A BNSF track worker was struck and killed today in Anoka County, MN, by a North Star commuter train. Apparently, he was distracted by talking on a cell phone, and he stepped into the path of the commuter train.
The article refers to the victim being part of a crew of a test train that was stopped while waiting for another employee. The victim stepped out from behind the test train while talking on a cell phone, and he stepped into the path of the commuter train, which was running 80 mph. There was a grade crossing nearby, but there was a no horn zone in effect there, so no horn was sounded by the commuter train for that crossing.
However, the North Star engineer did sound several warning toots of the horn to alert the worker who was ultimately struck and killed. So apparently, the victim did not hear that warning.
Is the use of cell phones against the rules for this type of employee?
From the description in the article I am unable to tell what class of employee the individual that was killed was. If he was a member of the T&E crew for the test train or a member of the test trains own operating crew. The test train sounds like a Track Geometry measurement train.
Ha! It should apply to all persons that are in control of their own motion, whether driving a plane, train, car, motorcycle, bicycle, tricycle, skateboard, roller skates, surfboard or on foot! PERIOD! Humans that are pretending to chew gum cannot control anything else at the same time. If your mouth is engaged, you should pay attention to that activity ALONE and not attempt to engage in the control of any thing else. (Too many people cannot even control their mouth, anyway!)
Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable.
That doesn’t exclude him from common sense, however.
As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
The radio news just reported that the victim did not hear the train because the engine on his test train was running, and because the North Star train did not sound its horn for the nearby grade crossing because it is in a no-horn zone. No mention of a cell phone.
I suspect the facts of this accident are being manipulated as they are being fed to the news media. There was another report this morning that said the engineer did not
The no horn rule has a clause that states the engineer can/ should sound his horn if he feels a imminent danger exists…and the sounding of several rapid horn toots is the correct signal to alert people on the ground to an approaching train, and as a general warning of danger.
So both reports may be somewhat correct, if not entirely accurate.
He may not have sounded his horn in the traditional crossing sequence, but he may have given several rapid toots…given the quality of most newspaper and TV reports on train accidents, it is entirely feasible that none of the reporters are aware of the entire rule, its use, and its intent.
As for him standing next to a running locomotive, I personally have found it almost impossible to have a radio conversation when next to a running motor, much less a cell phone conversation…cell phones pick up a tremendous amount of background noise…and being next to a running locomotive makes it very, very hard to hear approaching trains, this too from personal experience.
Well I think both reports are accurate as far as they go. It is just that one of them does not go far enough, and thus implies the opposite of what actually happened. I don’t see anything that looks like the news media getting their facts messed up as they often do with railroad reporting or why it would matter how much the media understands the cell phone rule or the horn rules.
Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can’t regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the “Stop, Look, and Listen” rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn’t drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place.
Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it’s just a fact of life - if someone gets hit by a train because they are on a cell phone, have headphones in, or just aren’t paying attention, it’s nob
Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable.
That doesn’t exclude him from common sense, however.
As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can’t regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the “Stop, Look, and Listen” rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn’t drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been put in place.
Ultimately, every person is responsible for their own personal safety. This may sound cruel but it’s j
While speaking with one of the yard crew members at Eola yesterday about yard work rules he mentioned this incident and made a comment about members of management now “kissing their cell phones goodbye” as a restult.
Specific RR rules notwithstanding, even if he was T&E, he could be on the cell phone as long as a job briefing was held and it was agreed that his being on the phone would not interfere with the operation of the train. Since his train was apparently stopped, this is entirely conceivable.
That doesn’t exclude him from common sense, however.
As for MoW, it kinda depends but would fit the description I gave above. Lone worker, on the other hand, would speak against using a cell phone unless the worker is in the clear, due to the distraction and the reduced ability to recognize the approach of a train.
Agreed Tree, more of a common sense issue. No matter how many rules you pass, you can’t regulate how people think, or even if they think, before they do something. As a kid, I remember being taught the “Stop, Look, and Listen” rule before crossing the tracks, or the street.
I very strongly agree with this too. I have a real problem with laws like cell phone bans because my opinion is that in practice they have no change on behavior. Certain people didn’t drive and talk on cell phones before any bans went into effect and other people did it (and still do so) after a ban has been
I agree that they can be distracting, but I don’t think the distraction is talking. By that l;ogic, me talking to the guy riding shotgun while I drive is a distraction. (Though for some people, it is)
Dialing IS a problem, because you are not looking at the road. With Bluetooths, the hand can go instictively to the button in your ear, because it doesn’t change. The buttons for your home number however, are different than the ones for your spouse’s cell.
And regarding cell phones, they DO have a place in railroading. Some relevant conversations, do NOT need to be had over the radio, where people with loud mouths and scanners can go and start things.
Actually, I can think of another one. How do you contact your roadforeman if he’s in an area not covered by a repeater (not major Class 1) or is not on a clear channel?
Part of being distracted is not realizing you are distracted. Studies have found that most of the cell phone distraction comes from the conversational engagement and not the manipulation of the phone as was previously believed. Although phone manipulation can also be distracting.
Quite true. One (but many show impairment with cell phone use) research study shows:
“When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk.” (Strayer, Drews, Crouch, 2006).
If one applied the idea mentioned by a prior poster, that laws have little impact on behavior, we logically shouldn’t have DUI laws either.