Well, no pattern there! Particularly careless reading on my part to think they were the same place, considering a relative once lived and worked in the area (Cary).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
No problem. In fact, the Durham Amtrak station is in between the two crossings.
There actually is one thing they have in common. They both involved a young mother with children in the back seat. I've often wondered about the wisdom of forcing children into the back seat where a mother who is also the driver has to turn around to deal with the little problems that always arise among children. That is a very dangerous side effect of airbags.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetThere actually is one thing they have in common. They both involved a young mother with children in the back seat. I've often wondered about the wisdom of forcing children into the back seat where a mother who is also the driver has to turn around to deal with the little problems that always arise among children. That is a very dangerous side effect of airbags.
Yes, I've thought having young children in the car, front or back, is a distraction as they are always (these days, not when we were young, hah, hah) arguing, yelling, crying etc. What to do? Have a passenger seat airbag that can be turned off?
Phoebe Vet The Research Triangle, commonly referred to as simply The Triangle, is a region in the Piedmont of North Carolina, anchored by the research universities of North Carolina State University, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and cities of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill respectively.
The Research Triangle, commonly referred to as simply The Triangle, is a region in the Piedmont of North Carolina, anchored by the research universities of North Carolina State University, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and cities of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill respectively.
I should have known----sheeesh
Thanks for that correction
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm Phoebe VetThere actually is one thing they have in common. They both involved a young mother with children in the back seat. I've often wondered about the wisdom of forcing children into the back seat where a mother who is also the driver has to turn around to deal with the little problems that always arise among children. That is a very dangerous side effect of airbags. Yes, I've thought having young children in the car, front or back, is a distraction as they are always (these days, not when we were young, hah, hah) arguing, yelling, crying etc. What to do? Have a passenger seat airbag that can be turned off?
What could be done is just what you suggested--and/or place the booster seat or whatever with the back to the dash. I'm trying to figure out how our mother did that with bench seats instead of todays bucket seats----
I keep thinking something is wrong with the picture here.
Wherever I drive in South Florida, where there are numerous train tracks to be crossed, I see reminders not to park on tracks; not to stop on tracks, not to attempt to cross when lights are flashing. My sister's house in southern NC is not too far from a railroad crossing that is located just prior to a street crossing with a light. You know, regardless of the level of traffic or desire to get to the other side, I've never seen anybody stop their cars, trucks or other vehicles across those tracks, flashing lights or no. If the vehicle can't fit on the other side, the driver in the places I have observed stop on their side.
So what was wrong with these drivers in the recent incidents? It just seems completely illogical to stop one's car on the tracks at any time! It seems even more illogical to put one's car on the tracks when the lights are flashing or when the gates are coming down. Even IF, and that is a big IF, the warning signals are malfunctioning, why stop on the tracks? This lady was in traffic, meaning she couldn't get any further ahead than she already was. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just stop before crossing the tracks until there was space on the other side?
It is difficult to convince me that any train entity has any liability whatsoever in this case.
The first accident the car was caught in traffic when the gates came down. The second accident she drove through the gate, breaking it. Yes, we have all those signs too.
My 2 year old grandson LOVES trains. My wife and I take him to a parking lot next to an at grade crossing that has two CATS light rail tracks and one NS heavy rail track so he can sit in the car and watch the trains. It's great because during rush hour the light rail goes by every 7 minutes in each direction, so there is a train every 3 or 4 minutes. It is a fairly busy at grade crossing that T intersects with a very busy road that parallels the tracks with a traffic signal. That signal is tied to the crossing signal so that when the bells start ringing and the lights start flashing, the traffic signal cycles to stop traffic on the parallel road, light the "No turn train" lights and let traffic out of the crossing road before the gates come down.
None the less, about every third cycle of the light traffic on the crossing road stops bumper to bumper across all three tracks to wait for the light. It's actually funny to watch the expressions on people's faces when the crossing signal activates. I have seen cars get caught between the gates, but they usually manage to get out around the gate in the grass before the arrival of the LRT but I bet it takes the driver several minutes to get his/her butt to let go of the seat.
It has been my experience that common sense is not all that common.
This is what I don't understand. Why stop on the tracks when you KNOW a train can come along any minute???? It's not like the traffic is going to stop forever if u wait until there's space on the other side. OTOH, your life is highly likely to stop forever if u get hit by a train. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I think what bothers me most about these two NC incidents is that children were killed. They really had no choice about what happened to them.
