AMTRAK train hits van near Trinidad, Co.Sunday 06/26/2016 five killed

[Euclid]

I cannot imagine how, without having been there, one could find any basis to form an opinion as to why a person failed to yeild to a train. 

[tree68]

Euclid

I cannot imagine how, without having been there, one could find any basis to form an opinion as to why a person failed to yeild to a train. 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

And I wouldn't necessarily consider what's being offered as just opinions.  We cannot discuss the various cures for the problem without making some assumptions as to the cause.  And we've been discussing cures.

In this case, there are a number of possible causes.  Only the driver can tell us which one truly applies, and he's not here to offer his input.  

The causes here might range from carelessness to distraction to intentional.  Or maybe there was a mechanical issue - stuck accelerator or failed brakes.

Until a firm cause is found, we're left with speculation, and that's opinion.  Some folks will lean toward the innocent, some toward the suspicious.

[Euclid]

I have no objection to people having opinions.  I just don't understand the basis for forming an opinion to explain why a driver failed to yield without any knowledge of the circumstances that might have contributed to the failure to yield.  All I see in that case, are possibilties.  But forming an opinion selects one of the possiblities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.  I don't see how you do that unless it is just a random choice.   

[tree68]

Euclid

All I see in that case, are possibilties. 

Curiously, that's what I see, too.  And each possibility lends itself to a potential cause for the incident.  There are myriad other possibilities.

The possibilities I discussed have mostly been discussed by others here in the thread, and in the media.  Bringing the "what if's" together with known facts might provide someone with some insight into what might have happened.

Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

[schlimm]

We do know some things.

1. The crossing is essentially a driveway.  It has a crossbucks.

2. Although it is possible, there were no indications of suicidality.

3. The engineer does not appear to be at fault.

4. Forensics may be able to determine if alcohol or drugs were involved.

5. Forensics may be able to determine if the van had mechanical problems.

There may be other things we know.

[tree68]

schlimm

There may be other things we know.

We know the train was westbound.

We know where the train stopped.

We know the van was hit on the right side.

Of course, the list of things we don't/can't know is pretty substantial, too.  

[Overmod]

Euclid

I just don't understand the basis for forming an opinion to explain why a driver failed to yield without any knowledge of the circumstances that might have contributed to the failure to yield.

The only controversy here is that the conditional "might" in your statement applies slightly differently.  You are assuming that the circumstances have to be 'known' first, and then considered as to the degree to which each 'might have' contributed to the accident.  The rest of us are wondering what circumstances might have led to or contributed to an accident like this occurring -- hypotheticals, in other words.  They are not 'conclusions' in any sense. 

Since we don't know, and at this point probably can't know, what actually caused the van to be in front of the train at impact, I don't know why you'd even participate in this discussion, if your criterion for 'forming an opinion' is as you stated it.

But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.

That is evidently true for the way you think.  It is not true at all for the way I think.  The way I see it, "forming an opinion" comes when, after assessing the 'possibilities' in a rational way, you conclude that one alternative gives a better explanation, or is a better 'predictor' (in science), or is for some reason preferable to others.  It has nothing to do with being a "factual explanation" of anything; it does not need to be true; it does not have to be fanatically defended against all comers with 'yes, but' as if it were the truth.   Perhaps more to the point, it leaves other opinions open, to be reconsidered and perhaps adopted without delay if new evidence or hypotheses or circumstances come up.  That is one difference between science and advocacy, and it is (in my opinion) a critical one.

You are certainly right in that discussing the subject here on an Internet forum is pointless, and doesn't bring the family back.  Think of it as therapy for some of us who are trying to find some reason for this awful thing that doesn't involve blame.

[Euclid]

Overmod

Euclid

But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.

 

 

Overmod,

There are is an infinite number of details that could explain a cause of failure to yield.  I see nothing wrong with making a list.  The items on the list would be hypothetical explanations, but not opinions.  In fact, you don’t need opinions to make the list.    

However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur.  Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.  To clarify; I mean the “factual explanation” only in the mind of the person forming the opinion.  In other words, if you believe it happened, it is a factual explanation to you.  Of course it is not objective proof.  It is simply this:  “In my opinion, this happened…”

That is what I meant when I said this above:  

“But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”

[schlimm]

Euclid

 

 

Overmod

Euclid

But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.

