edblysard As a railroader, I would welcome such a device, and I can see where it does not have to be any more complex that a simple magnetic detection loop that activates a flashing sight on the signal box or near the appropriate road side of the crossing. I can also see where the installation of such system may be limited to particular or select crossings and intersections, such as this one with nearby auto traffic intersection.
As a railroader, I would welcome such a device, and I can see where it does not have to be any more complex that a simple magnetic detection loop that activates a flashing sight on the signal box or near the appropriate road side of the crossing.
I can also see where the installation of such system may be limited to particular or select crossings and intersections, such as this one with nearby auto traffic intersection.
This seems to be a system much like the SP occupancy indicators that were very much a magnetic ( ? ) indicator that had a vertical indication when block clear and horizontal indication when block occuppied. They were about 4 - 6 " in diameter looking like a very minature position light signal but no light.
Has UP discontinued most of them ? Did not notice any on my latest trip.
It is absurd. Those who plan on a parade or even that may put people on or near railroad tracks have the responsibility to notify the railroad of the activity well in advance. The police or fire or other safety department should do this automatically. The idea that the railroad should set up a warning system beyond a track circuit to activated grade crossing signals is absurd, ridiculous. Yes it can be done. If there is a signal system. It would be no different than a train being "on the bell" when entering an interlocking tower's jurisdiction or starting a grade crossing warning system to operate. No big deal but no reason to be done. Common sense, complete planning, and being aware of the characteristics of the town and event by the town fathers; police, fire and safety departments; and the planners of events is all that should be needed: notify the railroad ahead of time (months in advance); no need to get the Feds involved.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Beyond the float driver being directly responsible for the operation of his vehicle, the organizers of the event and the local police are even more directly responsible if they did not notify the railroad of the event. Ideally the carrier would get OFFICIAL notification several weeks prior to the event - AT THE VERY LEAST NOTIFICATION ONCE THE EVENT STARTED. There does not appear to be any evidence of either the organizers or the police taking this step AT ANY TIME.
All carriers strive to be good neighbors to the communities they serve and operate through. A simple notification of the date and time of the event and road crossings that will be used is all that is necessary for the carrier to put in place protection for the event.
On my territory we receive protection requests for parades, running events, bicycle events, sports events, ambulance crossings and any other kind of event that will have the public either crossing the tracks or gathering in great numbers along side the tracks - we NEVER deny the request for protection and I am sure no other carriers will deny requests for protection for such events.
The event organizers and the local police are both guilty of GROSS NEGLIGANCE in failing to request protection for the parade.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yeah, BALTACD, you've got it right...
henry6 A train hits a car on a grade crossing in your town and two people die and traffic is held up for hours on the street.. There is an investigation and the report says the crossing is inadequately protected and suggest an improvement. So, do you make the improvement or do you allow there to be more cars being hit, more people dying, and more traffic blockages. That's all there is to the questions raised here.
A train hits a car on a grade crossing in your town and two people die and traffic is held up for hours on the street.. There is an investigation and the report says the crossing is inadequately protected and suggest an improvement. So, do you make the improvement or do you allow there to be more cars being hit, more people dying, and more traffic blockages. That's all there is to the questions raised here.
Couple years ago I was reading a planning book*. It discussed a dangerous intersection that needed improvement. Roads coming in at odd angles, sight line issues, and to top it all off, a railroad crossing in the middle of the mix. So millions of dollars were spent on revamping the intersection - straightening roads, improving the RR crossing, all the stuff to make it more normal.
Fatalities at the intersection went up.
Why? The people that did this study figured that the intersection was not normal, therefore it was perceived as being more "dangerous" so people paid more attention and were more cautious when approaching. When they "fixed" it, that sense of caution went away, people were less fearful and there were more wrecks.
Just because something is supposedly changed or improved, does not necessarily make it better. Even if there was a light that proclaimed TRAIN at the crossing, the truck driver still wondered out onto the activated crossing (with big flashing red lights, etc). Seems to be a loss of situational awareness, pure and simple.
