its your classic didnt watch for the train accident. 18mph sure isnt fast either and still does this.

The first car vs. train collision I was involved with, the train was going 8 mph. The car was going 35+mph. It was pretty nasty but no one killed-the driver was transported to the hospital in serious condition. That was long enough ago that there was no concept of relieving the crew-we took care of business and kept on going.

I didn't see anything that stated what speed the truck was going. Either way, the energy created by the coupler will do serious damage, even at low speed if it hits the passenger compartment.

DOT used to publish books of the accident reports for each and every rail-highway fatality. I was expecting lots of Amtraks and Roadrailers going 60 mph.

I was gobsmacked: the great majority were at slow train speed, with probably half at 5 mph or less.

The old newspaper trope "train hits car" is like hummingbirds saying the sloth jumped out in front of them. In fact, that trope is killing people, because it inflates drivers' beliefs that only fast trains kill.

It also says that people are both smarter than we think (when they see a fast train, they let the wookie win)... and dumber (they see slow trains as not a threat).

They also see the slow train as a longer delay, so the incentive to beat it is higher.

For a short passenger train? Naw, I bet the incentive for the young driver is amphetamine, perhaps spurred on by methamphetamine already in the bloodstream.

Is there some basis for this claim? This appears to be the result of simple stupidity and/or inexperience.

I would not accuse the victim of any illegal activity in this case. My point about drivers taking a risk to beat the train because they worry about a delay is common sense. I was applying it to driving practice in general, and not to this specific case being discussed here.

And I would not expect drivers to dismiss this worry about a delay simply because a train is light and fast. Drivers have no experience to factor that in. They see the train approaching and make an impulse decision. Studies have shown that many drivers mistakenly believe that the flashers are merely advisory, and that a driver may use their own discretion to decide whether it is safe to cross. After all, that principle is embedded in grade crossing control in many ways throughout history. Thus, it is not surprising that drivers would apply it to signalized crossings.

But again, I have no knowledge or opinion as to what influenced the driver to fail to yield to the train in this case.

Having run trains for so many years, I have seen exactly the type of scenario that apparently happened there. The motorists become complacent after years of making the same drive without seeing a train that the railroad crossing becomes merely a part of the scenery. That, added to the additional distractions such as cell phones, radios, etc. takes a large portion of their attention off the road. Thus, they are not looking for outside threats or possibly even the other vehicles on the road.

There exists in the aviation world a condition that we call "getthereitis". Persons who have getthereitis are normal people who are so focused on getting to their destination when they want to that they take unreasonable risks and make bad choices that they would not likely make in a rational state of mind. That condition kills many pilots and destroys many airplanes annually. One aviation saying is that "it is better to arrive late than not at all".

My personal observation is that people have been lulled into a false sense of security and safety, partly due to the advancements in safety technology. Automobile crashes are a leading cause of deaths and injuries in this country. Stastically, driving an automobile is the most dangerous activity that most people engage in on a daily basis. On any airplane or train trip, the most dangerous part of the trip is the drive to and from the airport or train station.

We've had people drive into the side of a train stopped in a crossing protected by lights and gates during daylight hours in clear weather. I hate to think of the driver as the victim in such incidents....unless the train chased him down the road until it caught up with him, yet that's the way they are portrayed in media coverage.

dave

I would not accuse the victim of any illegal activity in this case.

As regards the comments about drug use, I agree. That's inappropriate unless and until we know more. But it appears to be a given that she entered the crossing when the signals were operating and presumably had been for the prescribed minimum warning time so that's a law violation right there. If she'd made it and a cop was sitting there he could rightfully cite her.

Yes, flashing and colors means specific things per DOT standards.
Flashing yellow = Go with care, no need to slow or stop.
Flashing red = same as a stop sign. Each car must stop fully, then go with care.

In Michigan a very common signal is "Green" for the straight lanes, and "flashing red" for the left turn lane. Left-turners would stack up, wait for any opposing traffic to clear, and stream through. Efficient but wrong. Should be flashing yellow. This is a Michigan idiom that became institutionalized.

So. Crossing flashers. Flashing red. Stop and go with care.

If it meant "stop and stay", it would be solid red, because that's what solid red means.

Again an idiom that is institutionalized and wrong.




Got my departure clearance, check.
When asked if clear of runway, Pan Am didn't speak up. They'd surely speak up.
Visibility barely legal and getting worse fast.
I am chief trainer of prestigious world airline KLM.
Let's do this!

Happens to the very best.

That would be Tenerife airport, Canary Islands, on Sunday March 27, 1977.
Two Boeing 747 aircraft collided in the fog with 583 fatalities and 61 survivors.

I was traveling with a friend, coming home from an event on the Sierra Railway, when we heard about this on the car radio.

I've been a proponent of a third, solid red light at crossings for some time now. Simple and easy to add, should not be too expensive. I've seen videos from overseas with this type of setup. I believe the standard two lights flash alone at first, and as the train gets closer (or after a timer times out) the third light comes on as a solid red. At the least, it would be worth experimenting with here, and monitoring compliance with a video system. Perhaps the FRA or AAR could sponsor such an experiment?

Just to add an additional thought: the old Griswold (?) crossing signals had a regular highway STOP sign that rotated into view when activated. Adding the third red light, not flashing, would replicate the Griswold, without the maintenance. Think semaphore versus searchlight signal or CPL.

Stop, Look, and Listen has been replaced by "Yield" on CSX Mountain Sub... Keymont, WV Road Crossing (about 6-7 families live on the other side of the tracks) - 14 November 2014