 

 

 

 

Overmod,

There are is an infinite number of details that could explain a cause of failure to yield.  I see nothing wrong with making a list.  The items on the list would be hypothetical explanations, but not opinions.  In fact, you don’t need opinions to make the list.    

However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur.  Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.  To clarify; I mean the “factual explanation” only in the mind of the person forming the opinion.  In other words, if you believe it happened, it is a factual explanation to you.  Of course it is not objective proof.  It is simply this:  “In my opinion, this happened…”

That is what I meant when I said this above:  

“But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”

 

Perhaps the term "informal hypothesis" is a more appropriate usage than "opinion" to avoid confusion?  However, I believe most of us recognize that we can have a multitude of opinions, many of which are not based on established facts.  Research from at least two disciplines (cognitive studies, marketing) strongly suggests that much opinion formation is strongly based on emotions.

[tree68]

Euclid

“But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”

Not.  

Forming a opinion (or informal hypothesis) does not mean that one feels it is the factual explanation.  It means it's one of the possibilities.  

A person may argue that they feel their hypothesis is the best choice of the options that could be considered - but that's their opinion.  Others may agree or disagree, and often do.

A person may have the opinion that there are several possibilities involved, depending on facts that have yet to be discerned.  That doesn't make any of those hypotheses fact until proven so.  And if they have several hypotheses, one may end up being correct, which will make the others pretty much wrong.

 

 

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

“But forming an opinion selects one of the possibilities and regards it as being the factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.”

 

 

Not.  

Forming a opinion (or informal hypothesis) does not mean that one feels it is the factual explanation.  It means it's one of the possibilities.  

A person may argue that they feel their hypothesis is the best choice of the options that could be considered - but that's their opinion.  Others may agree or disagree, and often do.

A person may have the opinion that there are several possibilities involved, depending on facts that have yet to be discerned.  That doesn't make any of those hypotheses fact until proven so.  And if they have several hypotheses, one may end up being correct, which will make the others pretty much wrong.

 

 

 

You are missing my point in quoting what I said and have since clarified by saying the following:

"However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur.  Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.  To clarify; I mean the “factual explanation” only in the mind of the person forming the opinion.  In other words, if you believe it happened, it is a factual explanation to you.  Of course it is not objective proof.  It is simply this:  “In my opinion, this happened…”

As I tried to explain in that same post, stating a hyopthesis is one thing, and forming an opinion that the hypothesis occurred is something entirely different.  But once you form an opinion that a certain hypothetical explanation is a fact, then to you must regard that opinion as a factual explanation.  I do not mean a factual explanation for all of society.  I mean only to you, the one who holds the opinion that the factual explanation is correct.  

 

[tree68]

Euclid

"However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur.  Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.

Let me type this slowly, so maybe you can understand it.

I do not regard that opinion as a factual explanation of what happened.

I regard that as one hypothesis, to me the most logical at the time.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't put words into my mouth.

[Electroliner 1935]

And here we go again. About picking nits. He said, he said. As Rodney King said, "Can't we just get along".

[Paul of Covington]

   I suggest that we take this discussion about opinions to the next step: let's discuss whether or not we should express our opinions on whether or not we should offer our opinions on other posters opinions.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

"However, you are free to say an item on the list is your opinion as to what did occur.  Once you do that, you regard that opinion as a factual explanation of why the driver failed to yield.

 

 

Let me type this slowly, so maybe you can understand it.

I do not regard that opinion as a factual explanation of what happened.

I regard that as one hypothesis, to me the most logical at the time.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't put words into my mouth.

 

No need to type slow.  I understdand it perfectly.  And I am not putting words in your mouth.  I never said an opinion was a factual explanation of what happened if you just stop there. 

What I mean is that an opinion is a belief, so if you believe that it explains the facts, then according to your belief, it is a factual explanation.  That's all I said. 

How can you have an opinion that something is true without believing that it is true?  

[tree68]

I would opine that offering opinions regarding the thoughts of others about offering opinions should be acceptable, providing the content therein is of a constructive nature and does not constitute an ad hominem attack.