*- I can't recall what the book was. After that, it got preachy talking about urban utopias and TODs - stuff I never bought into.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Clearly, the NTSB recommendation is about cost AND safety. If it was just safety, they would always recommend that all Xings be eliminated. That prevents all Xing accidents of all kinds, everywhere. Why don't they recommend that? Cost. What other rationale, non-political reason could there be?
So, why is it too much to ask them to do an "order of magnitude" cost/benefit analysis? Or, at least some ranking of alternatives?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, the parade has been cancelled and will be replaced by a luncheon in Midland.
Familiarity breeds contempt is a saying that we had in the electric utility business. People get careless because of it and frequently get hurt or killed. This appears to have been an issue re: the accident in Midland. Over the years those in charge become complacent about permitting, rules enforcement, and safe operating practices. Happens all the time!
NTSB Press Release on the Incident
NTSB finds parade float accident that killed four veterans caused by lack of advance safety planning November 5 A fatal accident in which a freight train struck a parade float in Texas last November was caused by the failure of both the city and the parade organizer to address the risks associated with routing a parade through an active grade crossing, the National Transportation Safety Board said today. "This terrible collision between a fast-moving freight train and a slow-rolling parade float of veterans and their loved ones should never have occurred," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "Parade and event organizers must identify and manage hazards in advance to ensure a safe outcome for participants and spectators." At about 4:35 p.m. CT on November 15, 2012, a truck-tractor flatbed trailer combination unit being used as a parade float as part of a procession honoring wounded veterans approached a section of the parade route that traversed an active highway-railroad grade crossing in Midland, Texas. The float, which carried 12 veterans and their spouses and was escorted by two law enforcement vehicles, entered the grade crossing after the grade-crossing warning system had activated. The float continued across the railroad tracks at an estimated speed of 5 mph. At about the same time, an 84-car Union Pacific freight train approached the crossing from the west at a speed of 62 mph. As the front of the float crossed the tracks, the train engineer sounded the horn and placed the train into emergency braking. Seconds later, the train reached the crossing and struck the right rear section of the float. As a result of the collision, four float passengers were killed and 11 passengers and a sheriff's deputy were injured. The two train crewmembers, the float driver, and nine other passengers were uninjured. For 34 minutes prior to the accident, the float had traveled along the parade route with a continuous police escort, which allowed the float to proceed through red traffic signal lights at four intersections without stopping. This created what investigators called an "expectancy of safety and right of way," which the NTSB said contributed to the cause of the accident, because it led the driver to conclude that police were controlling all intersections and associated traffic hazards. The float driver told investigators that he did not see the flashing lights of the grade-crossing warning system or detect the presence of the train until the float was on the tracks because he was looking at his side-view mirror to monitor the well-being of his float passengers as he negotiated a dip in the roadway on approach to the grade crossing. The NTSB concluded that the noise generated by the parade, combined with the float driver's expectation of safety, likely reduced his ability to hear or properly interpret the grade crossing system warning bells and lights, as well as the train horn. The NTSB determined that the grade crossing system provided the required 20 seconds of advance warning through warning bells, lights and gates. However, the NTSB cited as another contributing factor to the collision, the lack of visual traffic signal cues to indicate to the police officers escorting the float that an approaching train had preempted the normal highway traffic signal sequence at the intersection adjacent to the grade crossing, which would have provided as much as 10 additional seconds to warn law enforcement officers and the float driver of the approaching train. The investigation revealed that the parade organizer, Show of Support, failed to obtain a parade permit and the city of Midland failed to enforce its ordinance by allowing the parade to take place anyway, which investigators characterized as indicative of the "lax and informal manner" by which the parade was organized, approved and executed. Had the parade organizer and the city of Midland created and followed a safety plan that included a requirement that railroads be notified of any parade route that crossed the tracks, the railroad may have arranged to halt train traffic, restrict train speeds, or provide a flagman, any one of which would likely have prevented the accident. As part of the investigation, the NTSB also looked at three other parade accidents occurring this year in Bangor, Maine; Edmond, Okla.; and Damascus, Va.; and determined that many communities and organizations across the U.S. don't conduct risk assessments and implement safety plans. The NTSB is calling for the development of guidelines that state and local officials can use as a resource for the safe planning and operation of parades and other special events. The NTSB is also encouraging jurisdictions across the U.S. to require written safety plans as part of the approval process for a parade or special event. As a result of the investigation, the NTSB made a total of six recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the city of Midland, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the United States Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Association, the International City/County Management Association, the International Festivals and Events Association, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. A synopsis of the NTSB report, including the probable cause, findings, and a complete list of the safety recommendations, is available at http://go.usa.gov/WBTR. The full report will be available on the website in several weeks. Office of Public Affairs490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594(202) 314-6100 Peter Knudsonpeter.knudson@ntsb.gov
NTSB finds parade float accident that killed four veterans caused by lack of advance safety planning
A fatal accident in which a freight train struck a parade float in Texas last November was caused by the failure of both the city and the parade organizer to address the risks associated with routing a parade through an active grade crossing, the National Transportation Safety Board said today.
