For the second time in a month, the Carolinian has hit an SUV at a crossing in the Durham, NC area.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1139464.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=6433548#Comments_Container
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Update
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1140707.html
Sounds like NS has a problem, a big law suit ahead.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
It depends on whether the gate was working. Since the automobile hit and broke the gate it probably was. The Cab video should answer that question.
That ROW is actually owned by North Carolina Rail Road, which is owned by the state and operated under a lease agreement by NS.
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/
Phoebe VetIt depends on whether the gate was working. Since the automobile hit and broke the gate it probably was. The Cab video should answer that question. That ROW is actually owned by North Carolina Rail Road, which is owned by the state and operated under a lease agreement by NS. 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/ (corrected)
(corrected)
James
Not news. I wish these news items would not always state that the trains struck a vehicle. The driver placed the vehicle in the path of the train, instead.
mmmmm---kinda interesting. It sounds like everytime there is a crossing accident the crossing isn't working---
Tell me---do any of these crossing gates work anymore?
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/
99% of the "Crossing Protection System Malfunction" reports I hear indicate that the crossing protection is working/or "gates are down" and there is no train in sight. Of course, the train could arrive in short-order. Replacing crossing gate arms is a major cost to the railroads, but I never see anything in the papers about anyone getting charged to pay for them. Same with "run-arounds". Some get cited, few pay! I have turned in a number of crossing gate avoiders, but they just get a warning. Unfortunately, most cops don't have a clue, or don't care. The railroads need a plan to 'outreach' to the LEA community and explain the problem. I am sure they would appreciate the tutorial and protect-and-serve us better. None of our local LEOs know about the DOT-mandated signs that are posted on all crossings, giving an "800" number to call and the location of the crossing, with a percieved problem, to the railroad involved. Railroads: "Say Hello!"
Hays
To quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke, "What we got here is a failure in communication!"
These conflicting reports indicate the unreliability of the eye witness. However, reporters rush out and get "eye witness reports". Hmmm! Maybe the reporters should interview the experts and those involved and give us actual facts!
And we wonder why the newspapers are dying?
I imagine the news (print and media) reporters want to get out a story close to the time of its occurrence. The "actual facts" would not be available for a considerable amount of time, weeks, maybe months. Eyewitnesses are not necessarily unreliable anymore than they would be in a criminal investigation. Why such hostility to the press?
schlimm. Eyewitnesses are not necessarily unreliable anymore than they would be in a criminal investigation. Why such hostility to the press?
Maybe the point is that there needs to be a bit of scepticism at the start. Until ALL the facts are in this can be more speculation than being truthful.
And just because one starts with not really BELIEVING everything you read or hear in the press this should not be construed into having 'hostility' to the press.
petitnj These conflicting reports indicate the unreliability of the eye witness. However, reporters rush out and get "eye witness reports". Hmmm! Maybe the reporters should interview the experts and those involved and give us actual facts! And we wonder why the newspapers are dying?
Reminds me of a story that ran years ago in the Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal about railroads and visibility at crossings. One person interviewed for the story said that railroads put in crossing signals at crossings and then put in old rusted buildings next to the crossings. Since this is former Conrail territory, the "old rusted buildings" would be the signal shanty next to the crossing that controls the signals.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Whenever a news story is posted here you will notice that many people will take the limited facts presented, often gained from a single source, and immediately formulate and state an opinion about what transpired.
In 22 years of law enforcement I have learned that reporters have the same weakness. I have been involved in the occurrence or investigation of many incidents after which I read the news account. A great many, though not all, of the news stories are filled with well meaning but inaccurate speculation.
An that is really my point. We have the news to keep the public informed. Does "inaccurate speculation" do any good? We are supposed to be supportive of the media yet they are not informing us of anything more than the opinion of a bystander!
I am not hostile to the news. I am only asking that they ask real questions before printing the news. Let's take this incident for example. Did anyone ask the questions: when was the last time the gates malfunctioned? did you report it? did the railroad show up and fix it? (verify this with the railroad) how often did this particular driver use this crossing? could this driver have known that the gates malfunctioned? what is this driver's record? why was the crossing gate destroyed if the car didn't have any warning? do you believe in blizzard warnings? (off the topic but similar in nature to traffic warnings). Let me remind you that highways here in Minnesota have big steel gates across them when the weather gets so bad that they will not plow. They have big flashing signs that say "closed, passage will incur a fine". Not just a flashing red light but some poor highway employee has to drive out and lock the gate shut in bad weather.
I could go on! But there is a point that inaccurate speculation leads to a misinformed public and that is exactly what causes knee jerk reactions in leadership. Let's face it; the only reason the news uses a story is to sell advertising. I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that would be the motivation; but here we are. Let's hope that some reporters start asking tough questions some day. Or maybe they will just report and not speculate! Hmmm that would be interesting.Facts, what a concept!
petitnj Let's face it; the only reason the news uses a story is to sell advertising. I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that would be the motivation; but here we are.
