Grade Crossing Accident in Houston Kills 4 Teens

[CNW 6000]

Link to story in Baytown Sun paper:
http://baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=c001f4f881de48ef

[CNW 6000]

Link to chat on Baytown newspaper website:
http://baytownsun.com/forums.lasso?eda=6437be698d7ce75b952d958d20cb6307&emi=91315f052fee976f&eti=4aae8e92005a4b99

 

[Anonymous]

I am not taking a position on who was at fault with this accident.  For all I know, the car they hit did have reflectors.  According to the larger article, there was no stop sign, but even with crossbuscks alone, a driver must exercise enough caution to avoid getting struck by a train or running into the side of one.  The crossings that I have seen with just crossbucks have an advance warning sign indicating a railroad crossing ahead.  I might assume that this crossing had that advance-warning feature since it would seem to be essential to the logic of expecting some reaction time even for a vehicle traveling 30 mph. 

It is easy to assume they were speeding because of the loaded nature of the description, "joyriding in a stolen car," but without witnesses, I doubt we will ever know how fast they were going.  I would not assume they were speeding or overdriving their headlights just because the impact tore the top off of the Jeep.  That could happen at impact speeds perhaps as low as 30 mph depending on the size of the vehicle and the size of the gap under the tank car.  The rounded shape of tank cars probably facilitate vehicles running under them. 

The train was not moving.  If a train were hard to see, I would think it would be slightly easier to see if it were moving as opposed to being stopped.  This may have simply been a black tank car without reflectors, a perfect example of the road hazard that has been identified by the FRA. 

[Anonymous]

Anything that tears off a roof is speeding.

I have never seen destructive accidents at 40mph or below UNLESS the vehicle loses the pavement and gravity takes over for the big drop off the bridge or whatever. Usually in my experience they will run under and through the decpitation barrier of a semi trailer and have thier heads chopped off at the neck and lose a substantial part of their roofs in the process. Not that any of that matters.

At 80 mph you are going to require about... 2 seconds to see, understand mentally the hazard, make a decision and react, another 1 to 3 seconds for the brakes to take hold and 3 more seconds for the physics of the stop to work out considering the factor of traction, availible braking horsepower, pavement condition, tires, mass of vehicle, speed etc etc etc. Basically you need about 8 seconds to stop. I can bring a 40 ton vehicle to a stop in under 10 seconds but need ALOT of room to do it.

For a car, 60 to zero is anywhere from 110-150 feet distance and at night you dont even have that much to see much less react in time to make the stop happen.

Im betting that the skid marks in question is a hell of alot closer to that big bad railcar than 150 feet.

I have personally witnessed cars totally destroyed by extremely high speeds while the drunkard staggering around going "Ow that hurt" is being chased down by angry paras who want to slap gauze on his cuts.

There is a whole set of work called "Accident investigation" that will run it's course and can probably reconstruct the speeds involved.

Reading the chat, the community weights against the children sneaking out against curfew rules at night. Apparently that is far more important than the actual wreck itself.

[chad thomas]

Depends.... 

Is there a sign (probably 2) warning oncoming motorists that a car might be in the road? Cause railroads usually have those... If you stumble upon a stop sign at 80mph, can't stop, and hit a car at the intesection - would you consider that passing car at fault?

 

Reflectors aren't going to help if you're outdriving your headlights.  

I agree with you and Dan. Some people take the responsibility of operateing a 80MPH 1-2 ton bullet far too lightly.

The version of the article I saw does not state anyone was going 80 mph. It doesn't state that there were warning signs down the road.

There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"?

Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.

Is there some reason, everytime someone gets killed in these things, to just make stuff up to try and justify something as tragic as death?

I think it's sick, frankly. Like a bunch of vultures, all smug and ready to determine guilt -- not factually, but on moral grounds, as though some people deserve to get killed, and others don't. Well, if this was an ambulance, would this discussion be different?

Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.

 

 

 

Slow your roll Michael. I was refering to drivers in general not this specific case. Sorry, mabee I should have been mare clear about that.

[MichaelSol]

I grew up on railroad property, with the grade crossing -- the only way out -- a couple hundred yards down the track. To get to town, there were two more grade crossings. Twice in my life, I have been caught completely by surprise at night by flatcars -- moving flatcars, but nevertheless completely caught by surprise as I could see the lights on the houses on the other side of the crossing, and even oncoming car lights, as plain as day ... but not the flatcars because it was in fact night. Put some hard use to the brakes.

