Euclid ATLANTIC CENTRAL Where does this come from? This idea that drivers bear little or no responsiblity here and the railroad and the government MUST protect them? I don’t believe that such an idea exists. I have never heard it expressed. But I have heard the idea that drivers are deprived of some degree of protection with crossings protected only by crossbucks and sometimes stop or yield signs; as opposed to crossings with automatic flashing red lights and automatic gates. This is often heard in news coverage of crossing collisions at the less protected class of crossings known as “Passive” crossings. It was heard often in the news coverage of the recent collision of an Amtrak train with the dump truck in Menden, MO. a few months ago. It is typically expressed as a lament that such passive crossings lack full protection, and this is implied to be part of the cause of the collision. Of course, this does not actually excuse the driver from the requirement to yield at both types of crossings. However, when you add automatic safety protection features to grade crossings, drivers tend to lower their wariness at those crossings. I believe this lowered wariness compromises driver attention at the fully protected (“active”) crossings, but the automatic protection works for the driver despite the lowered attention that it causes. However, at passive crossings, I believe the driver often applies the same compromised attention which results in failures to yield to stop signs, yield signs, or crossbucks which mean the same as a yield sign. And here there is no automatic protection to take over for the driver. The driver simply makes the mistake of assuming that the automatic protection at “active” crossings is there for them at both types of crossings. After all, if a driver encounters a crossing that has no automatic protection, and yet no train is approaching, they have no way of knowing that the automatic protection is not there. In my opinion, this is a hidden danger of passive crossings. Of course this has nothing to do with the collision in this thread, but the point was brought up here, so I responded to it.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Where does this come from? This idea that drivers bear little or no responsiblity here and the railroad and the government MUST protect them?
Based on that logic about driver psychology, the more traffic lights we put at intersections the more people will run the remaining stop signs?
If you are not smart enough, or paying attention enough, to tell the difference between a railroad crossing with lights and gates vs one with no lights or gates, then you need to put down the phone, coffee, food, makeup, turn the radio off and drive the car.......
Welcome to the nanny state......
And, getting out of your police cruiser with it stopped on the tracks fails the "common sense" test - let alone putting a suspect in the vehicle.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhere does this come from? This idea that drivers bear little or no responsiblity here and the railroad and the government MUST protect them?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL... Agreed, it is a tough job that requires the right kind of person. Sheldon
Agreed, it is a tough job that requires the right kind of person.
But seems to attract the wrong kind of person.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 ATLANTIC CENTRAL As for this incident, maybe we need higher standards as to who we give a badge, a gun, and a high performance car? When my father first became a reserve police officer in the 1950's, he bought his own gun and uniform, and the training was OJT. Being a small town, the patrol car was hardly high performance. Nowadays, most places require at least a police academy (often a regional thing). Screening varies - the smaller the town, the less that probably goes on. Still, the bullies do exist. That said, today's police officer is expected to not only deal with speeders and fights, but has to become a psychologist, a mediator, and a host of other talents nobody thought of fifty years ago. Not everyone is cut out for that, and some, after exposure, some get a little jaded. When you're on your fifth idiot for the shift, well... Sure, they should be professional, and the vast majority are, but there are times even the most professional person can get a little frustrated. Something else has changed - When Dad wore a badge, dealing with the local ne'er-do-well was rather like dealing with Otis (Andy Griffith show). They knew they were misbehaving, and it was "yes, sir," "no, sir." That is no longer the case.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL As for this incident, maybe we need higher standards as to who we give a badge, a gun, and a high performance car?
When my father first became a reserve police officer in the 1950's, he bought his own gun and uniform, and the training was OJT. Being a small town, the patrol car was hardly high performance.
Nowadays, most places require at least a police academy (often a regional thing). Screening varies - the smaller the town, the less that probably goes on. Still, the bullies do exist.
That said, today's police officer is expected to not only deal with speeders and fights, but has to become a psychologist, a mediator, and a host of other talents nobody thought of fifty years ago.
Not everyone is cut out for that, and some, after exposure, some get a little jaded. When you're on your fifth idiot for the shift, well...
Sure, they should be professional, and the vast majority are, but there are times even the most professional person can get a little frustrated.
