Psychguides.com lists the following as signs of cognitive disorder, several of which sound like they could be factors in this incident:
My training in psych is what I got in a couple of courses at college, and CMEs as an EMT. I don't make myself out to be an expert in the field, but I do have observations and opinions based on what I have learned. I believe I'm allowed to do that.
I've dealt with people with Alzheimers and similar symptoms, including my own mother.
And I've seen numerous attempts here on the forum to blame anyone but the person involved/responsible.
I'm sorry the gentleman was injured. Perhaps some good will come of it.
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...
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One charlie hebdo understanding how cognitive processes operate under less than ideal conditions, Wouldn't that, by definition, qualify as a "cognitive issue"? "Deer in the headlights" would qualify as a cognitive lapse. I don't know what Tree's level of education is, but I feel confident that just through the line of work that he is in, he has substantial experience dealing with people who are "stress impaired". Why you have to equate that with your perception of his level of education, seems uncalled for. And borders on a personal attack. (IMO)
charlie hebdo understanding how cognitive processes operate under less than ideal conditions,
Wouldn't that, by definition, qualify as a "cognitive issue"? "Deer in the headlights" would qualify as a cognitive lapse.
I don't know what Tree's level of education is, but I feel confident that just through the line of work that he is in, he has substantial experience dealing with people who are "stress impaired".
Why you have to equate that with your perception of his level of education, seems uncalled for. And borders on a personal attack. (IMO)
I would suggest you read posts correctly and not put words in other's' mouths. Then again, that's what you do. There was no attempt at commenting on Larry's education level, just an indication of the usual college course where that information might be imparted.
Cognitive issues means something entirely different, either a congenital deficit or a cerebral insult or illness. In any case, not a transient state of mind.
Your attempt to stir up trouble is typical. I was told of it years ago by a former moderator.
Euclid There are two separate issues here. One is whether the rider violated the crossing laws such as entering after the lights and gates activated. The other is whether he entered with the crossing warning un-activated, but did something that contributed to the incident. The second issue is in a gray area because even if he did something that contributed to the incident, that does not necessarily make it his fault. If somebody leaves a manhole cover open and unprotected, and somebody falls into it, who do you think will be most negligent? Just because a victim could have done something that would have prevented an accident, does not necessarily mean that it was completely their fault. In the case of this crossing, I think it is a stretch to conclude that the person in the wheelchair is at fault because he turned parallel to the rail. It is unreasonable to conclude that he should have detected this hazard. Wheelchairs are made to be highly maneuverable. They are zero-turn steering and able to pivot on a point. If a user comes to an obstacle, it is perfectly natural to turn the chair. What is unnatural is to blame him because he should have realized that turning would trap a wheel in a deep and wide slot cut through the pathway. You cannot leave a booby trap and then blame the victim for not avoiding it.
There are two separate issues here. One is whether the rider violated the crossing laws such as entering after the lights and gates activated. The other is whether he entered with the crossing warning un-activated, but did something that contributed to the incident.
The second issue is in a gray area because even if he did something that contributed to the incident, that does not necessarily make it his fault. If somebody leaves a manhole cover open and unprotected, and somebody falls into it, who do you think will be most negligent? Just because a victim could have done something that would have prevented an accident, does not necessarily mean that it was completely their fault.
In the case of this crossing, I think it is a stretch to conclude that the person in the wheelchair is at fault because he turned parallel to the rail. It is unreasonable to conclude that he should have detected this hazard. Wheelchairs are made to be highly maneuverable. They are zero-turn steering and able to pivot on a point. If a user comes to an obstacle, it is perfectly natural to turn the chair.
What is unnatural is to blame him because he should have realized that turning would trap a wheel in a deep and wide slot cut through the pathway. You cannot leave a booby trap and then blame the victim for not avoiding it.
Good points. The concept of relative contributory negligence comes to mind. Somewhat similar would be the case of a homeowner who fails to safeguard a backyard pool with fencing. The pool is his and on his own property. Yet in most jurisdictions, the homeowner would be at least partially liable if a child trespassed and fell into it, with resultant injury or death. Why should a railroad be immune?
tree68 charlie hebdo You clearly do not understand the effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, on people. Perhaps you cannot put yourself in another's shoes. Some people flee, while some freeze. Calculations of distance and speed and how much time remains are easy sitting at home, not for a man who probably has become quite fear prone because of being in a wheelchair or scooter, a sense of helplessness. charlie hebdo You clearly do not understand the effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, on people. Perhaps you cannot put yourself in another's shoes. Some people flee, while some freeze. Calculations of distance and speed and how much time remains are easy sitting at home, not for a man who probably has become quite fear prone because of being in a wheelchair or scooter, a sense of helplessness. And this is why I ask - was this a regular trip for him, or the first time on this route? If it was a regular trip, maybe he got complacent and started across without thoroughly checking for trains. Perhaps he has cognitive issues. Maybe he's gotten stuck there before but never encountered a train before someone helped him out of his predicament. We have no idea how long he was stuck before the officer spotted him. Too many unaswered questions.
charlie hebdo You clearly do not understand the effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, on people. Perhaps you cannot put yourself in another's shoes. Some people flee, while some freeze. Calculations of distance and speed and how much time remains are easy sitting at home, not for a man who probably has become quite fear prone because of being in a wheelchair or scooter, a sense of helplessness.