Gotta dig out that bafflegab thesaurus again...

[Euclid]

tree68

I would opine that offering opinions regarding the thoughts of others about offering opinions should be acceptable, providing the content therein is of a constructive nature and does not constitute an ad hominem attack.

Yes, absolutely.  I share that opinion.

[schlimm]

IMO, this thread has long since become an OCD nightmare or, alternatively, boring beyond recognition.

[Norm48327]

schlimm

IMO, this thread has long since become an OCD nightmare or, alternatively, boring beyond recognition.

 

Both.

[Overmod]

Getting back onto the substantive (if potentially boring and OCD) discussion

wanswheel

Excerpt from “Driver Behavior at Railway-Highway Grade Crossings with Passive Traffic Control: A Driving Simulator Study” by Bryan Andre Bartnik (2013)...

It is particularly instructive, I think, to look back over the Ohio "Buckeye crossing" report, and compare the conclusions in its summary (which were universally positive, and mentioned that the benefits had a measure of statistical significance) with the current ODOT assessment of its value (remember, 'not statistically significant'). 

There is no question that the crossings were more recognizable.  There is also no question that most of the approaches we've seen suggested so far (the inclusion of yield signs, including those modified to read 'yield to train' to resolve ambiguity, and the use of train light to signal approach, being specifically mentioned) were not only tried but carefully considered.  As you will note from the stated conclusions, a larger number of 'violators' stopped at the modified crossings than at the default ones, and this was reason enough not only to recommend that the Buckeye design be adopted by MUTCD but also for Conrail to go ahead and install the things throughout Ohio.

What seems to have been recognized -- and it is important to this discussion in a number of respects -- was this conclusion, buried far down in the report:

Based on the before and after condition near-collision/violation frequencies alone, it seems that the new crossbuck devices (after condition) do not provide for a violator behavior that is substantially safer from the violator behavior that was observed under the before condition (Current Standard Crossbuck).

To relate this to the observations, more than half of the people who 'violated' the crossing, even with the new and improved design, were not deterred from going across less than two seconds from collision (!)  And this is where ODOT concluded the improvement was 'not statistically significant' -- significant in terms of changing driver behavior of the people who needed additional deterrence to stop and stay stopped at crossings.

So we might change the focus of the discussion slightly: what can be done at passive crossings to "change driver behavior" when issues of warning or clear presence of an oncoming train are not sufficient?   (Be sure to note why the solution will change driver behavior, not just make the driver notice the presence of the crossing better...)

[tree68]

Overmod

So we might change the focus of the discussion slightly: what can be done at passive crossings to "change driver behavior" when issues of warning or clear presence of an oncoming train are not sufficient?   (Be sure to note why the solution will change driver behavior, not just make the driver notice the presence of the crossing better...)

I think the biggest challenge is changing the "it won't happen to me" mentality.  I would suspect than many people hold that opinion, even if they've been exposed to an event that proves otherwise.

The difficulty here is underlined by listening to the scanner.  Many people pulled over for speeding have at least some previous convictions, and more than a few have multiple warrants for failure to pay fines - evidence of a "the laws don't apply to me" mentality.

As I've mentioned before, the "it can't happen to me" attitude is reinforced by a relative lack of trail traffic.  Even a crossing with 24 trains per day (figure 5 minutes per train) is only busy/occupied 8% of the time.  

Add to this slow speeds on many lines with crossbuck-only protection and drivers are left with am impression that even if they do cross in front of a train, the train can stop.  

It would be interesting to compare collision numbers with train frequency on "unprotected" crossings.  It is conceivable that a little-used crossing might even have a higher incident rate.

I suspect that passive signage alone cannot cure the problem.  It may have a short-term benefit, but people will eventually return to old habits.

[Euclid]

Overmod

To relate this to the observations, more than half of the people who 'violated' the crossing, even with the new and improved design, were not deterred from going across less than two seconds from collision (!)  And this is where ODOT concluded the improvement was 'not statistically significant' -- significant in terms of changing driver behavior of the people who needed additional deterrence to stop and stay stopped at crossings.

The entire crossing cultural experience was born and based on the premise that the warning signs were only advisory in nature rather than regulatory.  In other words, drivers were allowed to use their own discretion to determine whether they could safely cross.  To some extent, this is legal today.   