December seems to have been a bad month for Amtrak crossings being fatal. So far I have found the following:
22 Dec - Mother, 5-year old son killed, daughter injured - Elfland, NC - Train Carolinian northbound
19 Dec - elderly husband - wife couple killed - Randolph, VT - Train southbound Vermonter
16 Dec - one male teen killed, one female teen injured while crossing tracks on foot - Springfield, OH - Train Capital Limited (30?)
10 Dec - Man crossing tracks killed - Gervais, OR - Train unknown (but Amtrak)
9 Dec - two boys killed, mother injured - Durham, NC - Train southbound Carolinian
That's six deaths connected with people on tracks where they shouldn't have been when an Amtrak train approached. You'd think people would learn from others' bad experiences. Sad.
blownout cylinderWhat could be done is just what you suggested--and/or place the booster seat or whatever with the back to the dash. I'm trying to figure out how our mother did that with bench seats instead of todays bucket seats----
It was a different era, at least for me, when I was a kid. NO seat belts or boosters or car seats. Just sit still and keep quiet, or else there would certainly be a "problem" when dad got home from the Loop on the CNW on the 5:34 at 6:14 !!
Phoebe VetNone the less, about every third cycle of the light traffic on the crossing road stops bumper to bumper across all three tracks to wait for the light. It's actually funny to watch the expressions on people's faces when the crossing signal activates. I have seen cars get caught between the gates, but they usually manage to get out around the gate in the grass before the arrival of the LRT but I bet it takes the driver several minutes to get his/her butt to let go of the seat. It has been my experience that common sense is not all that common.
Sadly too true around here also. There's a RR crossing (CN-IC) and close by intersection on a road I drive often. They've set it up so the traffic light is BEFORE the RR as well as the intersection. That reduces the risk for the 'stupid' driver without increasing the cost of grade protection.
AmtrakRider That's six deaths connected with people on tracks where they shouldn't have been when an Amtrak train approached. You'd think people would learn from others' bad experiences. Sad.
Each person in our society should take reasonable and common-sense measures of care with respect to avoiding danger, and it is indeed sad when a person loses their life, especially when that person (and their dependents) could be alive if they had taken such measures.
On the other hand, there is the notion of "attractive nuisance" or other such legal principle. Suppose, hypothetically, that I had this large, sharp, saw blade spinning somewhere on my property, and neighbor's kids would want to come over on a dare, and they would get hurt. Suppose I had this device out there just for the fun of it. Where do I stand legally and morally if someone gets hurt? On one hand, anyone above the age or reason knows not to trespass and also knows not to get close to a spinning saw blade. On the other hand, that saw blade constitutes a "attractive nuisance." In my hypothetical example, it is serving no purpose, or at least no purpose to counteract the fact that it is shiny and attractive to children in some way, and it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.
Suppose, on the other hand, that saw blade was actually used in my trade or business, that it served a personal purpose for making a living, and it served a public purpose that the sawn goods that I made in my trade served the needs of the people who purchased what I make. The device still contitutes an attractive nuisance, and it is reasonable that I take other measures. I can post signs "Danger, no trespassing, spinning sawblade." I can place fences and gates around the property. I could switch the saw blade off when I was not around to guard it. I could put the saw blade in a shed and padlock the shed.
If a person were exercising common sense, not trespassing and then exposing themself to obvious danger, keeping a constant eye on children not old enough to know better, I would not need to take these extra measures. But we have a legal tradition that if I keep an attractive nuisance on my property, that some of the responsibility for keeping others from getting hurt is on my shoulders, and that some acted stupidly (trespassed and than came in contact with my saw blade) is not necessarily an excuse on my part, on a legal, moral, or perhaps social level.
Plainly, the Carolinian train is an "attractive nuisance." Yes, it serves a social purpose, providing transportation to the people who purchase tickets and ride it. Even so, it is an attractive nuisance. In one sense of the term, there is a temptation to trespass on railroad property and get unsafely close to the train. In another sense, there are proclivities to ignore warning gates and ignore warnings not to get stuck in traffic so as to get trapped by the warning gates. Such proclivies comes in the form of hurry, carelessness, momentary lapse in "what was I thinking", family member in car holding our attention, and so on.
Yes, a person should exercise personal responsibility. A person should not trespass on my hypothetical property and come in contact with the saw. A person should not crash crossing gates; a person should not stop on the track, even when the gates are still up, and getting stuck in traffic is not an excuse as a prudent driver should know about "anti-gridlock" driving and not follow the car in front in "no-gridlock" zones such as intersections and rail crossings. A driver should maintain "situational awareness" and a cranky child in the back seat is no excuse.