You clearly do not understand the effect of negative emotions, particularly fear, on people. Perhaps you cannot put yourself in another's shoes. Some people flee, while some freeze. Calculations of distance and speed and how much time remains are easy sitting at home, not for a man who probably has become quite fear prone because of being in a wheelchair or scooter, a sense of helplessness.
And this is why I ask - was this a regular trip for him, or the first time on this route? If it was a regular trip, maybe he got complacent and started across without thoroughly checking for trains. Perhaps he has cognitive issues.
Maybe he's gotten stuck there before but never encountered a train before someone helped him out of his predicament.
We have no idea how long he was stuck before the officer spotted him.
Too many unaswered questions.
Cognitive issues? Based on what? You seem to lack the ability to put yourself in someone's shoes. As I stated before, the man was undoubtedly scared Anna's such, your notions of expecting his adopting a logical, analytic approach are far off the mark. You clearly do not have even an introductory psychology course level of understanding how cognitive processes operate under less than ideal conditions, as would have been the case in Lodi or many other crossing incidents.
charlie hebdo "Used the product improperly?" Wow! You seriously think that trying to turn around because a train is coming at you typically leads to some sort of carefully weighed decision? Probably the man was scared ****less and thought turning around was his best option for survival. He was wrong but I am sure he did not have the time or ability to estimate the railgap width and compare that with his scooter tire widths, which he would have memorized, of course.
"Used the product improperly?" Wow!
You seriously think that trying to turn around because a train is coming at you typically leads to some sort of carefully weighed decision? Probably the man was scared ****less and thought turning around was his best option for survival. He was wrong but I am sure he did not have the time or ability to estimate the railgap width and compare that with his scooter tire widths, which he would have memorized, of course.
Let's go back to the videotape (actually Google Street view): https://goo.gl/maps/7dEEfyp9ryPnt6oA8
Wide open view in both directions for at least a half mile. If the train was doing 30, he had a full minute to make his crossing from that half mile point. If you look at a map of the area, that section of track is arrow straight for a good mile in either direction. Even if the train was doing 60, he still had that minute to get across from the time he could first see headlights.
The crossing gates are required to be down for 15-20 seconds before a train enters the crossing. From the first ping of the bell (at 30 MPH) he had about a half a minute to get across, if he decided to make a run for it. Or to get off the crossing if he was already on it. He didn't need to turn around. There is plenty of room to clear the tracks before one runs into the mis-located crossing protection equipment.
He made a mistake and nearly paid for it with his life. Hopefully he learned something.
As for installing flangeway guards - if that crossing has a history of similar incidents, I'm all for it. Otherwise, you're simply protecting people from something they've never had to be protected from before, and likely won't again.
Euclid tree68 Overmod That's obvious enough almost to require no answer -- someone almost died. And for precisely the sort of short sight in design engineering that calls for elimination of defects. Is it an engineering defect if someone uses the product improperly? Why was his scooter in a position that it could drop a wheel in the flangeway? The road crosses the tracks at very nearly ninety degrees. He could have been across the tracks and in the clear in ten or fifteen seconds. Thousands of people cross tracks on similar installations every day. With no ill effects. What made this one different? Would flange guards have actually made a difference? I think flange fillers could have prevented the hangup. Total flush flange fillers seem to be in use, but also limited in some ways. But the main issue is the width and depth of the flangeway. The values of width and depth for best train operation seem to be inconflict with the values of those who must cross the flangeway gap.
tree68 Overmod That's obvious enough almost to require no answer -- someone almost died. And for precisely the sort of short sight in design engineering that calls for elimination of defects. Is it an engineering defect if someone uses the product improperly? Why was his scooter in a position that it could drop a wheel in the flangeway? The road crosses the tracks at very nearly ninety degrees. He could have been across the tracks and in the clear in ten or fifteen seconds. Thousands of people cross tracks on similar installations every day. With no ill effects. What made this one different? Would flange guards have actually made a difference?
Overmod That's obvious enough almost to require no answer -- someone almost died. And for precisely the sort of short sight in design engineering that calls for elimination of defects.