The train meets that occured there never blocked the crossing. I had always understood the rule that 1) standing trains are hard to see at night, and 2) emergency vehicles need access at all times. Don't block the crossing.

At about 11 every night, #263 would pull up by the house, before the crossing on the siding, waiting for #262, even though the full length of the siding was mostly beyond the crossing. As soon as they saw the quad lights of #262's Little Joe, they would start to move and it was an elegant choreography -- #262 would be just clearing the west switch as #263 would be reaching it, and switching on to the mainline. Neither train was ever stopped on the crossing. Probably saw or heard that, literally, over 6,000 times in my life.

Not once was that crossing blocked at night by a standing train. Whether there was a rule about it, or they were just being nice guys, I don't know. Took it for granted and never asked.

 

[chad thomas]

I grew up on railroad property, with the grade crossing -- the only way out -- a couple hundred yards down the track. To get to town, there were two more grade crossings. Twice in my life, I have been caught completely by surprise at night by flatcars -- moving flatcars, but nevertheless completely caught by surprise as I could see the lights on the houses on the other side of the crossing, and even oncoming car lights, as plain as day ... but not the flatcars because it was in fact night. Put some hard use to the brakes.

I have had similar experiences. Not any close calls like you but I can see how it could happen, especially with unskilled drivers like in Houston. I try to  NEVER let my brakeing distance excede my line of CLEAR sight. It's hard to do here on the freeways but in rural areas it's a must obey rule for me. (IMHO a no brainer for anyone wishing to avoid wrecks)

[jchnhtfd]

for what it's worth... there may or may not have been a stop sign at the crossing; someone said there wasn't.  However, my friends, a crossbuck IS a stop sign, unless it is associated with active signals.  So much for that one.

Second, most folks overdrive their headlights (I'm as guilty as the next guy, although I try) but very very few realise that they are doing that.  That is why reflectors are helpful: they pick up and return the headlight's light at a significantly greater distance than an ordinary object would (say, for instance, a pedestrian or a deer or something soft like that).  However, one has to assume that if one isn't going to stop for a stop sign (they're reflectorized in most cases) one also has to assume that it is unlikely that a correct analysis will be made of a set of reflectors, or at least not in time to stop.

[Anonymous]

for what it's worth... there may or may not have been a stop sign at the crossing; someone said there wasn't.  However, my friends, a crossbuck IS a stop sign, unless it is associated with active signals.  So much for that one.

Second, most folks overdrive their headlights (I'm as guilty as the next guy, although I try) but very very few realise that they are doing that.  That is why reflectors are helpful: they pick up and return the headlight's light at a significantly greater distance than an ordinary object would (say, for instance, a pedestrian or a deer or something soft like that).  However, one has to assume that if one isn't going to stop for a stop sign (they're reflectorized in most cases) one also has to assume that it is unlikely that a correct analysis will be made of a set of reflectors, or at least not in time to stop.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe crossbucks require a stop like a stop sign.  Crossbucks mean the same thing as a yield sign.

 

[Anonymous]

To me anything with a cross buck MEANS STOP, LOOK and LISTEN

They were that way when I was a young child growing up along the line where there were quite a few of these crossbucks marked with the words "STOP, Look and LISTEN"

They have always been that way. It may have been lost to modern times where you need to spend large amounts of money to save the drivers from their own stupidity around rail crossings.

[Anonymous]

To me anything with a cross buck MEANS STOP, LOOK and LISTEN

They were that way when I was a young child growing up along the line where there were quite a few of these crossbucks marked with the words "STOP, Look and LISTEN"

They have always been that way. It may have been lost to modern times where you need to spend large amounts of money to save the drivers from their own stupidity around rail crossings.

 

It is amazing how many traffic sign websites there are that don't say what a crossbuck means.  Here is one from TRAINS that does:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=214

Here is a pertinent exerpt from it:

"All crossbucks have a standing as highway regulatory devices; police citations can be issued if they are ignored. The crossbuck by itself is a sign to yield the right of way to the train. The active warning devices have additional standings in law. The flashing red lights have the same meaning as a stop sign, while the lowered gate with flashing red lights is the same as a red traffic light."

