heads of drivers. It is the same thing that the MUTCD and the FRA are doing as they constantly search for new ways to improve the warning systems and reduce the problem.
As far as seeing accidents first hand, I agree that people would all be more careful if they saw more of them. Maybe after seeing many, however, they would become hardened to them and resume taking chances. But I can say that for me, seeing an accident first hand has an emotional effect that comes right out of left field. It almost incapacitates my willingness to drive. That emotional impact does heal though in a day or so. I think that healed state is the normal condition for most drivers that have not just witnessed an accident. And in that state, people take risks without being stopped by the potential consequences. They rule out those consequences as part of their calculation deciding to take the risk.
But yes, the worst accidents possible in the abstract or seen in movies are not even in the same ballpark as one that is witnessed for real. They are as different as bird feathers and avalanches.
Well,
Gonna add my 2 cents worth and get out.
Bucyrus, you have run just about every thread dealing with grade crossing accidents to the extreme, pointing out your assumption/ assertion for the need to put some form of additional warning in place at grade crossings.
If ya got something, then put it out here for discussion.
The following is my opinion, said opinion based on personal experience and on the job observation.
As was pointed out, most auto drivers stop for the red light at intersections, even when its “way up there”.
Sure they do, because every driver out there has seen either an accident as it happened at an intersection, or has come up on the aftermath of one…most of us have seen several such things.
Either way, we all have firsthand experience of what happens when you ignore the warning light; even way up there we pay attention to it.
We either feel, hear and see it happen, or we see the sheet draped bodies as we drive by, no matter which, it is a personal and up close, real time experience.
Now, how many of you have seen a grade crossing accident as it happens?
I don’t mean photos, videos off the net, but up close, where you can smell the oil, hot metal, and creosote and diesel fuel?
Or come upon one just after the fact, and watched the EMS people try to pry the wreck open, trying the get the victim out before they bleed out?
Bet you that outside this and other railfan forums, the number of folks who see that, or witness a grade crossing accident is tiny, minuscule compared to the number of you who have see auto accidents.
We all know the very real likelihood of being in an accident if we ignore the traffic light at the intersection; we all have had the experience of the end result in person.
Most of us have never seen the result of a train hitting an automobile.
Trust me, be It from the cab, or from the road way, it is the most terrifying thing you can witness, because you immediately understand it’s no contest at all, the train will destroy the auto, and there isn’t a single thing anyone can do about it once it’s put in motion…
You can take this to the bank….ever railroader I know will approach grade crossings, slow down and look both ways, not glance, but look, before crossing, regardless of whether the crossing has gates bells, the Full Monty treatment, or just cross bucks, we pay attention.
None of us trust crossing arms to function correctly, we automatically assume there is a train on the tracks, and we proceed under that assumption until we can ascertain the way is clear.
It’s not only because we are railroaders, but because almost all of us have had the personal experience of seeing or being involved with the result of not paying attention at grade crossings.
If you put up barricades, people will drive into them.
Put up nets, they will drive into the net.
Pop up spike strips to puncture tires, they will drive over them.
Full quadrant gates with median dividers, they will drive over the dividers or run into or under the gates.
Over and over and over.
Putting up a warning sign, bells, in pavement LED warning 100 yards, 1000 yards away from the crossing will make no difference.
Flashing lights, even a ten foot tall neon arrow pointing at the closed crossing arms won’t stop them, because they truly do not understand what will happen if they hit or get hit by a train….they have no type of real world experience to compare it to, have never seen it, felt it, smelled it or cleaned up after it, and they will continue to ignore any warning device until they see/ experience the results in person.
My railroad had a problem at an industrial crossing; we had a rash of near misses, then finally a good smack down with a big rig.
The rig lost, and our MOW guys left the front end/grill hood assembly sitting by the crossing for several months…lots of the other debris were left in place on purpose.
Funny thing, we seemed to have solved the problem…truck drivers who look at that hood, the bent wheel rims and all the junk…well, they slow down and look now.
Nothing you do will prevent the ordinary driver from ignoring the at grade warning devices, until they experience the end results of doing so up close and in person.
Nothing….
zugmannYou were talking about drivers don't want long delays. Fine. But most traffic light cycles are well under 2 minutes. Yet drivers don't want to wait even that long. So even if you waved a magic wand and only had train crossings occupied a maximum of 2 minutes every single time - people would still run the crossings.
I understand your point. We are looking at drivers taking a risk to avoid a delay in two different situations.
One is at traffic lights where the delay is certain to be no more than 2-3 minutes.
The other is at grade crossings where the delay is unknowable ahead of time, but it is certain that it could easily be 15 minutes. And it has the potential to be much longer. Not every driver is aware of the potential for crossing delay, but many are.
