Lithonia OperatorClearly, we need to discuss antifa.
The discussion now involves how best to keep the situation from recurring, and that is where I suggest we direct attention.
A poor guy gets stuck on the tracks, and goes through a terrifying experience.
A magnificent heroic police officer risks her life and saves the man's life.
Clearly, we need to discuss antifa.
As usual, selective readings, misreading, arcane terms, red herrings and logorrhea by Mr. Polymath.
You have a very selective memory. When railroaders like BALT bring up the hedge fund managers in relation to the railroads, I don't hear you complain about left-wing trolling.
Were in fact this a case of a big, bad railroad run at the whim of hedge-fund people nickel-and-diming to put the public at risk I would give comments like yours more credence. I don't think the current Union Pacific management can be characterized as such. Unless 'of course they're all hedge-fund managers at heart in management' argument applies; perhaps it does, but I would not presume it before substantiating it.
Perhaps the "I was here first" excuse is a tired one. It doesn't apply in a lot of other safety considerations.
As I said, I prefer to see elastomer or similar strips installed, and it is certainly possible that, as with multiple cameras for supervision of crossing intrusions, these will come to be included in crossing specifications. While I would find it surprising if railroads were required to pay any part of providing them it is possible that some argument about nominal 'railroad benefits from their use' could enter into discussion during the process of amending specifications, and it would be interesting to see the outcome; it is also possible that railroads tasked with maintaining some aspects of crossing safety-equipment maintenance (as I believe is the case for at least some of the track circuits and operating components of lights and gates) could have this extended to watching for and replacing damaged or vandalized strips. For reasons including those I mentioned I would find this an unadvisable assumption of liability, and I'd expect any savvy railroad legal department to see through it and insist the responsibility stay with those responsible for road traffic.
And in many cases trails preceded rail lines, especially east of the Mississippi.
I think the specific issue of railroad responsibility for 'new' safety innovation (or more specifically, railroad assumption of responsibility for emergent concerns, such as (here) hardware solutions for ADA-mandated misdesigned power chairs) lies properly with the FRA. It is there that I would expect arguments about allocation of cost or responsibility to be made or argued, and I would expect it to be the subject of first proposed and then enacted rulemaking. Since in fact this issue is now a high-profile demonstrated safety concern I would be surprised if the FRA does not, in fact, look carefully at it; they may even decide to issue an emergency notice, as for restricting the speed of undegassed oil trains, although given the number of crossings this might be difficult to arrange for.
Overmod Euclid Where do you find the "rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing"? I see it gearing up in comments like this, from 8:57 this morning: As Euclid points out in part, deep flangeways at crossings are yet another public health hazard from corporations more interested in satisfying hedge fund managers than providing safety and service. The railroad was assuredly in place long before that particular crossing, and I suspect that someone with the time, patience and resources can find the precise details for that particular crossing. (Including who arranged for the crossing-signal masts to be smack in the middle of the sidewalks.) I have no immediate sources at hand for results from debris-filled flangeways but I would certainly abide by the opinion of those in the professional community here regarding that risk. I'll grant you that icing up is unlikely to be an issue in that part of California. Don't mistake my personal opinion: as a former avid cyclist I'd love to see the elastomer strips anywhere there are flangeways in pavement. Just paid for by road maintenance, and not made UP's social responsibility when it is the town's or the state's.
Euclid Where do you find the "rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing"?
I see it gearing up in comments like this, from 8:57 this morning:
As Euclid points out in part, deep flangeways at crossings are yet another public health hazard from corporations more interested in satisfying hedge fund managers than providing safety and service.
The railroad was assuredly in place long before that particular crossing, and I suspect that someone with the time, patience and resources can find the precise details for that particular crossing. (Including who arranged for the crossing-signal masts to be smack in the middle of the sidewalks.)
I have no immediate sources at hand for results from debris-filled flangeways but I would certainly abide by the opinion of those in the professional community here regarding that risk. I'll grant you that icing up is unlikely to be an issue in that part of California.
Don't mistake my personal opinion: as a former avid cyclist I'd love to see the elastomer strips anywhere there are flangeways in pavement. Just paid for by road maintenance, and not made UP's social responsibility when it is the town's or the state's.
