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!
zugmannJust why do you feel you have the need to post that crap? Honest question.
Now forget I said it, like I said.
EuclidWhere do you find the "rather trolling left-wing insinuation that this is some heartless robber-baron cost-cutting reckless-endangerment thing"?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.)
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.
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.
Murph,
I think Overmod hinted at that with his comment about the grandmother of all product liability suits.
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.
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.
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.
As usual, selective readings, misreading, arcane terms, red herrings and logorrhea by Mr. Polymath.
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.
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.
charlie hebdoAs usual, selective readings, misreading, arcane terms, red herrings and logorrhea by Mr. Polymath.
What was it Socrates said, about how those who lose the argument resort to insults?
And no, no misreadings, and the only red herrings were yours. The logorrhea I acknowledge, though.
Lodi does not get much better at the intersection.
Lithonia OperatorA 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.
Remember, in fighting and winning WW II, the Greatest Generation was antifa.
Anti-Fascist.
Overmod charlie hebdo As usual, selective readings, misreading, arcane terms, red herrings and logorrhea by Mr. Polymath. What was it Socrates said, about how those who lose the argument resort to insults? And no, no misreadings, and the only red herrings were yours. The logorrhea I acknowledge, though.
charlie hebdo As usual, selective readings, misreading, arcane terms, red herrings and logorrhea by Mr. Polymath.
And once again, you resort to denial of your selective readings. I will point out one simple phrase I stated which you ignored ["especially east of the Mississippi"] so that you could distract. And YOU were the person who dragged in a totally irrelevant political epithet about leftists and California , not that there's us anything wrong with them, except in your world in Memphis.
In looking at the street view, I don't think the crossing should be open to personal mobility vehicles. The clearance past the gate hinge base is insufficient on both sides. This may require leaving the sidewalk on either side. One side requires entering the roadway and the other side requires dropping off the sidewalk and into loose gravel. Both sides require fouling the path of the crossing gate operation with the gate dropping on the road side and the counterweights rising on the non-road side.
I don’t necessarily see this incident as the fault of U.P. or the person in the wheelchair. The fault is with the crossing design, and I suspect that City may be ultimately responsible for approving that.
But, in any case, it was a mighty close call, and it would not surprise me if both U.P. and the City are named as the defendants in legal action for the stress and injury.
Here is a solution that would work for the flangeways:
https://extrememotus.com/all-terrain-wheelchair-research-center/beach-wheelchair-2?gclid=CjwKCAjw1ej5BRBhEiwAfHyh1D3apizb9XSgmA3YCurCx0_wt4LkbUZncwhcQGjS8SQa1i9mClLlpBoCAJEQAvD_BwE
Or this ...
https://www.tracfab.com/
The idea that chronological precedence determines who should pay for safety and health improvements is not necessarily so. Even within rail world, safety appliances have been the financial responsibility of the railroads, not governments, even though the requirements to adopt them came after the equipment and ROW were already in use: coupler improvements, airbrake improvements, track standards, PTC. So why not crossings? Shouldn't the railroads share costs with governments at a minimum?
charlie hebdo I will point out one simple phrase I stated which you ignored ["especially east of the Mississippi"] so that you could distract.
[/quote]And YOU were the person who dragged in a totally irrelevant political epithet about leftists and California, not that there's anything wrong with them, except in your world in Memphis. [/quote]Removed already, except to acknowledge it was there before removal. The comment about finding the railroad negligent because it is mercenary, however, continues to be something I will dispute as having relevance here.
Overmod charlie hebdo I will point out one simple phrase I stated which you ignored ["especially east of the Mississippi"] so that you could distract. I actually gave that red herring more attention than it factually merited -- what possible importance could it have for a discussion of affairs in California? Issues of crossing law and responsibility are well-documented by experts; I would seek there if you have concerns on who is responsible for different aspects of the crossing in Lodi, rather than blithering generalities about unrelated areas.
I actually gave that red herring more attention than it factually merited -- what possible importance could it have for a discussion of affairs in California? Issues of crossing law and responsibility are well-documented by experts; I would seek there if you have concerns on who is responsible for different aspects of the crossing in Lodi, rather than blithering generalities about unrelated areas.
[/quote]
How or why is revisiting the funding for bringing railroad crossings into the modern era not relevant to a discussion of safer rail crossings, whether Lodi, St. Louis or Long Island? Without funding and mandates, nothing gets done. And Wall Street in the broad sense clearly impacts most/all railroad decisions.