I speculate that a crossbuck accompanied by the words STOP, LOOK, AND LISTEN acually requires a driver to do that.  But today, those words are not used, and a crossbuck alone means yield to the train.

There are some highway signage instructions that describe circumstances where a STOP or YIELD sign may be added to a crossbuck.  Obviously, adding a stop sign imposes the requirement to stop.  I have seen where YIELD signs have been added, but personally, I think that is a horribly wrong headed idea.  First of all it is redundant.  And second, the YIELD sign is probably the most misunderstood and disrespected sign of all.  I think it compromises the message of the crossbuck. 

[Anonymous]

I am of the firm opinion that railroads versus cars or trucks will always happen.

Unless all rail is either elevated 22' or buried under the streets/roads.

[edblysard]

Yeah, Mike...

I guess all those reflectorized speed limit signs showing a speed limit of 35 mph, the T intersection sign warning of the end of that road just on the other side of the tracks, the fact that, at 4:30 down here, there is enough light to see, (I know, I am up at 4:00am every morning), the fact that the tracks are in the same place they were the day before, and the year before that...there is a set of cross bucks, fairly new, clean and reflectorized, or the possibility the kid was driving so fast he managed to jam a tall, heavy Jeep Cherokee completely under, then out the other side of a tank car has no real bearing on this...

 

I don't know about you, but I expect to find a train on the railroad tracks...guess you look for marshmallows or boats or something else...

 

Kinda like driving drunk, I guess, it's not really a moral problem, or a moral/ ethical choice, just a problem with...?

I know who to blame, the guy who drives the Budweiser truck, who intentionally placed that six pack in the corner store's cooler so you would have no choice but to buy it and drink it, then get in your car and drive...?

Is that how it works in your world?

 

Had Dad called the cops, or just gone out looking for his daughter and her cousin, odds are he would have found them, or the cops would have...Baytown isn't all that big, and most of the people who live there know each other, and the cops know most of the kids who raise a little heck.

 

Maybe stealing a car and racing around town is ok with you...after all, if your doing twice the legal speed limit and hit something, anything, like a parked car, I guess you would blame the person who parked their car where you would expect to find a parked car...or a train on the railroad tracks for that matter...after all, its not like the kid was breaking the law or anything like that, huh?

Shame on that bad railroad for running a train on its railroad tracks....those rascals.

 

Look at it from this point of view...how many thousands of folks have driven over that same set of tracks, at all hours of the day, and not hit a train; much less hit one so hard they crammed a Jeep completely under the train, then out the other side?

 

Besides, where I live, it isn't the States responsibility to make your kid a responsible person, or make you one for that matter....it's your responsibility to look after your kid, and your self...its you responsibility to teach your child stealing cars and driving around at twice the speed limit is wrong, and doing so has consequences, like getting in a wreck, or hitting a train...and its your responsibility to know where the heck your 13 year old daughter is at 4:30 in the morning, besides just "out somewhere".

Fortunately, liability for accidents is not determined, and should not be determined, by looking for moral flaws in someone's parents.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

Maybe stealing a car and racing around town is ok with you...after all, if your doing twice the legal speed limit and hit something, anything, like a parked car, I guess you would blame the person who parked their car where you would expect to find a parked car...or a train on the railroad tracks for that matter...after all, its not like the kid was breaking the law or anything like that, huh?

This is pathetic, and it's not what I said at all.

I said, wait until you get some actual facts before advancing your own personal agendas about railroads and safety and a bunch of dead kids ... 

That's never been a strong point for you because your agenda always comes first, even when there is a tragedy involved.

 

[Green Bay Paddlers]

This is pathetic, and it's not what I said at all.

I said, wait until you get some actual facts before advancing your own personal agendas about railroads and safety and a bunch of dead kids ... 

That's never been a strong point for you because your agenda always comes first, even when there is a tragedy involved.

 

 

Don't sweat it.  It's not even worth the effort.  Way too many "railfans" on these boards consider themselve holier-than-thou and will take all of 30 seconds to determine fault in any accident involving a train.  There was that large METRA accident outside of Chicago a couple of years ago.  You wouldn't believe some of the comments coming out of people on this board.  "They deserved it..."  etc....   I guess if you own a computer and have access to piece of a news story, you're fully qualified to render fault decisions before the FRA or the NTSB.  

Don't waste your time.  These guys are jokes.  I'm sure quite a few of them have such lousy home lives that it's easier to simply hide online and preach to strangers.  