"This terrible collision between a fast-moving freight train and a slow-rolling parade float of veterans and their loved ones should never have occurred," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "Parade and event organizers must identify and manage hazards in advance to ensure a safe outcome for participants and spectators."
At about 4:35 p.m. CT on November 15, 2012, a truck-tractor flatbed trailer combination unit being used as a parade float as part of a procession honoring wounded veterans approached a section of the parade route that traversed an active highway-railroad grade crossing in Midland, Texas. The float, which carried 12 veterans and their spouses and was escorted by two law enforcement vehicles, entered the grade crossing after the grade-crossing warning system had activated. The float continued across the railroad tracks at an estimated speed of 5 mph.
At about the same time, an 84-car Union Pacific freight train approached the crossing from the west at a speed of 62 mph. As the front of the float crossed the tracks, the train engineer sounded the horn and placed the train into emergency braking. Seconds later, the train reached the crossing and struck the right rear section of the float.
As a result of the collision, four float passengers were killed and 11 passengers and a sheriff's deputy were injured. The two train crewmembers, the float driver, and nine other passengers were uninjured.
For 34 minutes prior to the accident, the float had traveled along the parade route with a continuous police escort, which allowed the float to proceed through red traffic signal lights at four intersections without stopping. This created what investigators called an "expectancy of safety and right of way," which the NTSB said contributed to the cause of the accident, because it led the driver to conclude that police were controlling all intersections and associated traffic hazards.
The float driver told investigators that he did not see the flashing lights of the grade-crossing warning system or detect the presence of the train until the float was on the tracks because he was looking at his side-view mirror to monitor the well-being of his float passengers as he negotiated a dip in the roadway on approach to the grade crossing.
The NTSB concluded that the noise generated by the parade, combined with the float driver's expectation of safety, likely reduced his ability to hear or properly interpret the grade crossing system warning bells and lights, as well as the train horn.
The NTSB determined that the grade crossing system provided the required 20 seconds of advance warning through warning bells, lights and gates. However, the NTSB cited as another contributing factor to the collision, the lack of visual traffic signal cues to indicate to the police officers escorting the float that an approaching train had preempted the normal highway traffic signal sequence at the intersection adjacent to the grade crossing, which would have provided as much as 10 additional seconds to warn law enforcement officers and the float driver of the approaching train.
The investigation revealed that the parade organizer, Show of Support, failed to obtain a parade permit and the city of Midland failed to enforce its ordinance by allowing the parade to take place anyway, which investigators characterized as indicative of the "lax and informal manner" by which the parade was organized, approved and executed.
Had the parade organizer and the city of Midland created and followed a safety plan that included a requirement that railroads be notified of any parade route that crossed the tracks, the railroad may have arranged to halt train traffic, restrict train speeds, or provide a flagman, any one of which would likely have prevented the accident.
As part of the investigation, the NTSB also looked at three other parade accidents occurring this year in Bangor, Maine; Edmond, Okla.; and Damascus, Va.; and determined that many communities and organizations across the U.S. don't conduct risk assessments and implement safety plans. The NTSB is calling for the development of guidelines that state and local officials can use as a resource for the safe planning and operation of parades and other special events. The NTSB is also encouraging jurisdictions across the U.S. to require written safety plans as part of the approval process for a parade or special event.