I don’t see any way to know if drivers take more risk at grade crossing because of the potential for greater delay. All I know is that they take risk at both intersections and grade crossings.
So the question I see is this:
Do drivers take more risk at grade crossings because the potential length of the delay is greater—OR—do they take the same risk across the board once the delay time reaches the 2-3 minute threshold?
I have no proof, but common sense tells me that the greater the potential delay, the greater the risk that drivers are willing to take.
Going back to this study:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
One has to temper the impatience factor with the risk taking factor.
Someone who is averse to risk will sigh, say "oh, well," and wait for the train. They won't be happy, but they'll accept it.
Someone who doesn't see blowing the crossing as a substantial risk will blow the crossing.
I'd just about bet that if one were to do a study measuring impatience, and at the same time measured the risk taking factors as was done in the linked study, there would be a correlation.
So what we're coming down to is that certain people will attempt to make it through a crossing no matter what the potential impediment to their progress may be.
Yes, but here is where I make my comparison.
You were talking about drivers don't want long delays. Fine. But most traffic light cycles are well under 2 minutes. Yet drivers don't want to wait even that long. So even if you waved a magic wand and only had train crossings occupied a maximum of 2 minutes every single time - people would still run the crossings.
Impatience will be the end of us all.
tree68Risk takers Impatience (which partially includes the next item) Fear of getting stuck for a long time (long train)
Impatience (which partially includes the next item)
Fear of getting stuck for a long time (long train)
Well as I have said here and in other threads, I think this plays a very large part in the risk-taking/impatience factor. It is not just the fear of a delay from a long train. It includes the fear of delay 5-20 times that long from train switching movements. I know of no attempt ever being made to measure and quantify the actual cause of the impatience. I think that extensive driver surveys would reveal the information. But if the cause is as I suspect, I am not sure if the industry wants it publicized. They might feel that it works against their position on crossing compliance.
I have thought that one way to measure the impatience is to compare driver compliance with grade crossing signals compared to traffic lights where there is no potential for an unexpected prolonged delay. But as Zugmann points out, drivers do run red lights often. I would say that 95% of that red light running is done as the light changes from yellow to red. They don’t want to stop for the short cycle of the light. However, I am not exactly sure how one would correlate the behavior of traffic light response to grade crossing response. The two might not be comparable.
One point to consider is that when drivers run the red light just after it begins, there is a bit of grace in the delay for the opposing green light to start. Drivers know that, so they account for that in their calculation to beat the red light. Whereas, if you are applying the same kind of calculation to beating a train, there is no grace period.
So in that sense, drivers are taking a bigger risk to beat the train than they do to beat the red traffic light. There is also a strong tendency for drivers to underestimate the speed of a train. And there is a considerable difference between the cycle of events at grade crossings compared to traffic signals. The meanings and types of signal indications are different. There is also a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of grade crossing signals that has no corollary with traffic signals.
I am sure that many drivers don’t want to wait for even a relatively short train delay. But the point I see is that no driver can know how long a train delay will be, and a delay has the potential to be extremely long.
Bucyrus 1) Does the fact that vehicles don’t seem to need preemptive horn warnings mean that trains probably don’t need them either?
1) Does the fact that vehicles don’t seem to need preemptive horn warnings mean that trains probably don’t need them either?
http://www.railcam.nl/rc1.php
No horn, no four quadrant gates. Yet people seem to get along fine, and the trains over that crossing number near 100 on a daily basis, including some "express" trains that fly through at a pretty good clip.
The Brits don't sound a 15-20 warning at crossings either. Just a quick blat, which, IIRC, occurs just before they hit the crossing.
2) If not, then why can vehicles get along without them while trains cannot?
I take it you've never pulled out of a driveway or other restricted vision situation that had a sign "Sound Horn?"
By and large, people follow the "rules of the road." They usually stop at red lights and stop signs, yield at yield signs, etc, and so on.
I'd wager than many more highway intersection incursions occur than railway crossing incursions, even on a percentage basis. I see it daily right across from my house, ranging from almost coming to a complete stop before proceeding to "totally pausing" (thanks Clueless).
Sometimes those incursions result in a collision - as a firefighter and EMT, I've seen everything from virtually no damage to horrific wrecks with serious injuries and deaths.
Rail-auto crashes usually lean toward the horrific.
Why do people run railroad crossings? I think we've covered most all of the reasons in the course of our various discussions:
Risk takers
And maybe a few who figure the rules don't apply to them.