Although removing your political remark seems like Stalinist airbrushing of Zinoviev & Co. out of official photos, I guess it's at least an acknowledgement.
charlie hebdoSo why not crossings? Shouldn't the railroads share costs with governments at a minimum?
Perhaps the most direct example in recent history involves the cost of monitored crossing systems -- usually involving cameras like those for red-light enforcement, on a tape loop like incident recorders, that can be linked to appropriate local or state agencies for enforcement. It is clearly in a railroad's 'enlightened self-interest' to facilitate enforcement leading either to deterrence of 'crossing violations' or the interdiction of the worst offenders (or "recidivists") but it is also, clearly, neither good economics nor good politics to have railroad police perform more than an assistive role, if any, in actual enforcement. This alone indicates a role for the railroad in setting up and coordinating communications for these systems.
This is separate from a different issue, which is an extension of the common provision of regular crossing protection. It is my understanding that in most cases the 'road' agency pays the capital cost of the devices, but the railroad maintains them. Where enhancements to crossings facilitate 'better' railroad operation, a railroad might agree to a larger expense than for simple crossing protection.
A sort of counter-example is in the area of 'quiet zones' where municipalities offer some form of statutory immunity to railroads in return for a Federally-sanctioned exemption from horn regulations. Up to now the 'enhanced' protection required to establish this (e.g. full gates with barriers and signage) has been the responsibility of the ones wanting the quiet zones; there may be a case that the added immunity is valuable 'enough' to railroads to contribute in converting additional crossings to quiet status.
There are issues of 'current privilege' involved here that may make it 'unlikely' at best that railroads will pay for something they don't think they have to, or have been exempted from by law. Some form of effective community organizing might in time influence this, as might changes in the makeup or administration of governments or agencies with oversight of railroad policy...
charlie hebdoAlthough removing your political remark seems like Stalinist airbrushing of Zinoviev & Co. out of official photos, I guess it's at least an acknowledgement.
EuclidHere is a solution that would work for the flangeways:
The principal difficulty is that these chairs have to negotiate doorways and tight interior arrangements, and the tires to be effective and yet give reasonably long battery life will have to be relatively wide, and be 'outboard' enough not to produce dangerous tipping with weight shift or surface tilt. It might be possible to provide a low-pressure running surface as a cylinder stored flat, even disk-like within the hub of a running wheel, but expanding outward with gas pressure; this might be arranged to lift one side to help clear something like high centering.
Providing the wider tread for the 'casters' is, I think, more vital in the short run than making a power chair 'off-road compatible'. One potential solution here is that used on some zero-turn Walker mowers, which steer using the same principles as these scooters; they do offer a single wide low'pressure tire for the rear caster, but also multiple wheels in the same wider frame for applications where 'scuffing' is important to minimize. On a scooter having several wheels of 'existing' width, each with independent ball or roller bearings on a common shaft, would not greatly increase either running or turning resistance but would prevent the settling or wedging of a single wheel into a flangeway -- which is the principal thing to be solved to prevent the Lodi accident from recurring elsewhere.
I don't say this to cut off discussion of better imperfect-surface operation of 'self-drive' mobility solutions, which I think should be encouraged. Although I am, now that you mention it, enraged that anyone should encounter the need for that capability going down an improved sidewalk in a state like California...
A google 'drive' up and down Lodi shows that new sidewalks have been added with ADA mats on the ramps.
From Mike:
BaltACD Remember, in fighting and winning WW II, the Greatest Generation was antifa. Anti-Fascist.
I really have a problem with the so-called antifa being compared to the veterans of WW2. The US forces were much more disciplined about who they were fighting and what they were fighting for.
Erik_Mag BaltACD Remember, in fighting and winning WW II, the Greatest Generation was antifa. Anti-Fascist. I really have a problem with the so-called antifa being compared to the veterans of WW2. The US forces were much more disciplined about who they were fighting and what they were fighting for.
Fascists are Fascists - no matter if they are from the 1930'-40's or in the 21st Century.
The efforts against Fascist rule in the 1930's didn't become organized until September 1, 1939 - had anti-fascist efforts been more successful, maybe September 1, 1939 would not have happened.
BaltACDFascists are Fascists - no matter if they are from the 1930'-40's or in the 21st Century.
The issue I have with antifa is that they start by redefining 'fascism' to be something only they say it is, and then start using some of the worst historically-Fascist attitudes and tactics themselves. That mocks those who actually had to fight and die to stop the real thing.
In my opinion perhaps one of the worst versions of 'fascism' in the 1930s was spared us only by strategically placed assassination in 1935.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.