As a result of the investigation, the NTSB made a total of six recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the city of Midland, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the United States Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Association, the International City/County Management Association, the International Festivals and Events Association, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties.
A synopsis of the NTSB report, including the probable cause, findings, and a complete list of the safety recommendations, is available at http://go.usa.gov/WBTR. The full report will be available on the website in several weeks.
Office of Public Affairs490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594(202) 314-6100 Peter Knudsonpeter.knudson@ntsb.gov
What I find troubling, is the NTSB seems to down play the real cause of the accident - The organizers did not attempt to notify the railroad and other affected parties of their event and held the event without having a proper permit in the locale where it was held.
Isolating the driver of the float, consider the route and how long he drove his float down it (how long he was exposed to/habituated) to the din, the flashing lights and sirens, the blowing of horns prior to encountering the level crossing. Is it inconceivable that the 'salience' of the crossing signals, which were surely flashing as intended, was reduced over what those signals would have been on a 10 minute drive through town for a quick delivery? When indicators fail to stand out, they fail to indicate...to warn...to force consideration.
-Crandell
In my wife's hometown of Aberdeen, S.D., Northern State University has a homecoming parade each fall for Gypsy Days. The parade runs down main street, and crosses highway 12, the busiest highway in that corner of the state. The organizers and local authorities have it down to a science. At the intersection of main and highway 12, it works like a 4-way stop, but with a traffic policeman in charge. A couple parade floats go thru main, then 20-30 cars go through highway 12, etc... This works, because everybody is organized, and all the details are worked out in advance. There is no reason to believe that the parade in Texas couldn't be run with the same type of planning and organization. From what I've read, the Texas parade seems to have had that type of organization and planning at one time, but that it had been slipping away.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Sam1 Over the years those in charge become complacent about permitting, rules enforcement, and safe operating practices. Happens all the time!
"Well, we've never had a problem before....."
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...
Lets run this by and see what folks think.
You’re one of two police officers escorting a parade float with your patrol car, and have other officers stationed at cross streets holding traffic.
By habit, you still check the traffic light as you approach it, and you are about to cross an intersection that is 80 feet before a railroad grade crossing you will have to cross.
You notice the traffic light is red, and assume it is red because the signal system is cycling through on its normal automobile traffic control cycle.
But, right next to the red light is a yellow, rectangular signal, about the size of a normal 3 light traffic signal, and it is flashing a yellow background across the entire signal face, with the word train in black bold letters displayed.
Do you…
A: Ignore the flashing yellow light because you’re a bullet proof cop and don’t have to worry about it…
B: Floor it, pull up on the grade crossing blocking the tracks, pop your flashers on, get out and hold your hand up to stop the train?
C: Contact the parade float driver via radio or hand signal and stop him before the grade crossing?(maybe even pull ahead of him and stop)
D: Scratch that itch that’s been bugging you all day, stuff another hunk of chew in your cheek, and because your IQ and age are the same, spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what the heck that flashing sign meant?
I saw nothing in the NTSB synopsis that indicates they advocate this to be a retro fit to every grade crossing in existence, nor does it seem to indicate it should be at every new grade crossing installed…all it suggest is that, had such a system been in place, and I have seen videos of something quite like this in the UK, the police escort may have realized that, while the gates and lights at the crossing were not on yet, there was a train approaching.
The NTSB stated this may have given the police escort up to 10 additional seconds to make a decision.
What the synopsis says it that a revision to the Uniform Traffic Control manual be is suggested and that such a device should be considered.
Now for the blame game….yes of course the driver of the truck bears the brunt of the blame, simply turning his head to the right and looking would have prevented all of this.
The city bears part of the blame too, for not enforcing its own ordinance, as does the parade organizers.
A simple APB, (accident prevention briefing) which would include a review of the route, all identifiable hazards and expected traffic conditions, including the presence of the grade crossing and what protection would be provided would have also prevented this.
Every parade I have participated in had track watchers guarding any crossing, watching for trains, and stopping the parade when one was approaching.
Should UP have been notified?
Certainly, as Jeff and BaltACD both point out, every carrier has dealt with this before and they all have safety procedures in place.
Keep in mind this is not intended for the general public; it is a early warning device for police and first responders.