 

You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away.  It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.  In one sense, if a driver crosses ahead of a train and is missed by an inch, the driver yielded.  Yielding does not require stopping.  It only means to give way.  So the question is what defines “way.”  It is only after a collision that it can be said that the driver failed to yield. 

 

Of course, most people will develop an opinion of whether the driver took an unreasonable chance, even if no collision occurs.  A cop would decide whether the chance was risky enough to constitute reckless driving.  Traffic law tries to overcome this ambiguity by going to great lengths to define when a driver must stop and wait for an approaching train at a passive crossing.

 

Drivers associate grade crossing train encounters with unreasonable delay.  So for drivers using their discretion, it is easy to rationalize that their discretion can accept the risk of cutting it close in exchange for avoiding a delay.

 

Moreover, surveys show that to this day, a large number of drivers mistakenly believe that even the flashing lights and gates are advisory.  So they easily rationalize that it is okay to try to beat the train to avoid a delay.   

 

This is the heart of the problem.  It is not sign conspicuity or driver stupidity. Instead, it is cultural habit that goes all the way back to the first grade crossing.

[wanswheel]

Fast enough guy with consideration for the recalcitrant.

[zugmann]

One video.  So much cringe.

[BaltACD]

wanswheel

Fast enough guy with consideration for the recalcitrant.

Dismounting, running and mounting moving equipment.  Not Class 1 material.

[Overmod]

Euclid

You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.

The Ohio study drew it at 'two seconds or less away from collision'.  It is hard to fault this as being a wrong definition of 'too close'.

"Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across.  That is what 'yield the right of way' means. 

It is the definition of 'stopped' that would have the 'ambiguity' of whether a driver feels they can start up again and whiz across 'at the last second' to avoid delay -- yet another reason I don't entirely like the idea of adding 'stop signs' at passive crossings (with the assumption that the crossbucks supposedly have the meaning of 'yield to train' so they actually have a more restrictive meaning than the nominally more restrictive sign!)

Personally, I think at least some of the problem is not that drivers think the dropped gates are 'advisory' -- they know darn well it's illegal to go across them; they just don't want to wait and think they can get across -- it's that they think that when the lights and gates are there together the indication is advisory until the gates have dropped to block the road, and there are a few seconds' leeway to speed up and zip over.  Probably the same basic impulse behind this:

I can't say what the most effective methods of dissuading or 'breaking' that tendency might be; it's been a hot topic in traffic management and enforcement for a very long time.  The 'backlash' from conventional red-light cameras has made it difficult -- at least in Tennessee -- to get the combination of cameras, monitoring, and consistent enforcement that I think is really the only practical way to start making the change toward enforcing "default driver behavior" toward yielding (with a safe separation time/distance) at crossings.

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

Euclid

You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.

 

"Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across.  That is what 'yield the right of way' means. 

 

I do know what “yield right of way” means.  It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation.  It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.”    

 

[Overmod]

Euclid

Overmod

Euclid

You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.

"Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across.  That is what 'yield the right of way' means.

I do know what “yield right of way” means.  It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation.  It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.”

(I hate long nested quotes, but I want to keep the context open)

It is remarkably easy to define a regulatory definition of 'how close is too close' -- just get the legislature to put it in the code, together with appropriate mechanisms for enforcement.  It is likewise not at all hard to draw a regulatory line inside rational safe distance, for example where the Ohio study did: less than two seconds from collision.

There is no need to invoke a ridiculous hyperbole for how long a driver at a passive crossing needs to wait; the important range over which train speed seems deceptively slow is considerably shorter than a mile except for precisely the sort of high-speed service where the FRA bans grade crossings entirely.

What might produce some gainful discussion here is what combination of signaling would indicate for a motorist when the duty to 'yield and stay yielded' applies to a greater separation distance.  I suggest, as a starting point, the time that an approaching locomotive displays alternating ditch lights.  This would be easily verified on a camera record for enforcement, is something that can be made fair to railroad crews charged with consistent operation of the lights, and in my opinion can be adjusted independent of horn/whistle timing to be speed-appropriate.  It is also unambiguous to drivers, requires no 'light cannon' blinding to be effective even when the locomotive itself may not be clearly visible, and is either mandated (e.g. on Class I locomotives) or easily installed with OTS components on others.