 

 

[Anonymous]

Have you ever seen or compared a tank car and a jeep.  they dont just slide under the other one.  They were speeding, they were dumb kids, and the killed two people.  you tell me what the facts are.  they should be tried as adults and pay for all the damages.

[MichaelSol]

This is pathetic, and it's not what I said at all.

I said, wait until you get some actual facts before advancing your own personal agendas about railroads and safety and a bunch of dead kids ... 

That's never been a strong point for you because your agenda always comes first, even when there is a tragedy involved.

Don't sweat it.  It's not even worth the effort.  Way too many "railfans" on these boards consider themselve holier-than-thou and will take all of 30 seconds to determine fault in any accident involving a train.  There was that large METRA accident outside of Chicago a couple of years ago.  You wouldn't believe some of the comments coming out of people on this board.  "They deserved it..."  etc....   I guess if you own a computer and have access to piece of a news story, you're fully qualified to render fault decisions before the FRA or the NTSB.  

Don't waste your time.  These guys are jokes.  I'm sure quite a few of them have such lousy home lives that it's easier to simply hide online and preach to strangers.  

I've been there helping pull the pulverized kid -- a hitchiker -- out of the passenger side of the truck when the train hit the truck because the highway design was such that the driver couldn't see the train that was just behind him and to the right, as the highway made a perfect 90 across the tracks. Yup, the crossbucks were right there at the crossing. And as soon as you turned onto the crossing, there they were. Should have known in advance they were there, I guess. And complete idiots like edblysard are always instantly blaming the drivers, or the kids, or their parents, or the school system, or society in general, or their ancestors, or some frickin idiotic agenda-driven explanation when THEY WEREN'T THERE and don't know a d*** thing about it.

Kids are dead. They may be at fault. Notwithstanding a parked train in the dark across a highway, it might have been their fault. Everyone should be able to park on highways in the dark. But it's a tragedy nonetheless and most decent people have the discretion that, until the facts are known, to avoid telling parents, your kid's an idiot and so are you. And even when the facts are known, decent people just don't wave flags about it. "You're an idiot and so's your dead kid. Hope he learned his lesson." Makes me sick. People like edblysard aren't decent people: they're too busy congratulating themselves on their armchair ability to pass judgment on others. Make's 'em feel smart I guess.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

  They were speeding, they were dumb kids, and the killed two people.  you tell me what the facts are.  they should be tried as adults and pay for all the damages.

Since you already know "the facts" and how they should be "tried" you obviously were there.

Right?

For the benefit of this conversation, please describe in detail what happened based on your observations. Then perhaps we can all start condemning the right people, for the right reasons. Because, this is all about condemning people, right?

 

 

[cordon]

From way back in this thread, "'This is a dangerous place and you need to do something about it,' grandfather Donald Moyers said.  'I'm going to go on a crusade.'"

Blame is looking backward.  In my opinion, that's not going to help much.  Looking forward, we can stop grade crossing accidents.  How?  By removing grade crossings.

My recommendations (I've said something like this elsewhere on these forums, so please bear with me):

a.  Establish the policy that we will eliminate railroad grade crossings.  With any luck, having a policy will prevent much of the bickering and finger pointing that occurs over funding individual projects.

b.  Get the federal government, the state governments, the municipal governments, the citizens, and the railroads to work together to convert grade crossings to overpasses, underpasses, or detours as soon as possible.

c.  Make a plan for each and every crossing.  Prioritize them.  Improve signals at crossings that will not be eliminated for a while.

d.  Get the money.  Don't argue about who should pay.  Everyone gains when a crossing goes away.  The RR should expect insurance rates and legal costs to go down, residents should also expect insurance rates to go down, and the governments should expect some cost reductions as the result of fewer accidents.  All the groups mentioned above should contribute because they will all benefit from the improvements. 

e.  Make it happen.

Is this a panacea?  Definitely not.  It may take fifty years to complete.  But my opinion is that a huge number of RR crossings will be relatively easy to fix.  Many states and local communities have already done it.  And CSXT has an official policy to support grade crossing elimination.

My point is simply to get on with it.

 

 

[edblysard]

Green bay...

Not a rail fan, nor a canoe person, but a railroader...I do it for a living, not a hobby.

I get to see trains, and lots of tank cars, up close and real personal, not from a few hundred yards away in a canoe.