Something else has changed - When Dad wore a badge, dealing with the local ne'er-do-well was rather like dealing with Otis (Andy Griffith show). They knew they were misbehaving, and it was "yes, sir," "no, sir." That is no longer the case.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAs for this incident, maybe we need higher standards as to who we give a badge, a gun, and a high performance car?
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...
Euclid York1 Crossing with no lights, signals, or gates. I have noticed in various news reports of grade crossing collisions that if it was a “passive crossing” with the non-automatic, fixed warning signs and unlit crossbucks; the reporters make a point of mentioning this as though it were a safety deficiency at the crossing where the collision occurred. And so of course, it does imply that the driver was less to blame than would have been the case had the crossing had “active protection,” which is safer than passive protection. They are correct in making that point because drivers using passive crossings have less protection that those using active crossings. However, despite this fact, the less safe passive crossings are prioritized for use at the statistically, relatively less dangerous crossings. For this purpose, less dangerous, is defined as crossings with slower and/or less frequent train passage. So you have less effective protection systems for less dangerous crossings. But this amounts to collectivizing crossing safety in that every driver is given the right to use all crossings even though some are safer than others. Incidentally, that would also be the case even if all crossings had the same active protection systems and the same roadway/crossing design; but still had variations in train speed, and frequency, also variations in road speed limit. So, some might argue that this is an unfair way to distribute grade crossing safety protection. But the counterargument is that this is all we can afford as a motoring public sector.
York1 Crossing with no lights, signals, or gates.
Crossing with no lights, signals, or gates.
I live not far from the Northeast Corridor just north of Baltimore near the Susquehanna River.
The CSX trackage here has lots of grade crossings at various levels of protection depending on auto traffic volume and sight lines.
Including a fair number of passive crossings at rural roads and private driveways.
Trains travel pretty fast a lot of the time, I have clocked many going 50-60 mph as the tracks are parallel to, and clearly visible from US40 in many places. They blast right thru downtown Aberdeen, MD at grade, crossing the main drag thru the middle of town - there are lights and gates..... and schools, and pedestrians, and cyclists......
Where does this come from? This idea that drivers bear little or no responsiblity here and the railroad and the government MUST protect them?
Sure, it is socially and economicly sensible to prevent/minimize these events.
On the other side of the same town, there are overpasses over/under the AMTRAK (former PRR) mainline. There are no grade crossings. Those trains go up to 88 mph. That right of way is fenced in places, but not everywhere.
Those tracks and the overpasses actually create a barrier that socially and economicly divides that town....
There are no good solutions to the issues in this area without spending rediculus sums of money.
BUT, guess what? We don't have any issues. Grade crossing crashes, people getting hit on the tracks, people going around the gates, are all pretty rare here.
And, political correctness aside, not all the residents are rocket scientists....
If you go around the gates, ignore the flashing lights, fail to stop, look and listen, well, maybe Darwin was on to something?
As for this incident, maybe we need higher standards as to who we give a badge, a gun, and a high performance car?
Murphy SidingDoesn't every law enforcement office have to at least watch some Operation Lifesaver videos as part of their training?
From the videos that get played in the media - it would appear that only thing police are trained on is how to strongarm and force their will upon a 'suspect' and to shoot their firearm. Recent cases would indicate that some haven't been train sufficiently to distinguish using a taser vs. a firearm in certain situations. Operation Livesaver, doubt the police have heard of it.
Doesn't every law enforcement office have to at least watch some Operation Lifesaver videos as part of their training?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BaltACD jeffhergert Whether the crossing has active or passive warnings becomes irrevelant WHEN YOU PARK ON THE TRACKS! Jeff To the extent that the cop parked his car on the tracks and the placed the suspect in the car - Attempted Murder should be the charge.
jeffhergert Whether the crossing has active or passive warnings becomes irrevelant WHEN YOU PARK ON THE TRACKS! Jeff
Jeff
To the extent that the cop parked his car on the tracks and the placed the suspect in the car - Attempted Murder should be the charge.
jeffhergertWhether the crossing has active or passive warnings becomes irrevelant WHEN YOU PARK ON THE TRACKS! Jeff
Whether the crossing has active or passive warnings becomes irrevelant WHEN YOU PARK ON THE TRACKS!