Cure? Obviously grade seperation is the ultimate (if impractical) solution. As noted a few posts ago, people seem to find their way onto the tracks with their vehicles even where there aren't crossings. Perhaps Darwin is the only one that will make a difference.
Bucyrus When you say drivers are impatient, are they impatient to wait just the two minutes that it takes for the train to clear? My answer to that question would be NO.
When you say drivers are impatient, are they impatient to wait just the two minutes that it takes for the train to clear?
My answer to that question would be NO.
Yes, but considering how many people will run stop lights (instead of waiting 2 minutes at the most), I would answer YES.
jeffhergert The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
Have any of you other rails ever notice how irrational some drivers can be in regards to whether or not to cross in front of a train? During my 20 years of running, I have come to two unofficial and undocumented observations:
In territory where the normal train speed is high (suburban territory comes to mind), there are less drivers ON AVERAGE that run the gates. Perhaps if the area residents are fairly confident that a lowered gate is not going to cause them a 10 to 20 minute delay, they may be less likely to try.
Which leads to my second observation, which is that the main (but of course not the only) reason to run the gates is simple impatience. Unless the entire ROW is inaccessible to the public, there is no way you are going to stop someone who is highly motivated to make their appointment.
My answer is 42.
I can’t think of any audible warning on vehicles that is used as a preemptive, non-emergency warning like a train horn is. Vehicles have horns, but they are only used for an emergency development or to tell the guy ahead that the light has turned green. Probably the closest analogy to a train horn for a vehicle is the backup alarm used on some vehicles.
But your question raises two more questions:
I would answer question #1 as NO.
I have an answer for question #2, but I will wait to say it.
Do you have an answer for either or both of the two questions?
In the realm of operating a motor vehicle - where else in a normal driving (i.e. non emergency) situation are we provided with regular audible warnings?
I can't think of one besides railroad crossings. Somehow people heed traffic lights, where all we have is a little illuminated light fixture way up in the air. We have stop signs and 18-wheelers come at us from the cross streets - yet most of the time people don't get squished. Only other thing I can think of are some automatic gates for driveways and such that do beep but that is similar to the crossing bell on a RR gate.
I live in Salem, Oregon. There are 17 grade crossings in town and they are now in the process of making it a quite zone. I am now aware of a single grade crossing or pedestrain accident in the 40 years I have lived here. My concern is that the tracks pass between a high school and middle school. They also pass between two universities. I often see students taking "a short cut." I fear that the lack of warning that is heard for 5 mins. before a train arrives will surprise some kids.
IMO, crossings are about as safe as they are going to get. Short of inpenetrable barriers being either raised or lowered across all lanes, exit as well as entrance to crossings, you are going to have vehicle/train incidents. Even an inpenetrable barrier wouldn't prevent auto accidents, they'll just change the nature of them as people will still run into the barriers because they think they can beat the barriers before they get into position, or more likely, they aren't thinking in the first place. You also will have a number of people who will get trapped on a crossing with literally no way out. This has happened at crossings with 4 quadrant gates, where they could drive thru them to clear the tracks. (Crossing gates usually have quite a bit of "give" to them. In my experience, they are usually broken by trucks or other large vehicles because the gate gets snagged on or between equipment, such as between the cab and trailer.)
I think a big effort needs to be made to get the public to respect railroad crossings as much as they do a regular road intersection. I'm not sure on the best way to do that. Operation Lifesaver is a start, but I wonder how effective it actually is. Many times I wonder if it isn't just "preaching to the choir" since the presentations are made to groups that have asked for it. Even then, some groups (like those at schools) may not always pay attention to the message. Maybe posting (on signs, in public media, etc. Anywhere to get the word out. ) and then enforcing stiffer penalties might help. I don't necessarily think higher monetary fines are the whole answer either. I really think maybe for all drivers, some traffic violations (not just running a railroad crossing) should lead to a 30 day suspension of their license on the first offense. (It's funny but on the railroad, certain things will get me that suspension of my engr's license, but I can do it 3 times in a motor vehicle, even though I feel the vehicle is more likely to be involved in an accident. That's just because there are so many more vehicles, your chance of colliding when rules are broken is greater.) Is that harsh? Yes, but maybe that's what it would take.
Even then you still won't eliminate the problem completely. The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
Jeff
tree68 Bucyrus Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them. I can't disagree with the second part of your statement, but the first part reminds me of the infamous Ford Pinto memo.
Bucyrus Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them.
Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them.
I can't disagree with the second part of your statement, but the first part reminds me of the infamous Ford Pinto memo.