Firemen and ambulance operators can see, maybe several intersections away that their path may be blocked or impeded at the grade crossing, giving them several seconds to choose an alternate route they will know is clear by the time they get there.
Will the public use it to guess and try and jump the gates?
Most likely, but those folks would do so anyway, regardless of what is or is not there in the way of safety devices…they are risk takers in the first place.
The benefit is that, unlike the barricade rising up out of the street, if it works, nothing out of the ordinary happens, but with a barricade or net systems, the road is closed until you remove the offending auto.
Having the sign at select intersection before grade crossings may give a cop in hot pursuit that second or two needed to get stopped and let the bad guy ruin his own day.
I imagine that these system would be installed at very select locations…most rural towns in Texas have the railroad running right through the middle of town, and something like this, installed based on traffic density, would be beneficial, especially at location such as this one, a major street with intersections on both sides of the tracks.
Your states DOT designs the crossing you use, so it would be up to them to adopt the recommendations or not, how expensive or how cheap they want it to be, so forth and so on, and decide where it would be appropriate.
I have a side job, and we get a lot of HPD officers and Harris County Sheriffs Deputies in the store.
So I brought this subject up this morning and surprise…not only did the 3 year HPD rookie not know, but both the HPD Sargent and the Deputy Sheriff, also a old head, had no clue that most railroad crossing signal systems would preempt the normal cycle of the traffic lights and flip the opposing light to the crossing to red.
30 plus years’ experience and no clue.
All three may be the exception to the rule, but still…..
In a previous thread, where the original poster went to great lengths to point out that the road side distant traffic sign with a flashing light on most rural crossings for highways is ineffective, based on distance, alertness, pollen count, pebble shape in the tarmac, air temp and bird migrations, cloud formation and tea prices in China…one valid point was brought out…because such signs are, for the most part, always on and flashing, drivers who use these roads on a regular basis soon begin to ignore the sign as part of the normal background.
Because this recommended system would be off almost all the time, when activated, it would stand out.
Personal, I believe the best safety device created is habit…teaching drivers to look first before crossing and reinforcing that through TV adds and such is the best deterrent.
I know, as do most of the railroaders here, that the jerks who race the train will do so no matter what.
You could force them to mop up the blood, pick up the car parts, chase and collect human body parts from under the locomotive at an accident scene, and the very next day they will still try and beat the train.
On the other hand, most cops and first responders have a healthy self-preservation streak, and given any advance warning they more often than not make the correct and safe decision.
Keep in mind one of the automobiles involved was one of the police patrol cars, which entered the crossing on the driver’s side of the float just before the gates activated, and was struck by the trailer when it was struck by the train….so a cop also lost track of where he was, and escorted the float into the path of the train.
The following is my opinion….
From what I read in the synopsis, the NTSB indicates that the root causes of the accident are that the driver of the truck lost situational awareness, for the reasons stated, but this does not absolve him of his responsibility.
The City of Midland by not enforcing their own ordinance requiring permits and therefore by not notifying UP of the parade and its route bears a great deal of the “fault”.
The event organizers, by not notifying UP of the parade route, and by not obtaining the required permits, bears just as much blame as the city for the accident.
The NTSB synopsis devoted at least one very large paragraph stressing the importance of cities not only having a permitting process, but a process to notify the carriers affected, which I agree with.
Again, in my opinion, this device could be as simple as a signal head hung next to a traffic light, wired into the preempting system which under normal circumstances trips 20 to 30 seconds before the gates activate.
It could be as complex as any given location requires…that would be up to the DOT to decide when designing or rehabbing a crossing.
Installation would not be at every crossing; it’s not needed and is an additional up front cost and maintenance cost.
In rural locations, or small cities such as Midland, placing such a system on the major grade crossing(s), such as the ones that lead to the local hospital, fire department and or police stations, makes lots of sense.
Basically, it makes Main Street a little safer for the police and first responders.
By the way, a similar system already exists in the US, but for train crews.
Ever notice that most signal bungalows have a white light on each side of the bungalow, on the track sides, so it is visible from the railroad tracks when approached from either direction?