I know it is fashionable in some circles to bash the press. However, in 1790 the contents of newspapers were chiefly advertisements, notices of auction sales, shipping news, shortclippings from papers in other states, letters from places in the West and from the West India Islands, and extracts from European newspapers.Broadjokes and anecdotes were scattered through the pages. Events of local interest were seldom published. Newspapers in the early republic were highly partisan and political, probably more so than today and not very "professional." They were hardly paragons of objectivity.
schlimmpetitnj Let's face it; the only reason the news uses a story is to sell advertising. I don't think the founding fathers had any idea that would be the motivation; but here we are. I know it is fashionable in some circles to bash the press. However, in 1790 the contents of newspapers were chiefly advertisements, notices of auction sales, shipping news, shortclippings from papers in other states, letters from places in the West and from the West India Islands, and extracts from European newspapers.Broadjokes and anecdotes were scattered through the pages. Events of local interest were seldom published. Newspapers in the early republic were highly partisan and political, probably more so than today and not very "professional." They were hardly paragons of objectivity.
And so they did do that--a lot of small town papers also had a lot of 'Who Visited With Who' columns as well. I remember the Woodstock ON based "Sentinel Review" doing just that. I have no issue with that---
BUT--please---don't go around trying to find little rumours just to fill up the article. Of what purpose is that? If you are going to call journalism a profession and talk of being professional then maybe-----? Look. We had a situation up here wherein a child went missing. Some of the media started going to various websites like facebook and wrote about every single stick of thing found on that site about the child's family---a large number of it lies---rumour--that kinda stuff. mmmm--very professional that. Was it the job of the media to place the family under suspicion? Who appointed them as the police?
As for bashing the media----well---if any commentary comes across as bashing---then I'll have to suggest then that the one who calls it bashing must believe the story line then----
Why is it that anyone who asks questions of, or is not necessarily believing, everything the media prints is now seen as being 'hostile to' or, is seen as 'bashing' the media??
petitnj We are supposed to be supportive of the media yet they are not informing us of anything more than the opinion of a bystander! Did anyone ask the questions: when was the last time the gates malfunctioned? did you report it? did the railroad show up and fix it? (verify this with the railroad) how often did this particular driver use this crossing? could this driver have known that the gates malfunctioned? what is this driver's record? why was the crossing gate destroyed if the car didn't have any warning?
We are supposed to be supportive of the media yet they are not informing us of anything more than the opinion of a bystander!
Did anyone ask the questions: when was the last time the gates malfunctioned? did you report it? did the railroad show up and fix it? (verify this with the railroad) how often did this particular driver use this crossing? could this driver have known that the gates malfunctioned? what is this driver's record? why was the crossing gate destroyed if the car didn't have any warning?
The questions you suggested constitute a preliminary investigation. Investigating an incident is very time consuming and involves gathering facts from many sources, often not all at the scene. The news media has neither the time nor the inclination to conduct an in depth investigation into each of the dozens of stories they cover daily. That is the function of the various regulatory and/or law enforcement agencies.
It is not "bashing" the media to acknowledge that fact. Just understand that, and take what you read, see, or hear from the media with a grain of salt and hope that as more information becomes available to them they will report that as well.
UPDATE:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/1154578.html
Sounds like pretty decent follow-up article by the discredited, so-called "grain-of-salt press" IMO. Maybe some folks have been listening to certain radio blowhards for too long.
This crossing sounds rather dangerous. Two accidents in a short time. Why is that? There could be various questions/reasons to be asked. Just concluding driver error seems a bit facile.
1. Is the gate properly constructed?
2. How much before the train reaches the crossing does the gate complete its descent?
3. Or are North Carolinians as a group more prone to careless driving? (A purely rhetorical question).
schlimmSounds like pretty decent follow-up article by the discredited, so-called "grain-of-salt press" IMO. Maybe some folks have been listening to certain radio blowhards for too long.
And the comments here sound like you think that everyone who made even a mild comment on taking things with a grain of salt are discrediting the media. When is this all or nothing going to be stopped? Just because there were some issues does not mean we "HATE" the media----sheeesh
Some of what the media says may be at issue BUT NOT ALL---can we imagine the possibility of this?
schlimm This crossing sounds rather dangerous. Two accidents in a short time. Why is that? There could be various questions/reasons to be asked. Just concluding driver error seems a bit facile. 1. Is the gate properly constructed? 2. How much before the train reaches the crossing does the gate complete its descent?
We had a few incidents like the above----and the driver was talking on the cell phone. This can muddle things right up here. Engineers can not be texting on their cellphones so----?
Mind, even if every single crossing has all gone to pot then there USED to be an IDEA that one STOPPED the car/bus/truck they were driving, LOOKED to see whether there was a train coming---and LISTENED for a train. If there was none to be had then one went across. Now, we do have up here a fair number of crossings in the rural areas that are not gated and lit----we still do that STOP,LOOK and LISTEN up here---my clients are all in rural areas so I do not find that my doing this is an issue---however urbanites have become hurry hurry drivers with no patience---hence the stories one finds of crashed gates----and yes, there were a few of those up here. I even witnessed a certain fellow go to the right side of a gate that was down to try to beat the train---of course he lost. Dead. And yes, there was the assumption here that the gate was broke---which it was not---
That is why the crossing incidents are being investigated. And IF there was driver error---well gee---engineers of trains are always being placed under investigation for stuff---why not the driver?