Grew up here, have relatives who live in Baytown, I drive past that intersection about once a month.

Know a few cops in HPD, Baytown Police department, Harris County Sheriffs Department, Montgomery County Sherriff's department, Galveston County Sherriff's Department... wife happens to work for the Attorney General, State of Texas, I happen to be a former investigator for the same agency.

It is more fun and pays better railroading.

So I do have a somewhat subjective perspective on this...I have a 14 year old daughter.

I also happen to think that a father should know where his minor children are, especially at night, and when he discovers they are not where he told them to be, he should do something about it, besides sitting at home and waiting.

 

Baytown is completely enclosed by refineries and heavy industry, all the railroad tracks in, near and around the town are busy, all the time, it's the nature of the business that goes on there.

So finding a train on the railroad tracks should be no surprise.

 

Its 11 pm, do you know where you kids are?

If they were not at home, and 15 years of age or younger, wouldn't you be looking for them?

Do I feel sorry for the kids?

Yes, 15, 14 and 13 is way too young to die, it is a terrible waste, they had their entire lives ahead of them, who knows what the future might have held for them...

Do I feel sorry for the parents?

You bet, my biggest fear is that I might outlive my kids...no parent should have to bury one of their children.

Am I mad at the father?

Yup, he knew the 13 year old was gone, did nothing about it...as a father I am completely stunned that any father would sit by and do nothing when he discovered his 13 year old daughter was missing, even if he had a good idea she was out with her cousin just goofing off, the world is way to dangerous a place for a 13 year little girl to be out that late, and in refinery town too boot...

How do I know that's what he did?

He said so, on the morning news.

He also said they had just gone over the "summer house rules" the night before...he had a stunned look on his face as he was talking....

Sadly, he doesn't get a second chance to go over the house rules with her, he has suffered the worst nightmare any parent can have, his daughter is dead, killed in a car wreck, a death he might have prevented, if he had done something, anything but sit at home and wait.

Did the kids deserve to die that way?

No, they should have died old, old people, after living full lives.

I can't see where in any of my posting I said they deserved to die, in that manner, or any other way for that matter.

As for a holier than thou approach, you might want to re read your own post...better yet, come on down, bring a pair of work boots...I will give you a radio, a pair of gloves and a switch folder, put you on the point of a 100 car cut and let you shove over a few intersections...you will be amazed at how stupid the general public is at railroad crossings...they go around the train, they crawl under the train, they stop on the tracks and watch you approach them, then roll down their window and scream at you to wait...they run into trains and sometimes get run over by them...when you can do this job safely every day, I might give a little credence to your preaching, and your opinion of me.

But, until you know who I am, and what I do, you might want to with hold your opinion that I have a lousy home life, and don't know anything about trains, other than a from a railfans point of view.

By the way, Mike, your personal attacks, and view point of who is and who isnt decent, lend themselves to establishing the type of person you are.

[MichaelSol]

By the way, Mike, your personal attacks, and view point of who is and who isnt decent, lend themselves to establishing the type of person you are.

The colossal arrogance -- "I work for a railroad and you don't" -- expressed in that comment to Green Bay speaks for itself and the kind of person you are. Your comments on this thread are typical. For a guy with very limited experience -- you've thrown switches for ten years, right? -- and none of it on a Class I, you sure have lots of opinions about what other people know, and how accidents happen, and how this one happened.

And you weren't there.

That's the interesting part of your strongly expressed opinon.

As a former "investigator".  Worked for Mike Nifong?

I also happen to think that a father should know where his minor children are, especially at night, and when he discovers they are not where he told them to be, he should do something about it, besides sitting at home and waiting.

That's it for you. These parents deserved punishment!! He should have done something and so, because he didn't, a dead kid is just deserts.

Because you don't know the facts, you are ready to assign the blame. This conclusion is disgusting to me. If a daughter had gotten raped, it's not the rapist's fault, it's the parent's fault for "sitting at home and waiting". The rapist is blameless. You are pathetic.

 

[Anonymous]

By the way, Mike, your personal attacks, and view point of who is and who isnt decent, lend themselves to establishing the type of person you are.

The colossal arrogance -- "I work for a railroad and you don't" -- expressed in that comment to Green Bay speaks for itself and the kind of person you are. Your comments on this thread are typical. For a guy with very limited experience -- you've thrown switches for ten years, right? -- and none of it on a Class I, you sure have lots of opinions about what other people know, and how accidents happen, and how this one happened.