OM: You have a very selective memory. When railroaders like BALT bring up the hedge fund managers in relation to the railroads, I don't hear you complain about left-wing trolling. You are the only person who entered the political element into this thread.
Perhaps the "I was here first" excuse is a tired one. It doesn't apply in a lot of other safety considerations. And in many cases trails preceded rail lines, especially east of the Mississippi.
BaltACD THERE WILL NEVER BE A RISK FREE WORLD!
THERE WILL NEVER BE A RISK FREE WORLD!
I used to get a laugh out of the highway road construction signs that said "TRAVEL AT YOUR OWN RISK". WHen don't you travel at your own risk?
Also, my suposition is that as the gentleman got to the crossing and his main tire was about cross the rail, the bell started and he tried to turn around. Thinking it would be faster than going on across. In the process, as he got his scooter in line with the rail, his wheels fell into the flangeway and he was stuck. I hope the forward facing video get made available and gets posted. Kodos to the quick thinking police office.
Murph,
I think Overmod hinted at that with his comment about the grandmother of all product liability suits.
Why is the railroad the bad guy here? I'd bet the crossing was there before motorized wheelchairs were invented. Shouldn't the manufacturer of the chairs have done a better job in th design process?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Okay, I see. I think the deep flangeways are somewhat of a public danger, but I would not blame the railroads. It is up to the regulators and lawmakers to come up with the solution and look for the funding. As I mentioned, I have no idea who pays for the crossing itself and its upkeep. I did review an article by the inventor of the shallow flangeways to be produced by Polycorp in Canada. He makes big pitch for the idea as a long overdue safety improvement and he cites some cases where people have been killed. I don't think the overall number is particularly high, but it has happened and the general hazard seems have been recognized for a long time.
He also brought up the claim that these extruder elastomer filler strips provide self cleaning action to prevent the buildup of debris in the flangeways. I think he said the power for that action comes from the flanges pressing into the filler strips, and also a similar effect of vehicles running over the strips. I took him to mean that the use of the filler strips maintained cleaner flangeways than if they are left open as is typical now.
I think he also said something about the strips preventing typical ice buildup in the flangeways which can cause derailments. I might contact them tomorrow and ask for more details on these points. In looking at his patent, it seems that he has put a lot engineering thought into the extruded details of these strips. So with the right design and materials, this flangeway fillers could be a brilliant improvment.
Good Grief!
There has not been one of these circular firing squad Threads around her in quite a while.....Makes me miss people like Michael Sol, Futuremodal,and some of the 'discussions' on the MILW.
EuclidWhere do you find the "rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing"?
zugmannJust why do you feel you have the need to post that crap? Honest question.
Now forget I said it, like I said.
tree68 BaltACD Why plant the crossing protection equipment in THE MIDDLE of the sidewalk? While I agree that the placement of said equipment is wrong (and the other side isn't much better, with a utility pole and signs), there is still no reason for this gentleman to be in the position he was. Unless this was his first time ever over that crossing (which I doubt), he could have crossed over without being over the rails. And there is a crosswalk a half a block away that he could have used if he wanted to be on the other side of the road. Unfortunately, that crossing equipment on the other side poses the same issue. Still - he could likely have avoided the situation. Then, again, maybe he's always done it that way and just happened to get stuck this time...
BaltACD Why plant the crossing protection equipment in THE MIDDLE of the sidewalk?
While I agree that the placement of said equipment is wrong (and the other side isn't much better, with a utility pole and signs), there is still no reason for this gentleman to be in the position he was.
Unless this was his first time ever over that crossing (which I doubt), he could have crossed over without being over the rails. And there is a crosswalk a half a block away that he could have used if he wanted to be on the other side of the road.
Unfortunately, that crossing equipment on the other side poses the same issue.
Still - he could likely have avoided the situation. Then, again, maybe he's always done it that way and just happened to get stuck this time...
The only way for a wheelchair of that type to cross the tracks would be to be IN THE STREET. There is insufficient room on the sidewalk for the wheelchair to pass on either side of the crossing protection equipment - no matter if the equipment is active or inactive.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1304105,-121.2716698,3a,75y,248.53h,87.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Xsr2dRzy7LON7iAn70XBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDWhy plant the crossing protection equipment in THE MIDDLE of the sidewalk?