I'm just saying------
blownout cylinderAnd the comments here sound like you think that everyone who made even a mild comment on taking things with a grain of salt are discrediting the media. When is this all or nothing going to be stopped? Just because there were some issues does not mean we "HATE" the media----sheeesh
I never said you or others "HATED" the news media. Try getting your facts straight before quoting.
Hostility means antagonism or enmity; perhaps those latter terms would be more apropos.
And the term "grain of salt" generally means "to take some information with a heavy dose of skepticism, caution and suspicion." So what that means is a default position of not believing what you read until you verify. Of course I don't believe everything in the press, but most of it seems pretty accurate. Your approach appears to be different.
"I'm just saying," minus the sarcastic emoticon.
schlimm Why such hostility to the press?
This is where I have the issue. This word, hostility, usually is defined as someone having a hatred of, or toward; or antagonism toward; enmity toward an opposing target or person---that type of thing.
I'm wondering if there might not--or can there be even?--be a way of not necessarily believing everything that is said right from the start? I do not have guibbles over the witness situation but it is in how the information is transferred.
I had a few opportunities to be interviewed by media regarding a recent appointment to an executive of an organization and did get misquoted a few times by journalists---when corrected I received apologies--there was no "enmity" here so----
My wife and I lived for a few years near the U. of Western Ontario here and saw a number of times when parties were reported as having had thousands of people at them when there were only 2-300 people at them. There are these times when things tend to be overstated. In the heat of the moment things can be said that --on hindsight---one kind of wonders----mmmm?
Maybe if we did not use these loaded words so much there might not be the amount of hooohaw---
I was trying to stay our of this food fight, but I feel obliged to respond.
It was me who used the term "grain of salt" and I stand by it. Like most journalists, it was you who editorialized and added "discredited" in front of the quote to increase the drama, but in doing so altered the context of the original quote. Go back and reread my post.
I stated that the report in the media is not the result of an intensive investigation but rather is the opinion of a reporter who arrived after the fact, interviewed a few bystanders, took a few photographs and moved on to make his deadline. I further stated that it is not the place of the media to conduct an investigation and it is not realistic to expect that. I added that I hope as further information becomes available it will also be reported, which the Charlotte Observer has done in this case.
To believe that you know exactly what happened because you read or heard the media report is naive.
And I never listen to "certain radio blowhards ". They are the epitome of media inaccuracy.
Sounds good!
Blownout: You raise good points.
BTW, what happened to this thread's display? At least on my screen it seems to be very wide.
Phoebe Vet: Sorry about the words. I didn't think you are hostile or a follower of those who refer to the press as the "drive by media." And I am not so naive about the media. However, I don't open the paper with a preconceived attitude that what I will read has a fairly good chance of being wrong or worse, that the writer has an agenda, although I've gotten that admission from several reporters.
So back to my question. What is it about that crossing that makes it a frequent accident scene?
schlimmBTW, what happened to this thread's display? At least on my screen it seems to be very wide
mmmm---I'm asking the same thing. The last few times this showed up there was some URL that was a very long one that didn't wrap right. This seems to be something of a text wrapping thing again
As for that crossing it makes me think of a certain one here that used to be a real pain. The issue was that the crossing came through an angle that made for awkward turnings of the head to see just what was coming from 'behind' you. The gates could be down and people will think that it was broke--go around it---PLANGH!! right into a train, we had all kinds of weird stuff with people walking along the tracks---never thinking of trespassing on private property--all kinds of things
And this one---is this called "the triangle"? If so that might be something-----I would be tempted to see about modifying the crossing but then we'd still have issues with people trying the game of "Let's Beat The Train" as well--
I think there is a misconception here that the two recent fatal accidents were at the same crossing.
They were in the same general area of the state and involved the same train, but they were not at the same crossing or even in the same community.
Triangle is a commonly used term to describe that geographic area of the state.
Phoebe VetThey were in the same general area of the state and involved the same train, but they were not at the same crossing or even in the same community.
Thanks for the clarification---
Phoebe VetTriangle is a commonly used term to describe that geographic area of the state.
What are the communities named that form that "triangle"?----I'm never so sure of these things
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 crossings are 23 miles apart.
Bing Map:
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.0258526727557~-79.0184743702412&lvl=12&sty=h&tlt=-90&alt=25104.8974068128&dir=0&cam=36.0258526727468~-79.0184743702412&phx=-0.0875661553934114&phy=0.634543648183525&phscl=15.7398286446622&rtp=pos.36.07931546866894_-79.17006880044937_near%20Mt%20Willing%20Rd%2C%20Efland%2C%20North%20Carolina%2027243%2C%20United%20States___a_~pos.35.972504541277885_-78.8668692111969_near%20614%20Ellis%20Rd%2C%20Durham%2C%20North%20Carolina%2027703%2C%20United%20States___a_~pos.35.997005850076675_-78.90735983848572_near%20388%20W%20Chapel%20Hill%20St%2C%20Durham%2C%20North%20Carolina%2027701%2C%20United%20States___a_&rtop=0~0~0~
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.