And yes, a railroad is an attractive nuisance. One can put up warning signs, crossing gates, crossing bells and flashers, blow the horn. One can even grade separate or otherwise remove the crossing, and a train is enough of an attractive nuisance that someone will find some way to get on the tracks to harm themselves and maybe even the people on the train.
I guess the direction in which I would like to direct "friends of trains", however, is away from the "Darwin awards" type thinking that persons who fail to exercise the care that we expect of them have come to harm of their own fault and personal failings, that this happens is sad, but with the suggestion or implication that railroad trains or railroad operations are absolved of moral responsibility. Look, I am not advocating "it is the railroad's fault, sue the heck out of them." I believe in personal responsibility, and if a person crashes gates or gets grid-locked between the gates, they are at least in technical violation of driving laws. But as members of the advocacy community, we need a more effective response to the problem of accidents with "our trains" than to shake our heads and "wonder how people could be that stupid."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicPlainly, the Carolinian train is an "attractive nuisance." Yes, it serves a social purpose, providing transportation to the people who purchase tickets and ride it. Even so, it is an attractive nuisance. In one sense of the term, there is a temptation to trespass on railroad property and get unsafely close to the train.
Good thoughts, though the analogy isn't quite right in the sense that a RR crossing is not quite the same in terms of trespassing as on your property/basement/shed. Clearly some better answers need to be found given increased freight train length, frequency and speed in urban/suburban areas, as well as future HSR's. Bemoaning the 'stupidity', irresponsibility etc. of motorists and pedestrians isn't going to solve the problem and avert deaths and possible disasters. I believe that whatever one thinks about federal investment in RR infrastructure, federal aid in grade crossing protection is needed.
schlimmIt was a different era, at least for me, when I was a kid. NO seat belts or boosters or car seats.
Yes, there was no way to prevent going through the windshield or against the dash. In the mid-twenties, My parents had four children (the last two, including me, came along in the mid-thirties). They had a coupe, and the arrangement for the whole family to ride was that my parents sat, the two older boys stood, and my mother held the twins in her lap. My wife tells me that when she was riding with her mother, her mother would put her arm out in front of her as they slowed down.
Johnny
schlimmClearly some better answers need to be found given increased freight train length, frequency and speed in urban/suburban areas, as well as future HSR's.
There are, of course, a variety of measures: closing the crossing, grade separation, barrier crossing gates, the earlier-mentioned synchronizing of traffic lights to allow traffic to clear a crossing, public education, and so on.
One thing I have wondered about is signage or perhaps even special crossing signals to communicate what kind of train it is.
Now I know that "cutting through the gates" in front of a plodding freight is not only illegal, it is also highly dangerous as well, as a plodding freight can also smash you to pieces. But do you suppose if the culture is, "Oh gosh, here comes the freight local, and they are going to block the crossing with switching for a half hour, and I am going to miss my dentist appointment", that a passenger train, even a 79 MPH passenger train on the same tracks poses a special hazard?
For example, just the other day, the WSOR came through the UW Campus at 5:30 PM, at the height of rush hour, and with rush hour jammed up as it is with all of the lane closures for construction. WSOR not only came through with a freight during rush hour, they came through with the longest dang train I have seen on those tracks. This whole episode not only delayed everyone for the 20 minutes the gates were down but for the better part of an hour afterwards as traffic sorted itself out.
Now WSOR may have had reasons to do this -- maybe the crew was running short on hours of service, maybe that train had to make a connection at a yard somewhere. And I suppose WSOR has as much right to occupy the crossing with their trains carrying goods to people as the motorists have to be anxious to get home to their families in a timely manner.
But did a crew really have to bring the goll' durn longest freight train smack through the Madison Isthmus thoroughfare right smack in the middle of the evening motoring rush hour? They must have had their reasons, but again, there is the common-sense reasoning of not giving the public yet another reason to disrespect the laws about not beating gates at grade crossings.
I don't know the North Carolina situation, but if they are operating a passenger train at speed through crossings, it may be good to see what the public understanding is regarding the hazards of the particular trains they are encountering. I heard that in Metro Chicago there are efforts to "crack down" on long crossing blockages as an effort to make the train tracks "better neighbors", get better compliance with the law by motorists, and improve crossing safety.