And you weren't there.

That's the interesting part of your strongly expressed opinon.

As a former "investigator".  Worked for Mike Nifong?

I also happen to think that a father should know where his minor children are, especially at night, and when he discovers they are not where he told them to be, he should do something about it, besides sitting at home and waiting.

That's it for you. These parents deserved punishment!! He should have done something and so, because he didn't, a dead kid is just deserts.

Because you don't know the facts, you are ready to assign the blame. This conclusion is disgusting to me. If a daughter had gotten raped, it's not the rapist's fault, it's the parent's fault for "sitting at home and waiting". The rapist is blameless. You are pathetic.

 

What class of railroad he works for does not have anything to do with the subject at had.  I worked for a shortline railroad and I still saw idiots at crossings.  No, I was not there, but for you to fit a jeep under any tank car you had to be doing way over the speed limit.  10 Years is long enough to see how stupid people are.  I worked for 2 years on a shortline and saw plenty.  From Cars that will park on the tracks and wait for you to get right on them, to people that know the train is coming thru they see the flares and are completly stopped at the crossing, and then for some stupid reason they just take off and barely escape getting hit.  Class One, Class 2 and Class 3 railroads all see the same stupid kinds of people.  A train has every right and by law can occupy any crossing for at least 10 minutes if needed.  Most trains do not sit there that long, unless they are waiting for someone to be cleared off the front of the engine. For you to come in here and start passing judment on everyone except for the people who the blame should fall or in assonine.  You want to blame the railroad fine, go ahead.  Why dont you blame the railroad for everything bad that happens in your little word.   Better yet why dont you climb up in the seat for a while.  Take a train over the road and see how you feel after hitting someone.  Someone that knew the train was coming but decided well the train is far enough away and pulls out in front of you.  Who is at fault, you or the stupid person driving.  By the way, The "I work for a railroad and you don't" expression.  You need to see what it is like just one day out on the railroad.  You can even come here to Dallas, grab a radio and back a train over some crossings here.  See how many people pull right up onto the tracks in the plain daylight with the train coming.  Infact I had an elderly man that stopped at the train tracks, he saw me coming with a train and decided to pull onto the tracks anyway.  He had is window down and started to get worried when I came closer and closer to his car.  I told him while the train was moving if he did not want to get hit he would get off the tracks.  Well, he didn't and I had the engineer come about 10 feet from his car.  The man finally realized how dangerous it was for him to sit on the crossing.  I am sure he will remeber me and the crossing.

[edblysard]

No Mike,

I never said the parents deserved punishment or that the death of his child was "just deserts"... those are your words, not mine.

Nor did I write the death of any of these kids was justified, or somehow right....quite the opposite, it is a tragedy the parents and this man in particular, will have to live with the rest of their lives.  

What I wrote is that bad decisions, both on the part of the parent and the child, had consequences, in this instance, horrible consequences, and that had dad done something besides quietly sitting at home, the end result might have been different.

Anything beyond that is purely the product of your imagination

It would seem you believe that you and only you are allowed to pass judgment, or have a point of view on this subject, and if anyone disagrees with your point of view, they are somehow monsters, or arrogant...you keep insulting me, calling me names and being obnoxious, I would assume in the hopes that if you do it long and loud enough others will begin to agree with you...sadly, all it does is point out your own arrogance.

"Just desserts"...

You placed that phrase in quotes, indicating that I had posted that phrase somewhere...please show us where in this thread I have written that phrase.

You intentionally keep twisting what others write, misquoting and outright fabricating phrases, just to justify your rudeness and dislike of other posters who don't agree with your point of view.

Yes, your right, I am a railroader, you not.

About the only part of what I wrote you almost quoted correctly, or managed to understand, it seems.

 

 

[tree68]

Geez, Mike - What does someone have to do go gain any credence with you? 

I'm in my second season of volunteering with a tourist line - and already I've been involved in a crossing near miss.  I have a night shot of a crossing that, coincidently, includes the track of some headlights driving around the gates.  I saw the end result of an impatient driver who decided he'd drive around the crossing and hung his compact pickup up on the tracks.

Underage, stolen car, 4:30 AM.  Three wrongs right off the bat.  Add high speed and you have completed the recipe for disaster.  Take away just about any of those and this incident (it was not an accident) would not have occurred.

