For the second time in a month, the Carolinian has hit an SUV at a crossing in the Durham, NC area.
Sounds like NS has a problem, a big law suit ahead.
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.
From the looks of things, NCDOT is responsible the “physical plant” (right term?) and not NS. There seems to be contradictions about the safety of this crossing.
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?[%-)]
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?
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.[sigh]
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
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!
[quote user="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.
[/quote]
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, short
clippings from papers in other states, letters from places in the West and from the West India Islands, and extracts from European newspapers.Broad
jokes 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
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:
Motorist hit by train was using phone, troopers say### Woman had driven under crossing gate into path of train that killed her and child.
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.
-
Is the gate properly constructed?
-
How much before the train reaches the crossing does the gate complete its descent?
-
Or are North Carolinians as a group more prone to careless driving? (A purely rhetorical question).