Those light bulbs are not there to light up the 1-800 number…they are there to notify approaching train crews the bungalow is under power, so the crossing signal system should also be under power, and it gives them a few seconds to act accordingly if not lit.
Believe it or not, most crossing signals are not easily seen from the train, we often can’t tell if the lights are flashing or not because they are in place to warn motorists of the train, and are placed for best visibility from the road, not the track.
23 17 46 11
Perhaps not relevant to this discussion, but I have a personal rule not to enter any crossing that I can not clear without stopping. There are a few crossings such as we're discussing in my area and I will stop before the gate rather than wind up on the track with no place to escape.
Norm
I wish it were it such that all people acted with such prudence.
edblysard Every parade I have participated in had track watchers guarding any crossing, watching for trains, and stopping the parade when one was approaching.
Simple, inexpensive and effective. A couple of track watchers could well have prevented lats years accident at Midland.
- Erik
P.S. I can spot the locomotive lights at least 1 1/2 miles away during the daylight - 90 secodsn whould be enough time to make sure the crossing is clear.
NORM 48327 brings up something important. You never put your vehicle on the tracks if you can't see a clear, guaranteed path off the tracks. I may have some details wrong, but I recall another tragic incident. Several years ago, a tanker truck containing a volatile cargo was struck by an Amtrak train in Florida because there was a traffic bottleneck at the crossing and nobody would yield to the trucker and let him merge into other traffic. He finally got tired of being cut off and pulled partway onto the track with disastrous results. The bottleneck was there because road work was being performed on the far side of the tracks and the people responsible for placing traffic cones had placed them so that the merge had to occur on the tracks, rather than before the crossing. I never heard about the results of the investigation, or the results of the inevitable legal action, and have always wondered what level of responsibility was borne by the people who placed the cones. This one could have been prevented with about a half ounce of courteous driving.
Simple, inexpensive and effective. A couple of track watchers could well have prevented lats years accident at Midland. - Erik
While that maybe true you should also alert the Railroad if your a parade organizer that you have a parade with large crowds crossing their tracks so they can alert the train crews. Even with track watchers, part of the problem with this particular incident was the trains speed approaching and over the crossing. Slowing the rail traffic down by 30-40 mph during parade hours would have helped as well.
This accident was cause by two things!
1. The parade organizers did not notify the railroad of their parade, and thus the railroad did not hold traffic to support the safety of the parade.
2. The truck driver of the float that was struck did not exercise situational awareness and obey the crossing protection that operated in advance of the train.
Anything else is just noise designed to obscure the real elements of the incident.
CMStPnP Simple, inexpensive and effective. A couple of track watchers could well have prevented lats years accident at Midland. - Erik While that maybe true you should also alert the Railroad if your a parade organizer that you have a parade with large crowds crossing their tracks so they can alert the train crews. Even with track watchers, part of the problem with this particular incident was the trains speed approaching and over the crossing. Slowing the rail traffic down by 30-40 mph during parade hours would have helped as well.
...and why we think that some more layers of technology is always part of the answer.
Earlier this fall I ran one of our trains from Utica to Thendara. Clearly stated in the current bulletin order was the fact that one town was having a festival and that crowds could be expected, especially near their station, as that was one center of activity. Due caution was advised and observed.
oltmannd ...and why we think that some more layers of technology is always part of the answer.
Well, technology is always evolving so it may sometimes be part of the answer. But we certainly cannot idiot proof the world.
Mark Aldrich is a professor of economics at Smith College. He's focused some of his writing on industrial safety. I've got one of his books: "Safety First, Technology, Labor and Business in the Building of American Work Safety 1870-1939." It has chapters on railroad safety. He's written another book specifically about the development of railroad safety: "When Death Rode the Rails" that I have not read.
In "Safety First" Aldrich concludes that what really works is the development of a "Safety Ideology" within a business or other organization. New devices may help, but all the regulations in the world don't mean a thing if everybody involved doesn't follow them. What is needed is for safety to be inculcated from top to bottom.
I think the railroads do a very good job of this. That certainly doesn't mean there are no accidents. Nothing is perfect. But slapping a new rule or new device on after every accident won't necessarily help.