Is it an engineering defect if someone uses the product improperly?
Why was his scooter in a position that it could drop a wheel in the flangeway? The road crosses the tracks at very nearly ninety degrees. He could have been across the tracks and in the clear in ten or fifteen seconds.
Thousands of people cross tracks on similar installations every day. With no ill effects. What made this one different? Would flange guards have actually made a difference?
I think flange fillers could have prevented the hangup. Total flush flange fillers seem to be in use, but also limited in some ways. But the main issue is the width and depth of the flangeway. The values of width and depth for best train operation seem to be inconflict with the values of those who must cross the flangeway gap.
What pressure level should the 'flange filler' respond to? A sideways 'scooter' dropping one wheel into the 'flangeway' can develop a reasonably high pressure level when you consider a 100-200 pound 'scooter' with most of the weight of the scooter and its occupant (200+ pounds is not out of the question) - potentially creating sufficient force to operate the 'filling' and still trap the small wheel.
OvermodThat's obvious enough almost to require no answer -- someone almost died. And for precisely the sort of short sight in design engineering that calls for elimination of defects.
tree68Which then begs the question - is there really a problem here that needs to be solved?
The principal reason to combine this with 'crossing' improvement at all is that there are other crossing users also affected by flangeway issues, almost all of whom have those issues addressed with something as simple as Euclid's relatively low-compression-force filler approach. But it is more than a little specious to bundle a tiny critical ADA remediation in with much greater public benefit as an 'unfunded mandate' or even a funded one that imposes even a chance of contributory liability.
Leaving aside the issue charlie hebdo raised about railroads being 'better citizens' with crossing and other concerns, I continue to think that the remediation force should lie squarely on the scooter 'infrastructure' and their various insurers, and that while remediation kits' for narrow casters and inadequate road wheels might not be mandatory for all users they should be required just as in a mandatory automotive recall -- new slightly-smaller caster wheels on either side of the existing one, in an appropriate frame and bearings, being a completely appropriate solution that solves among other things the whole of the jamming issue with flangeways and does so without making others bear the brunt of the mistakes. And while there' certainly a place for a Lorenzo Coffin of open flange gaps, I'd prefer activist 'laser focus' on fixing deadly scooter defects first and foremost.
tree68Also unanswered is how often he, and others like him, use this crossing. Which then begs the question - is there really a problem here that needs to be solved?
Sincerely, I don't know what ails our society. Nobody seems capable of taking responsibility for their own actions...every little slight that befalls them, the blame has got to be bumped "up stream". Usually targeting any deep pocket that can even tangentially be tied to it.
If I was riding a bicycle and my wheel sank into a flange way, or a storm sewer grate,(provided they were structurally sound, and not deteriorated/neglected) and I took a header.....I would be embarrassed over my own stupidity, I'd likely look around hoping no one had seen me, and I would move on. But I seem to be in a slim minority there.
Unfortunately, I expect someone will adopt this event as a cause they must champion. And ride it for all they can manage. I could be wrong, but I smell an "overkill" remedy in the making.
Personally, I could live with a "cross at your own peril" sign. But a "Wheelchairs with thin wheels not permitted" sign.....not so much. I don't think that the "barrier-free" folks will swallow that one.
Regards - Steve
Other than "umbrella strollers" most wheeled conveyances have wheels large enough to cross the tracks at right angles. The question with this particular incident is how/why he got turned so his wheel(s) could drop into the flangeway.
Also unanswered is how often he, and others like him, use this crossing.
Which then begs the question - is there really a problem here that needs to be solved?
.
Erik_Mag Forbidding narrow wheel wheelchairs does not prevent a disabled person from crossing the RR tracks with a wheelchair equipped with sufficiently wide wheels.
Well, I'm not looking for a fight, but I'd be very surprised if the authorities where that charitable.
They aren't going to prohibit "unsuitable" wheelchairs from certain routes, imo.
Convicted One The mindset of the ADA is that failure to accomodate the needs of the disabled, violates their constitutional rights.
The mindset of the ADA is that failure to accomodate the needs of the disabled, violates their constitutional rights.
I beleive the operative term is "reasonable accomodation". Forbidding narrow wheel wheelchairs does not prevent a disabled person from crossing the RR tracks with a wheelchair equipped with sufficiently wide wheels. Putting it another way, it was not the railroad's fault that the wheelchair was not designed to deal with flangeways.
I don’t see why flange fillers should cause a derailment risk. They only have to be stiff enough to hold maybe 150 pounds of wheel weight, but not so stiff that they fail to give way for a freight car wheel flange. That is a mighty big window. Why does the filler function have to get anywhere close to being able to derail a train?