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...
charlie hebdoHow many derailments have been caused? So is public safety for pedestrians and cyclists irrelevant in your view? Why make this political when it is not? Euclid is certainly not a left winger. Let's see some facts to back up your edicts. For the most part, crossings must be paid for by government units, even though IMO they should be cost shared with rails.
Why plant the crossing protection equipment in THE MIDDLE of the sidewalk?
No matter who is responsible, RR or State/County - THEY WERE WRONG!
Just think- if he'd have gone straight across the rails, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
How many derailments have been caused? So is public safety for pedestrians and cyclists irrelevant in your view? Why make this political when it is not? Euclid is certainly not a left winger. Let's see some facts to back up your edicts.
For the most part, crossings must be paid for by government units, even though IMO they should be cost shared with rails.
Overmod The question is not whether elastomeric flangeways exist, or how well they actually perform in service, and do or don't require more careful maintenance than their manufacturers tout. It is that it is not the railroad's responsibility, far less the railroad's liability, to put these things into crossings or to have to account for any consequences. I particularly object to the rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing, when the railroad safety interest (and by extension the danger to the great majority of the public through derailment) is in safe room under the flanges at all times under any conditions.
The question is not whether elastomeric flangeways exist, or how well they actually perform in service, and do or don't require more careful maintenance than their manufacturers tout.
It is that it is not the railroad's responsibility, far less the railroad's liability, to put these things into crossings or to have to account for any consequences. I particularly object to the rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing, when the railroad safety interest (and by extension the danger to the great majority of the public through derailment) is in safe room under the flanges at all times under any conditions.
Where do you find the "rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing"? Who has said that it is the railroads' responsibility to install the flangeway fillers? If it were to go forward, I have no idea who should pay for it. Who pays for the crossings and their equipment? Maybe the onus to resolve the danger should be borne by the mobility equipment manufacturers.
Overmod charlie hebdo I doubt if it is a health hazard and certainly would prevent bike wheels from dropping in the flangeways. The arguments about strips of different kinds to fill street and crossing flangeways are very old -- some of them go back to street running in the days of the rubber car spring rage after the invention of vulcanization. Arguments for and against both the vertically-compressible and horizontally-displaceavle types are nearly that old... as are all the usual-suspects issues of weather, climate, maintenance including imposed risk, sabotage, etc. etc. etc. A couple have even been raised in previous posts in this thread, as has the phrase 'bozo no-no' which I have taken careful notice of. At least some present designs of 'modular crossing' sold to railroads as safe in fact have an open gap between the center plate at the bottom of the flangeway, so dirt, ice, water etc. cannot build up to a derailment hazard. That is the engineering hazard that a railroad is tasked with mitigating.
charlie hebdo I doubt if it is a health hazard and certainly would prevent bike wheels from dropping in the flangeways.
The arguments about strips of different kinds to fill street and crossing flangeways are very old -- some of them go back to street running in the days of the rubber car spring rage after the invention of vulcanization. Arguments for and against both the vertically-compressible and horizontally-displaceavle types are nearly that old... as are all the usual-suspects issues of weather, climate, maintenance including imposed risk, sabotage, etc. etc. etc. A couple have even been raised in previous posts in this thread, as has the phrase 'bozo no-no' which I have taken careful notice of.
At least some present designs of 'modular crossing' sold to railroads as safe in fact have an open gap between the center plate at the bottom of the flangeway, so dirt, ice, water etc. cannot build up to a derailment hazard. That is the engineering hazard that a railroad is tasked with mitigating.
The idea of flange filler strips may be old, but old ideas that fail are often finally perfected as materials and processes evolve.
This link should be able open large views of patent illustrations of the cross section of these elastomeric fillers that can be simply pressed into place without taking apart the crossing. It seems like a well-engineered product that would be a realistic approach to serving a real need. It is called a "Shallow Flangeway" and made by Polycorp.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987
Watch for this simple point to be lied about and 'tried in the press and public opinion' in the upcoming weeks, together with 'his foot might have been spared if the train had been plugged quicker' and 'why didn't they steer to avoid him' arguments.