Euclid But this amounts to collectivizing crossing safety in that every driver is given the right to use all crossings even though some are safer than others. Incidentally, that would also be the case even if all crossings had the same active protection systems and the same roadway/crossing design; but still had variations in train speed, and frequency, also variations in road speed limit.
Reader comments at the Denver Post site pertaining to this story, posed interesting questions. Why the secrecy as to the identity of the officer?
Which got me to thinking. If the story was one of an average citizen leaving their car with a dependent occupant inside, and subsequently hit with injuries. That person's face would be all over the media. They would be front page punching bags.
(3) It's Fort Lupton with the investigation that is in its cross-hairs. (Community about 12-13 miles south) Not even sure Platteville/Gilcrest has a town marshal or police force right now. Multiple towns can't find anyone qualified to hire for what they can offer as salary. (staff shortage)
UlrichYork1 Crossing with no lights, signals, or gates. But clearly visible tracks and a crossbuck. Most every crossing has a history. Maybe that crossing could and should be improved, but that has no bearing on this event.
But clearly visible tracks and a crossbuck. Most every crossing has a history. Maybe that crossing could and should be improved, but that has no bearing on this event.
The cop parked on a railroad track. Then put a perp in said car. 100% on the cop.
Still in training.
Could be just the result of heightened awareness, but I've been seeing the following ad on TV a lot the past few days. Looks like a fairly new ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG9O248BaaI
In terms of "situational awareness", yeah definitely. As the one source stated, as soon as the officer had the suspect secure in his vehicle, the vehicle should have been moved from the tracks before being left unattended.
At that point the suspect was as vullnerable as a child in it's parent's care and custody.
EuclidBut if they failed to prevent this collision because they were on a higher mission, they should have immediately changed their mission to protecting their captive passenger they left sitting on the railroad track.
There is an arrogance there, okay? I don't want to beat that drum too hard, or some people will claim they are offended. But it's there. It's real. THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY.... It might be relative, but they seem to fancy themselves infallible. I've seen it often enough to know that it's not the exception.
Convicted OneI am trying to be careful and not use verbiage that "pro-law enforcement" types might find offensive, so if this comes across as a little vague, you'll know why. In the scenario the police were working their way through, they frequently have themselves so convinced they are "fighting the good fight", that (other) real world complications might be interpreted as a nuisance.
Recall the fervor after 9/11, when many self-appointed protectors of the public good (including LEO's) challenged perfectly legal activities (like railfanning) and simply were not to be convinced otherwise.
Common practice for years has been to park behind the vehicle being stopped, preferably lighting up the vehicle (at night) with any lights available.
It's possible the perp (recall that the police were looking for her) parked just beyond the crossing, albeit not intentionally.
This still goes back to the officer not recognizing the potential hazard of where he parked.
For the record, my father and uncle were both LEO's and I often work with officers from various area agencies as a result of responses as a firefighter.
Convicted One Euclid I don’t see how this happened, situational awareness notwithstanding. They left their squad car parked on the track, and were searching the suspect’s car. I would assume that they were not far from their car when the train appeared. Even if they failed to notice the train until they heard the horn being blown, I am trying to be careful and not use verbiage that "pro-law enforcement" types might find offensive, so if this comes across as a little vague, you'll know why. In the scenario the police were working their way through, they frequently have themselves so convinced they are "fighting the good fight", that (other) real world complications might be interpreted as a nuisance. When seeking contraband is priority #1, other stimuli can become extraneous noise. They may have heard the horns, but believed they were on a "higher mission" is my personal suspicion. I've been in the gal's shoes...thankfully without the RR tracks. Sat there watching them search every crevice of my interior, and fully empty the contents of my trunk onto the pavement.....for nothing. But when they perceive themselves to be on a mission, you (your personal needs and priorities) are relegated to 2nd class status...no doubt about it. And telling them there is nothing there to be found, only seems to alienate them. Just an odd set of protocols in place in such instances. (fwiw)
Euclid I don’t see how this happened, situational awareness notwithstanding. They left their squad car parked on the track, and were searching the suspect’s car. I would assume that they were not far from their car when the train appeared. Even if they failed to notice the train until they heard the horn being blown,
I am trying to be careful and not use verbiage that "pro-law enforcement" types might find offensive, so if this comes across as a little vague, you'll know why. In the scenario the police were working their way through, they frequently have themselves so convinced they are "fighting the good fight", that (other) real world complications might be interpreted as a nuisance.