For some reason, they are deemed acceptable for LRT, but not for heavy rail lines. So given that conflict, plus the inexplicable worry about derailments, I would conclude that the real reason for holding back is the operating life of the flangeway filler.
I suspect that prototyping and testing has used flangeway fillers that are way overrated for the pedestrian, bicycle, and wheelchair function out of an abundance of caution. Then these stiff fillers wear relatively quickly. In the transit application, there are likely fewer wheels per day than on freight lines. Perhaps the tendency is then to make the fillers even more robust and stiff to the point where derailment concerns begin to rise when coupled with cold weather and ice buildup.
There may be a design sweet spot that has been missed in this development. The parameters would be the number of wheels per day, the travel speed of the wheels, the type of material, the cost of material, the expected operating life, the weather conditions, and cost of replacing the fillers.
Erik_MagI'm of the opinion that any vehicle intended for use on public streets or sidewalks either needs to be designed to accommodate flangeways or being placarded against crossing RR tracks.
Now a huge factor to be taken into consideration is the concept of "technical feasibility". If it is determined that full compliance is not technically feasible, then exceptions can be granted. provided that all other aspects which are feasible, are met.
Googling "ADA Technically Feasible" will reveal that this is one area that has received a LOT of creative thought, at least in non-rail applications.
I'd guess that with truck hunting, as well as various weather conditions and how they might affect a mechanical flangeway device, there might be some room for negotiation there. JMHO
The issue of vehicles vs flangeways goes back to the era of horse drawn street cars. Back then, most vehicles had wooden wheels with strap iron tires which led to many cases of wheels getting caught in the flangeways. A couple of the compromises included tram rail and grooved rail, though most street railways preferred to use T rail when they could (talking electrified street railways).
I'm of the opinion that any vehicle intended for use on public streets or sidewalks either needs to be designed to accommodate flangeways or being placarded against crossing RR tracks.
I'd like to see testing of the flangeway protection technologies to show that they do not increase the chances of a derailment.
As one who has "lost it" riding a bike across a RR crossing I learned that eeven if you think the angle between road and railroad is close enough to 90 degrees to be safe, it is best to angle your route across in a way to make it 90 degrees, not just close to that, at least when it is wet. Dry conditions allow more latitude but any crossing that requires you to turn your head enough to be uncomfortable needs to be taken with extreme caution. Asphalt rash may not be quite as bad as gravel rash, but it still hurts. (And I was young when this happened, don't want to try it with old bones now)
PR
Positive Wheelchair & Bicycle Control
As we have seen, there is a road hazard to smaller vehicles if their wheels are suddenly caught in deep railroad grade crossing flangeways. Crossing longevity design calls for best possible drainage. Flangeways are also susceptible to colleting freezing water that then builds up ice all through the flangeways. Such ice fouling of the flangeways can derail a train. Apparently this collection of ice and other debris is the reason why flangeways are often as deep as possible. The depth gives more volume capacity to hold the buildup of fouling materials to delay the onset of actual fouling of the flanges.
The totally safe grade crossing flangeway would be normally totally flush with the rail head surface as though there were no flangeway at all. Then with the passage of a train, the material fouling the flanges would be flexible and be compressed by each flange to accommodate the interference of each passing flange.
I do not find any product that completely fills the flangeway to make a totally flush installation. Maybe that has been tried, but never perfected. The probable principle of such a product would be like this Epflex Railseal, but with no open flangeway at all. Then the flexibility of the filler material would allow it to compress under each flange, and then rebound after the wheel passes.
I assume that developing this principle with the proper elastomer material and extrusion configuration would be a nearly insurmountable challenge. The repeated working of the material by deflecting under each passing wheel flange, under a variety of weather conditions, would tend to wear the elastomer. If the elastomer is worn and/or damaged, it would require an expensive reinstallation. The installation is set in fresh asphalt which is then compacted and hardens to encase and lock in the flangeway filler strips.
But even without completely filling the flangeway, product such as the Polycorp Epflex seal minimize the flangeway depth to only what is needed to clear the flanges. This would eliminate most of the hazard to bicycles and to small wheels of mobility devices.
Here is a Polycorp Epflex Railseal Installation video. It showcases the excellent design engineering of the product and its installation practice, which is also well thought out. However, this level of installation skill and care may be hard to achieve with normal labor force. A sloppy or rushed attitude in the installation would leave many potential defects that would shorten the lifespan of the work. Also, it is impossible to inspect the installation once it is buried in asphalt.
https://vimeo.com/383319226
Article focusing on solving danger to bicyclists from getting wheels into rail flangeways. Also, if you explore this link, you will find it leads to the patent, and that can be further opened to show very detailed drawings of the product.
https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-story/9634467-dangerous-spur-line-trail-can-be-fixed-with-new-technology-says-local-company/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.