Easy to add this little section to Op Lifesaver material, too -- although that would have to be done with some care, as you do not want to establish the implicit message that it's OK to jackrabbit across if you don't see the ditch lights flashing!

Note that the 'yield issue' is NOT the same issue as with the "proceed" part of "stop and proceed".  Enforcement of a stop sign often only concerns whether the vehicle came to a full stop (not a 'California roll'); I dislike in principle the invocation of any type of 'going too fast for conditions' prosecution that might be applied to what an officer considers safe separation distance or recorded time, especially if rigor in effective prosecution is to be used to 'form driver behavior.' 

I wonder whether some form of formalized signage saying "stop when lights are flashing" might be applied to many crossings, as it covers both the 'distinctive' use of flashing red lights to mean 'absolute stop' at lighted/gated crossings, and the prospective use of alternating ditch lights or strobes to signify the point of minimum separation.

[tree68]

Overmod

I suggest, as a starting point, the time that an approaching locomotive displays alternating ditch lights. 

Which assumes that there is a point at which alternating ditch lights (technically "auxiliary" lights) are displayed and that they are even required to flash (they are not - CFR 229.125).  Our auxiliary lights do not flash at any time.

Inasmuch as flashing auxiliary lights are not required, there is no specific point at which they must flash.  I believe they are often activated by the bell (which is sometimes activated by the horn).  I could be wrong on that - I suspect there are several ways to set them to flash.

 

[Euclid]

Overmod

 

Euclid

Overmod

Euclid

You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.

"Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across.  That is what 'yield the right of way' means.

I do know what “yield right of way” means.  It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation.  It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.”

It is remarkably easy to define a regulatory definition of 'how close is too close' -- just get the legislature to put it in the code, together with appropriate mechanisms for enforcement.  It is likewise not at all hard to draw a regulatory line inside rational safe distance, for example where the Ohio study did: less than two seconds from collision.

There is no need to invoke a ridiculous hyperbole for how long a driver at a passive crossing needs to wait;

  It is also unambiguous to drivers, requires no 'light cannon' blinding to be effective even when the locomotive itself may not be clearly visible,...

When I say it is hard to draw the regulatory line as to how close is too close, I include the difficulty of drawing a line that a driver or the police can interpret at the site.  In my opinion, this has been one of the murkiest elements of crossing law. 

In some cases the only line of definition for active crossings was that if the flashers are activated, you cannot cross.  At some point, that was relaxed to apply to only if the gates are lowered.  At this time, drivers are permitted to pass the flashing lights after stopping if it is safe to do so (and if the gates are not lowered); again allowing drivers to use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to cross.  In some cases, language is added to clarify if it is safe by stipulating that it depends on whether the train is posing a hazard.  In other language, it refers to the crossing horn signal of the train as defining whether or not it safe to cross. 

Certainly a train stopped short is not posing a hazard—except for the hazard of blocking the visibility of fast approaching train on an adjacent track.

A lot of people have no idea that it is permissible to cross past activated flashers under certain conditions.  Others believe that the same principles that allow crossing against activated flashers also applies to lowered gated. 

Drawing the regulatory line in simple terms of time interval is remarkably simple, as you say.  However, the problem is for the motorist to determine the number of seconds available before an approaching train fouls the crossing.  It is already widely known that approaching trains appear to be moving slower than they actually are.  In the book, Metropolitan Corridor, in the chapter, Crossing; the author describes the common effect of drivers getting used to judging the approach of slower trains, and then getting killed by misjudging a fast train.

I am astounded to learn that the Ohio law draws the line at just 2 seconds.  Are you sure about that?  I have not looked it up.  Active crossings are set to require 25 seconds.    

Regarding the “light cannon” that I mentioned earlier, saying that it will blind the driver is a convenient objection in a format where objection is always paramount.  Obviously it is a frivolous objection.  Who cares if a driver is blinded by a light they choose to look at?  The light is perpendicular to the driver's line of sight while driving. What about the headlight of a train approaching at night?  Is that not blinding?