OvermodWatch now for the fun as some clever Antifa-inspired 'protestor' gets the bright idea to insert pieces of orange-painted steel bar into strategically-undisclosed crossings to put teeth in further 'protest' closings... no wait, everyone forget I said that.
Just why do you feel you have the need to post that crap? Honest question.
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
Flangeways at crossings near me on the UP main are designed to prevent narrow tire/wheel droppage, it appears. I'm not sure what the product is, but it appears to be a continuous strip. I doubt if it is a health hazard and certainly would prevent bike wheels from dropping in the flangeways.
charlie hebdoAs Euclid points out in part, deep flangeways at crossings are yet another public health hazard from corporations more interested in satisfying hedge fund managers than providing safety and service.
EuclidAn open publc walkway invites a person to use it. If there is a built in hazard, it had better be identified and protected against.
Most of the usual 'reasonable accommodations' that might be imposed under the ADA aren't particularly workable. You can't have a folding ramp that works with the gates, or rising ramps like for continuous frogs under the pedestrian crossings, or even having paratransit or cruisers equipped with porta-ramps to be spread a la Raleigh for known scooter transition hazards. The idea of providing scooter overcrossings or tunnels is perhaps silly... but expect it to become a significant and justifiable reason for expensive crossing-removal projects... and that still doesn't answer the ADA issue for crossings that 'can't' be eliminated or closed.
Those of us who remember the ongoing torture that 200-odd Admiral television sets caused for NTSC color television are more than usually worried how the activist arguments about ADA scooter access are going to be played.
I am thinking of starting a 'Carthago delenda est' sig campaign that scooters must change; scooters must pay. Or the law must be common-sense amended to remove the potential issue...
tree68 Euclid I would not attribute this incident to some sort of operator error on the part of the person in the wheelchair. The fact is that the deep flangeways are a death trap integral to the fundamental design. How many centuries does it take to realize this? The person in the wheelchair has every right to turn in any direction for any reason when crossing. Is there a law that says otherwise? Is there a law that says bicyclists must cross perpendicular to the rails? Some crossing installations are not perpendicular to the rails. In that case, are bicyclists expected to follow the crossing route and then suddenly veer sideways to cross the rails as vehicular traffic follows the road alignment? If I ride across a rail crossing that is not 90 degrees to the road, I adjust my path so I cross the rails at 90 degrees. It's common sense, although I'm sure there are bicyclists who have had to learn that lesson via a trip over the handle bars. The gentleman in the wheel chair certainly has every right to turn in any direction he wants. If he's on a sidewalk, he has every right to ride over the curb at a 45 degree angle, too, but that will surely dump him. Common sense (or experience) should tell him that it's a bad idea - he should wait until he finds a ramp or other smooth access. The municipality is under no obligation to ensure that all transitions between sidewalk and road are suitable for riding a Hoveround over them at a 45 degree angle. It's sufficient to do so at intersections, etc. I don't see that the railroad has a responsibility to fix something that seems to work at thousands of crossings nationwide.
Euclid I would not attribute this incident to some sort of operator error on the part of the person in the wheelchair. The fact is that the deep flangeways are a death trap integral to the fundamental design. How many centuries does it take to realize this? The person in the wheelchair has every right to turn in any direction for any reason when crossing. Is there a law that says otherwise? Is there a law that says bicyclists must cross perpendicular to the rails? Some crossing installations are not perpendicular to the rails. In that case, are bicyclists expected to follow the crossing route and then suddenly veer sideways to cross the rails as vehicular traffic follows the road alignment?
I would not attribute this incident to some sort of operator error on the part of the person in the wheelchair. The fact is that the deep flangeways are a death trap integral to the fundamental design. How many centuries does it take to realize this?
The person in the wheelchair has every right to turn in any direction for any reason when crossing. Is there a law that says otherwise? Is there a law that says bicyclists must cross perpendicular to the rails? Some crossing installations are not perpendicular to the rails. In that case, are bicyclists expected to follow the crossing route and then suddenly veer sideways to cross the rails as vehicular traffic follows the road alignment?