Maybe we don't have all of the facts yet, but many of us [i]have[i] seen the facts on many previous incidents, and the far too many are due to sheer stupidity or misguided intention.  After a while one tends to get cynical.

[bnsfkline]

I have no sympathy what-so-ever for the driver, he caused the deaths because of his own stupidity and lameness.

I do however feel sorry for the victims and their families. They were victims of the driver.

When the driver recovers and is release from the hospital, he is going to get some serious Jail time.

Grand Theft Auto, larceny, wreckless driving, 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter, 1 count of attempted involuntary manslaughter, Speeding above the posted speed limit and 2 counts of Damage to Private property.

Not only that, but the prison sentence, if he gets one, won't do justice, just the thought that he killed 4 of his friends and nearly killed himself will be something that he must live with for the rest of his life. I hope the family of the driver and the driver himself reads this. ITS HIS OWN FAULT, NOT THE RAILROADS. In this particular case, the railroad is not at fault, but a victim, espically the owner of the tank car. Because of the drivers stupidity, the tank car must be scrapped. It would be appropriate the the driver must purchase both the Tank car (Worth at least $150,000) and the Vehical he stole.

I would not be surprised that the state of Texas never issues him a drivers liscence. He will have to take the bus where ever he goes.

Stuff like this irritates me to no end.  Drivers who carene into stopped trains, daredevils who go around gates, and people who SUE the railroad when one of their trains hits thier car.  This just goes to show how much of a hurry people are these days and how quick todays society is to sue. Theres a judge here in St. Louis that looks at Railroad crossing accidents, and 99.9% of the cases are dismissed due to Lack of evidence. The only time he as granted the law suit, it was because the crossing gates Malfunctioned and went up right before the train entered the intersection.

If people would just use common sense, people wouldnt die in such foolish incidents. I guess "Common Sense" are for people who slow down in work zones, stop at a light as it turns red or people who use turn signals when changing lanes.  Cutting people off, flicking off another driver, Road Rage, impatience at traffic lights, going around down crossing gates must be todays rules of the road. I guess common sense is going extinct like the Dinosaurs.

[selector]

Gentlemen, this conversation has gone on much further than it ever needed to go.  Please, let us give it a rest.  It's a hot and hopeless topic because somewhere, somehow, those bent on  willful acts will get themselves into trouble, and age has little to do with it.  Also, parents can only do so much.  Kids can slip out a bedroom window at zero dark thirty and rendezvous with buddies who are up to not much good.  Only good luck and providence lets Mom and Dad have a say in the results the next morning.  If Mom and/or Dad don't give a damn, then it is all the sadder, but blaming that type is as useful as blaming a goat for chewing through its rope tether.

It is a sad thing, so let's just let it go, please, and get on with the trains.  The invective serves no purpose other than to induce us to say things we'll regret.  We should be above this level of vituperation.

[bnsfkline]

It will rest when Bergie wants it to rest

[Anonymous]

I am not speaking directly to this Houston crash, but generally there is a lot of thought going into the issue of how to make railroad grade crossings safer.  Progress always seems to be impeded, however, by the quest for perfect protection and the money to fund it.  Grade separation does seem to be the most practical means of perfect protection, but cost is an issue just as it is with the need to replace crossing passive protection with active protection.

There is something about grade crossings that produces an almost magnetic attraction to collisions with cars.  All railroaders know this instinctively.  But there has to be a better explanation than the common sentiment that drivers are idiots and morons (even though some are).  I don't know if there has ever been a technical analysis of this phenomenon, but I speculate that the incidence of collisions between a train and a vehicle is, by far, disproportionately higher than it is between two vehicles, when compared on the basis of identical numbers of route conflict encounters.  If this is true, then the question becomes:  What is it about trains that turns most drivers into morons and idiots?

[selector]

It will rest when Bergie wants it to rest

But, it could rest if we just agree to let it be so.  That is all I am asking, that we let it go voluntarily.  Carrying on like this does not dignify the children's deaths, nor does it dignify us.

[spokyone]

There may have been all the reasons in the world why these kids were "at fault"?

Problem is, you don't know enough about it yet.

Wait till the facts are in. Then you can have all the reason in the world for your learned judgments.

Michael: What other facts might surface that would place blame on any thing other than the driver's actions that night?