Paul Milenkovic But we have a legal tradition that if I keep an attractive nuisance on my property, that some of the responsibility for keeping others from getting hurt is on my shoulders. Plainly, the Carolinian train is an "attractive nuisance." Yes, a person should exercise personal responsibility. A person should not crash crossing gates; a person should not stop on the track, even when the gates are still up, and getting stuck in traffic is not an excuse as a prudent driver should know about "anti-gridlock" driving and not follow the car in front in "no-gridlock" zones such as intersections and rail crossings. A driver should maintain "situational awareness" and a cranky child in the back seat is no excuse. I guess the direction in which I would like to direct "friends of trains", however, is away from the "Darwin awards" type thinking that persons who fail to exercise the care that we expect of them have come to harm of their own fault and personal failings, that this happens is sad, but with the suggestion or implication that railroad trains or railroad operations are absolved of moral responsibility.
But we have a legal tradition that if I keep an attractive nuisance on my property, that some of the responsibility for keeping others from getting hurt is on my shoulders.
Plainly, the Carolinian train is an "attractive nuisance." Yes, a person should exercise personal responsibility. A person should not crash crossing gates; a person should not stop on the track, even when the gates are still up, and getting stuck in traffic is not an excuse as a prudent driver should know about "anti-gridlock" driving and not follow the car in front in "no-gridlock" zones such as intersections and rail crossings. A driver should maintain "situational awareness" and a cranky child in the back seat is no excuse.
I guess the direction in which I would like to direct "friends of trains", however, is away from the "Darwin awards" type thinking that persons who fail to exercise the care that we expect of them have come to harm of their own fault and personal failings, that this happens is sad, but with the suggestion or implication that railroad trains or railroad operations are absolved of moral responsibility.
That argument only makes sense to a negligence attorney.
When a person ignores the signs, lights, bells, and gates and then gets struck by the train the Railroad and it's employees bear NO moral responsibility for the violent end to which they came. If they are judged to have a fiscal responsibility that is evidence of a severely defective tort system. In a just system, the driver or his estate should be liable for the damage to the train and it's occupants.
Paul Milenkovic One thing I have wondered about is signage or perhaps even special crossing signals to communicate what kind of train it is.
There are already issues with normal crossing gates and the like. Why clutter up the scenario further? In some studies that were done it was found that there was a limit to how many visual cues could be used before they become visual noise. Having about 4-6 different cues to the existence of trackage is not always as useful--nor as safe--as all we think it would be. Sometimes the old "STOP,LOOK,LISTEN" signs worked better. We have a few crossings Northeast of here that still have those ding signs--and no accidents have been recorded there for years-----
Paul MilenkovicBut did a crew really have to bring the goll' durn longest freight train smack through the Madison Isthmus thoroughfare right smack in the middle of the evening motoring rush hour? They must have had their reasons, but again, there is the common-sense reasoning of not giving the public yet another reason to disrespect the laws about not beating gates at grade crossings.
We see this a lot with CP doing strings of 90-130 cars and higher through London's Richmond Row and area. They've been doing this for years. In the middle of rush hour and such. Takes about 30 minutes at times. I've been caught in that and I and many others just park and do a little shopping and that or go a couple of blocks over and use the underpass. Hasn't really bothered too many up here. Mind, Richmond Street is "construction destruction central" anyway so we're used to delays.
I don't think trains / railroad owners should be liable if the automobile driver was clearly at fault, as as been ascertained by the officials in both cases in NC. I'm thinking about the way S Florida drivers stay off the tracks. Perhaps it's a matter of education or experience - after all, TriRail has been running in S FL for 20+ years - but unless there was engineer error or signal malfunction, I can't understand why the railway would be held accountable.
At the same time, I can see some value to thinking about what else can be done to prevent further deaths at these crossings rather than simply writing the incidents off as 'sad'.
Somewhere else I read there has been a history of rail-auto problems at one of the two NC intersections involved in these crashes. Perhaps there's some underlying problem with the intersection itself that needs to be addressed, perhaps with an overpass or some other redesigning of the intersection; perhaps more public education needs to take place given the increased passenger train traffic from Charlotte to Raleigh.
If there is a defect in crossing design. Some states have programs to address that depending on who owns the road maintenence. I know that Wisconsin has or used to have such programs in place where if some local folks write in or involve the local government the state will step forward with some funds to fix or upgrade the railroad crossing. Doesn't always work well.
It's been a while since I've lived in Wisconsin but I seem to remember if it was a locally owned street then no state funds. Had to be at least a county road or state highway.....I believe. Can't remember.