Yes I understand your point, but I have no idea exactly where that principle stands. The cost of crossing upgrades requires that they be applied on a prioritized basis to where they will do the most good. I don’t think that the industry has made a conscious decision to limit further crossing safety development or application because it is cheaper just to accept the cost of liability. Although there may be some of that in all thinking at all levels of industry and regulation.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus Why is there such a defensive reaction to the idea that grade crossings can be made to further reduce crashes? People who run crossings get killed, but their demise is never going to solve the problem. There will always be more of them. Because you always seem to be suggesting the idea that it is somehow always the railroads' fault that people get hit by trains. It's a tragedy. People get hurt and people get killed. If only the engineer had blown his horn sooner... If only....If only. If only the train had stayed in the railyard, maybe the truck wouldn't have been on the tracks when it shouldn't have been. If only trains hadn't been invented.....
Bucyrus Why is there such a defensive reaction to the idea that grade crossings can be made to further reduce crashes? People who run crossings get killed, but their demise is never going to solve the problem. There will always be more of them.
Why is there such a defensive reaction to the idea that grade crossings can be made to further reduce crashes? People who run crossings get killed, but their demise is never going to solve the problem. There will always be more of them.
Well with all due respect, no I am not always suggesting the idea that it is somehow the railroads’ fault. I think you hold that exaggerated belief about what I say rather than actually considering the points I make. So you apply your erroneous belief to what I say, and then it sounds to you the way you believe it to be. I think Simon and Garfunkel mentioned that in one of their songs.
I am interested in this topic partly because it is such a significant problem and it seems so unsolvable. My interest includes the strategy of warning systems, how they succeed or fail, and their often unintended consequences. The fault of the driver is what it is. But the warning system too is part of the picture. It would not be what it is today had it not been for people questioning it like I do.
People ought to be free to question it without being accused of blaming the railroad. Some failures actually are the fault of the railroad.
To me, the quiet zone is a fascinating concept because it dispenses with one of the key warning elements. And it is only able to do this under the theory that the missing horn can be compensated for by adding some new elements. For this equalization to be possible, an array of intangible elements and their probability must be weighed.
You say I am picking on the railroads. What I am doing here is questioning the presumption that the complex formula for a crossing warning can be made just as safe without the horn. I doubt that premise. Apparently so does the Union Pacific. And from reading other forums, and comments following news articles, it seems to me that most railroaders and railfans also oppose quiet zones as being unsafe. They see quiet zones as something being forced upon the railroads by NIMBYS. Perhaps other railroads companies also oppose quiet zones, but refuse to say so.
The problem is that if a driver gets killed at a quiet zone crossing, a lot of people who hate quiet zones have to turn around and defend them. Otherwise it seems like the driver is escaping blame.
But if the railroads actually oppose quiet zones, then blaming the quiet zone for the crash (if it applies) is actually defending the position of the railroads. In some cases part of the quiet zone deal is to relieve the railroad of liability and transfer it to the local jurisdiction which has forced the quiet zone upon the railroad company.
Therefore, if a quiet zone in that jurisdiction can be shown to have caused a collision, don’t you think the railroad company would be happy to have people support them in blaming the quiet zone, and by extension, blaming the people who forced it upon the railroad company?
While the whole affair has been called into question, the allegation was that Ford had determined that the cost of settling claims for a supposed gas tank problem was less than the cost of fixing the problem in the first place.
This logic was apparently supported by a California Supreme Court precedent of the time.
Thus it's not a far reach to figure that the railroads may see the cost of an occasional crossing incident as a cost of doing business and not worth the expense of crossing upgrades, especially those with no history of problems (until one occurs).
Pure cost vs benefit.
To put it in another context - most folks have some sort of headache remedy in their medicine chest. Odds are the whole bottle cost less than $10. If it's aspirin, the bottle probably cost about $2. Even if we don't have headaches on a regular basis (or some other condition), we keep that 100 tablet bottle available.
If the cost was $50 per pill, how many people would keep a ready supply? Many would simply suffer the headache rather then spend $50 or more trying to make it go away.
Here is a link to an update on the Texas crash including a new timeline chart:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324205404578147443600967134.html
In the article linked here, click on the timeline chart and enlarge it. Notice that conspicuously absent is the event of the driver entering the crossing 7 seconds after the activation of the lights and bells. It is surprising that such a key element of the timeline would be omitted.
I would have to go back and look, but it seems to me that this timeline is substantially different from the timeline we were originally given by the NTSB. If I recall, the original timeline counted seconds up from point of activation whereas this one counts seconds down. This adds a lot of confusion to what actually happened.
Also, the chart shows the gates starting to descend 7 seconds after the activation of the lights and bells. However, we were previously told that the driver entered the crossing at precisely this time, and we were told that the gates had not yet begun to descend.
.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.