In my reading of the NTSB report the city of MIdland, TX, its police force, and the parade organizers sorely lacked a safety ideology. That grade crossing was an obvious danger point and they seem to have done absolutely nothing in regards to that. Didn't even think about it. They effectively set the train crew and the railroad up.
So now four brave veterans are dead and the vulture lawyers are going after the railroad.
If you think safety briefings, slogans and meetings are worthless you're wrong. They are part of the development of the safety ideology. Which is what really works.
greyhoundsIf you think safety briefings, slogans and meeting are worthless you're wrong. They are part of the development of the safety ideology. Which is what really works.
They only have worth if there is something behind them. Slogans/briefings/meetings are worthless if they are only done for the sake of doing them.
zugmann greyhoundsIf you think safety briefings, slogans and meeting are worthless you're wrong. They are part of the development of the safety ideology. Which is what really works. They only have worth if there is something behind them. Slogans/briefings/meetings are worthless if they are only done for the sake of doing them.
Well, that's what I said. I said they are PART of the development of a safety ideology. Not an end unto themselves.
zardoz zugmann greyhoundsIf you think safety briefings, slogans and meeting are worthless you're wrong. They are part of the development of the safety ideology. Which is what really works. They only have worth if there is something behind them. Slogans/briefings/meetings are worthless if they are only done for the sake of doing them. I believe I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the biggest backers of safety on the railroad are the railroaders themselves; after all, most of the time it is their lives that are most directly at risk.
Two way street. "Buying-in" to a program requires both sides to be engaged, full time and without hesitation. When that doesn't happen, FAILURE is sure to follow.
It is abundantly clear that Midland and the parade organizers did NOT buy-in. (no matter how hard the media and the local officials try to cover that up)
CSSHEGEWISCH An NTSB accident report is also inadmissible as evidence in court ...
An NTSB accident report is also inadmissible as evidence in court ...
Yes, per this quote from the Nov. 6 Wall Street Journal story:
"The report (exonerating the railroad) won't necessarily impact civil suits ... because the agency's analysis of factual information ... and its findings of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law, according to the NTSB."
Gosh, expert findings not admissible? The Journal could have usefully told us why not, but didn't. Anybody else know?
This has a good discussion citing the relevant law, 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b).
http://www.hightangel.com/aviation-accident-information/2011/12/is-an-ntsb-report-conclusive-in-a-civil-suit/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Thank you, Schlimm. It still seems curious to me that the safety function should be to the exclusion of a report's value as courtroom evidence. I'm sure lawmakers had their reasons; I hope all of them weren't courtesy of the trial lawyers!
dakotafred Thank you, Schlimm. It still seems curious to me that the safety function should be to the exclusion of a report's value as courtroom evidence. I'm sure lawmakers had their reasons; I hope all of them weren't courtesy of the trial lawyers!
I would opine that the exclusion prevents a report's use in the sense of the plaintiffs saying that since the report said if "it" was done differently, an incident might not have occurred.
Instead, the plaintiffs have to prove that the defendent actually did something wrong that caused an incident. There's a huge difference.
On the civil side, though, just about anybody can sue anybody about anything. Some of those lawsuits get as silly as someone (hypothetically) suing a railroad because they were using run-through power and the plaintiff didn't recognize that it was an oncoming train because it was the "wrong color..."
I'm sure that civil suits concerning the incident in question will eventually name anybody and anything that had any connection with the incident.
The NTSB's reports report and rely upon information received from people who are not sworn, thus not facing perjury penalties, and so to use a report as gospel in a law court where "the whole truth, nothing but...".seems to tweak (maybe twerk) reason?
Hail the NTSB!!
Their procedures seem most fair, unbiased, just, rational, level headed emotionally, logical, verifyable.
That in court the reports dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West, ( pardon please---TV commercial,) leaves their influence to the transport providers no less valuable information: fewer casualties, fewer disruptions, fewer lawsuits....
NTSB's reports can't be valid if they've got, by some legislative or jurisdictional, edict to be usable as trial evidence. 'Talk in' bout on sight interviews, video evidence, first, second and third responder's audio reactions.
More likely to be correct than erroneous, NTSB's reports are valid; simultaneously, in Court, not.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.