CMStPnP If there is a defect in crossing design. Some states have programs to address that depending on who owns the road maintenence. I know that Wisconsin has or used to have such programs in place where if some local folks write in or involve the local government the state will step forward with some funds to fix or upgrade the railroad crossing. Doesn't always work well. It's been a while since I've lived in Wisconsin but I seem to remember if it was a locally owned street then no state funds. Had to be at least a county road or state highway.....I believe. Can't remember.
NC has been spending millions over the last few years to upgrade and seal that corridor. The work is still ongoing.
http://www.bytrain.org/track/
schlimm Phoebe Vet None the less, about every third cycle of the light traffic on the crossing road stops bumper to bumper across all three tracks to wait for the light. It's actually funny to watch the expressions on people's faces when the crossing signal activates. I have seen cars get caught between the gates, but they usually manage to get out around the gate in the grass before the arrival of the LRT but I bet it takes the driver several minutes to get his/her butt to let go of the seat. It has been my experience that common sense is not all that common. Yes and we have a two track crossing with 2 lanes each way near my home that I have to cross 4 - 6 times a day. I often stop short since there is only space for one tractor trailer to the light. The result ?? A car behind me often blows his horn urging me to foul the track !! That is really annoying. Sadly too true around here also. There's a RR crossing (CN-IC) and close by intersection on a road I drive often. They've set it up so the traffic light is BEFORE the RR as well as the intersection. That reduces the risk for the 'stupid' driver without increasing the cost of grade protection.
Phoebe Vet None the less, about every third cycle of the light traffic on the crossing road stops bumper to bumper across all three tracks to wait for the light. It's actually funny to watch the expressions on people's faces when the crossing signal activates. I have seen cars get caught between the gates, but they usually manage to get out around the gate in the grass before the arrival of the LRT but I bet it takes the driver several minutes to get his/her butt to let go of the seat. It has been my experience that common sense is not all that common. Yes and we have a two track crossing with 2 lanes each way near my home that I have to cross 4 - 6 times a day. I often stop short since there is only space for one tractor trailer to the light. The result ?? A car behind me often blows his horn urging me to foul the track !! That is really annoying.
Yes and we have a two track crossing with 2 lanes each way near my home that I have to cross 4 - 6 times a day. I often stop short since there is only space for one tractor trailer to the light. The result ?? A car behind me often blows his horn urging me to foul the track !! That is really annoying.
Yes the above crossing I go over needs one too but the state will not pay for the extra light because no accident has occurred there!
Phoebe VetNC has been spending millions over the last few years to upgrade and seal that corridor. The work is still ongoing.
Thats good to read. I remember the days not too far back (1970-1980's) when it was a struggle just trying to get the railroad company to answer the phone for RR crossing malfunctions. I was pleasantly surprised when they started to stencil their phone numbers on nearby signal boxes.
blue streak 1Yes and we have a two track crossing with 2 lanes each way near my home that I have to cross 4 - 6 times a day. I often stop short since there is only space for one tractor trailer to the light. The result ?? A car behind me often blows his horn urging me to foul the track !! That is really annoying.
I see that a lot around here---I could be at a crossing and have the gates down and someone would be on my butt honking his horn---"RRRR--Get out of my way!!". Just once did I see some guy get so impatient that he whipped his car around me and slammed through the gate---into the side of a GP40 going 60mph.
That's why I think we can have all the safety systems in the world but some people will be able to foul it up no matter ------
Like I say----some people have the time-----others have the clock
We are long past the time when we should have started a nationwide program to prohibit any new grade level crossings and a 40 or 50 year program to gradually eliminate the ones that exist now.
The environmental impact studies, which were a good idea, have grown so unwieldy and self serving that they are strangling any efforts to upgrade our infrastructure.
Phoebe Vet We are long past the time when we should have started a nationwide program to prohibit any new grade level crossings and a 40 or 50 year program to gradually eliminate the ones that exist now. The environmental impact studies, which were a good idea, have grown so unwieldy and self serving that they are strangling any efforts to upgrade our infrastructure.
what was said.
Which is why we need to re affirm the idea that safety should come first. And that it starts with 'me'---not everyone else. Personal responsibility.
Phoebe VetWe are long past the time when we should have started a nationwide program to prohibit any new grade level crossings and a 40 or 50 year program to gradually eliminate the ones that exist now.
It's never too late plus a lot of lines have been abandoned. But it needs to be done. There will always be the impatient driver who does what Blownout witnessed, but many of the accidents could be prevented. A lot of stoplight intersections are now equipped with a device that turns the light red and allows emergency vehicles to go through more safely. Is there some way that vehicles and trains could be equipped so that a vehicle couldn't ram the gate or cross a track with a train approaching?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.