When seeking contraband is priority #1, other stimuli can become extraneous noise. They may have heard the horns, but believed they were on a "higher mission" is my personal suspicion.
I've been in the gal's shoes...thankfully without the RR tracks. Sat there watching them search every crevice of my interior, and fully empty the contents of my trunk onto the pavement.....for nothing. But when they perceive themselves to be on a mission, you (your personal needs and priorities) are relegated to 2nd class status...no doubt about it. And telling them there is nothing there to be found, only seems to alienate them. Just an odd set of protocols in place in such instances. (fwiw)
I can understand cops believing thier higher mission should override your telling them there is nothing there to be found. But if they failed to prevent this collision because they were on a higher mission, they should have immediately changed their mission to protecting their captive passenger they left sitting on the railroad track.
EuclidI don’t see how this happened, situational awareness notwithstanding. They left their squad car parked on the track, and were searching the suspect’s car. I would assume that they were not far from their car when the train appeared. Even if they failed to notice the train until they heard the horn being blown,
I don’t see how this happened, situational awareness notwithstanding. They left their squad car parked on the track, and were searching the suspect’s car. I would assume that they were not far from their car when the train appeared. Even if they failed to notice the train until they heard the horn being blown, it should have been possible to get to their car and move it in time. But they must have frozen at that point. I suspect their training demands that officers not take a chance that puts their own life in danger in a situation like this. So a desperate rescue attempt would have been unacceptably “outside the box.”
Convicted One Or even this one...sharing a street view similar to that in the news video https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2608211,-104.8003114,3a,16.6y,74.37h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFxirtnMGX-hR1Ww8ydmB3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Or even this one...sharing a street view similar to that in the news video
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2608211,-104.8003114,3a,16.6y,74.37h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFxirtnMGX-hR1Ww8ydmB3g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That looks more probable. Of course in the 15 years since the street view was taken it could be a 4 lane road now!
But, "Hey, a train hardly ever comes by here"
Another one of those !~~ 45 degree angle crossings. I fault the police officer. But let us look at his training for stops. Just from observation do most police stops always stop directly behind & inline with the vehicle in question ? That may be to give officers protection behind their car if a gun is possible. As the articles say it was a possible gun stop.
So in this case he did stop directly behind the car stopped. Training in sstops shouldd emphasize stopping police car at a safe location.
rixflixI doubt that the street view is the collision site. Even in 2021 street view any train on that track probably wouldn't exceed 5mph. It's more likely that it happened at the intersection of county road 38 and US 85, where there are no crossing warnings and the track would allow speeds consistent with her injuries. She correctly stopped after crossing but the cop had an incomprehensible lack of judgment in parking where he did. Rest easy accident sleuths, the full story will be revealed when it's ready
Check my link (from the post immediately prior to yours) for the correct site, further east (across the South Platte river in fact)
I doubt that the street view is the collision site. Even in 2021 street view any train on that track probably wouldn't exceed 5mph. It's more likely that it happened at the intersection of county road 38 and US 85 where the track would allow speeds consistent with her injuries. She correctly stopped after crossing but the cop had an incomprehensible lack of judgment in parking where he did.
Rest easy accident sleuths, the full story will be revealed when it's ready
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
rdamonrdamon wrote the following post 1 hours ago: Google Street View is from 2007
Are you positive of that? Doesn't look like a main to me. I think the accident site is further east on CR 38, near where it crosses US-85
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2608498,-104.7996865,3a,75y,282.83h,73.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s82mAkeSpzNv9pJsZpjaT8Q!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Murphy SidingIt's almost like the writer wants to pass the blame from the police officer onto the railroad for what happened.
Public safety officer (almost) doing his job, or the big, bad railroad...
Based on what I've read, I'm putting this squarely on the cop. Situational awareness...
Murphy Siding It's almost like the writer wants to pass the blame from the police officer onto the railroad for what happened.
I think it's mostly a matter of the railroad being the deep pocketed one at the table.
Not that I agree that the RR shares responsibility. It's just the way these things always seem to play out. Throw as much blame as you can at the deep pocket, and anything that manages to stick, is seen as "victory". (JMHO)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.