If I ride across a rail crossing that is not 90 degrees to the road, I adjust my path so I cross the rails at 90 degrees. It's common sense, although I'm sure there are bicyclists who have had to learn that lesson via a trip over the handle bars.
The gentleman in the wheel chair certainly has every right to turn in any direction he wants. If he's on a sidewalk, he has every right to ride over the curb at a 45 degree angle, too, but that will surely dump him. Common sense (or experience) should tell him that it's a bad idea - he should wait until he finds a ramp or other smooth access. The municipality is under no obligation to ensure that all transitions between sidewalk and road are suitable for riding a Hoveround over them at a 45 degree angle. It's sufficient to do so at intersections, etc.
I don't see that the railroad has a responsibility to fix something that seems to work at thousands of crossings nationwide.
Well, common sense is fine, and using common sense would easly prevent a person from stepping into an open manhole if he realized it was there. Nevertheless, leaving a manhole open without any protection would be considered extreme negligence on the part of a worker who left such a hazard. This is because everyone knows that people can fall into an open hole because they don't expect it, are not watching for it, and don't see it.
Like an open manhole, people encounter these deep flangeways without any prior experience, and so they are most likely to have a problem on their first encounter. I don't think these types of hazards can be dismissed just because they rarely cause an accident.
An open publc walkway invites a person to use it. If there is a built in hazard, it had better be identified and protected against. It is not common sense to conclude that the hazard is not worth mitigating because most people recongnize the hazard and get through it okay. Common sense says people should not fall off roofs.
I see some very interesting things boiling up in the indefinite near future:
As I noted it is theoretically possible to modify the scooter detail design to make it safer to drive over flangeways. I would argue strongly that with all the current and planned resumption of tracks in common streets this be done quickly for all scooters, both in new production and to be retrofitted to older machines, and done at the manufacturer's sole expense as for other types of safety recall.
I don't see railroads being able to block access to unmodified Hoverounds under the current ADA as amended. Technical means of providing 'scooter safe' crossings have been demonstrated not to be 'failsafe' or 'foolproof' enough. The only thing I can think of in the short run is amending the ADA, perhaps in concert with FRA directive, to forbid unattended use of crossings by scooter users -- they would have to dial some service like 511 and arrange for someone, likely police or a paratransit driver, to meet them at a crossing and supervise as they cross. Not sure exactly how this would play out to the activist community that caused Amtrak to stick their foot so thoroughly in their mouth earlier this year.
Look to see little compressible strips put in crossing flangeways as a stopgap, with the usual California-Democrat $2000 fine and jail term for messing with them in any way the CaStaPo or its many informers detects (this is [sarc] not a political comment). Then the signage makes the scooter driver more aware of the necessary presence of strips as well as staying straight across without stopping or turning while on the specially-colored new 'advisory' aprons (can they have guidance stripes stampcreted into them legally?) OR ELSE [insert fines and charges for all involved in transgression]. If the strips are missing he calls special needs priority hotline number as above and has somebody come 'key him by' safely... and reinsert any missing or 'vandalized' strip.
Picture from the Post shows the 'steering' caster at the rear thoroughly blocked in the flange gap, 'just the wrong width'. Had it been a larger diameter it might have been able to swivel out, but likely only if reversed toward the oncoming train while trying to turn side-to-side with the motors. The visible side tire is not "flat", it is deformed down by the applied weight of the rider into the groove.
I see the grandmother of ex post facto product-liability suits looming here. Even an emergency 'jacking caster' away from the centered one would likely have gotten the trailer freed up; a pair of auxiliary 'rings' either side of that caster wheel would preserve the low running resistance but kept it from falling into grooves like sewer grates... or streetcar tracks. Likewise wider tires built on the principle of 'hybrid' 2" bicycle tires, where there is a hard center raised profile with minimal tread for 'low resistance road running' but aggressive off-road tread just to either side, could be easily adopted, with offset wheels or spacers if necessary.
And all this readily known to the scooter manufacturers who peddled these things for unrestricted outdoor use. If lawnmower manufacturers are supposed to be deemed liable for people picking up their product by the deck edges for hedge trimming, because not in the manual, it will be interesting to see what is in the scooter instructions about navigating obstructions...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.