This is the second incident around Chicago in the past year where crossing gates didn’t work correctly and caused a collision…
Not mentioned in the article…whose tracks?
Looks like Chicago Rail Link ex Rock Island lead into the industrial complex on the South East side of Chicago. http://www.omnitrax.com/railroads/chicago-rail-link-llc.aspx
So if I understand this article correctly, if the gates aren’t down, and the lights aren’t flashing, then the train stopped on the crossing must be an optical illusion and you can drive right through it?
I don’t care what color the train is painted, if your car is equipped with headlights…
Considering the time of day one has to wonder if some other driver impairment might be involved. I would feel differently if the train hand come roaring through the crossing and hit the cars.
This brings up a lot of issues.
First of all, the FRA has declared that freight trains can be hard to see at night, and that is why the FRA has mandated side reflectors. I don’t agree with the reasoning because the law requires drivers to have their headlights on and not over-drive them. However in a recent thread about this, several forum members sided with the FRA reasoning and the reflector mandate. They agreed that drivers should be forgiven for running into stopped trains and even gave their own personal examples of nearly running into trains at night because they could not see them. This refers generally to non-signaled crossings.
So I have been waiting for this type of accident to demonstrate that drivers are not the morons that everybody has long declared them to be. Somebody else had to be the
I actually agree with Phoebe Vet. Reflectors or no reflectors, you should have situational awareness while you’re driving. Fact is, on the road most people have absolutely no clue what’s going on around their vehicle. And then even Bucyrus said that perhaps reflectors are not enough and there should be lights on the sides of cars. So what’s next - a version a PTC for cars to automatically stop them at a crossing or red light?
Fact is if the driver was situationally aware this wouldn’t have happened. Get your head out people and be aware of what’s around you while driving. I feel no sympathy for the driver.
Some questions not raised or answered:
-
Did the tank car(s) actually have the reflectorized strips ? In good condition ? Would they have been visible ?
-
Were there the usual round yellow 'R X R" Advance Warning signs and pavement markings ?
-
Were the “cross-bucks” and/ or gates on the non-functioning signals reflectorized as well, so they would stand out and warn that something might be there ?
-
Any streetlights or business parking lot or security lights in the area that would have provided some ambient light or silhouetted the tank cars - esp. with the current “white blanket” of snow cover all around there ?
-
Would the car(s) from the other direction have illuminated the tank car, again at least as an outline ? How come the 2nd car didn’t notice the odd position and non-motion of the 1st car after it hit the train ?
I agree completely with the rule about not “over-driving” the headlights = being able to stop within the distance that the headlights illuminate and/ or that you can see ahead, whichever is less. (Note that stopping distance is twice as far as what train crews are instructed when running under a “Restricted Speed” indication or rule.)
However, a tank car painted with flat black at night is as close to a “man-made trap” as I can envision, because that color absorbs and will not reflect almost all light that is directed at it - so it demands the absolute best of the driver and his headlights. Like it or not, the legal system has always made exceptions and favored trespassers, burglars, and similar persons as against the land owner when the trespasser, etc. was injured by a man-made trap or condition, and this situation seems of like kind.
I don’t read the FRA reflectorization rule as intending to shif the responsibility, but instead merely to improve the physical odds of preventing an accident to be more in favor of the driver.&nbs
Quote from the first article linked here:
It was not known why the gates and warning lights weren’t working.
Can someone please tell me: wouldn’t it be that if the train is stopped in the same spot for longer than ___ minutes, (or whatever, I don’t know the time frame), then the lights/gates deactivate until the train moves again? IIRC, I read that some place fairly recently.
P.S. I found it very interesting the driver stated he was talking to/with his passenger at about the time of the crossing. (not an exact quote)
The bells, flashers, and gates are activated when a train occupies the island circuit, which is a track circuit across the roadway plus at least 50 feet each side of the roadway. The bells, flashers, and gates do not deactivate until the island circuit is no longer occupied by the train, regardless of whether the train is moving or stopped. If the train is there forever, the signals are activated forever.
RWM
Nope - to the contrary:
“Any occupancy of the island circuit will activate the crossing signals.”
[emphasis added - PDN; from post by Railway Man to the “Grade Crossing Signals” thread here on 01-30-2011 at 10:24 AM, which is the 2nd one in the thread near the top of the page at - http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/186634.aspx ]
So, it would seem, at this time, that the statement in the article is correct then? Of course, we all know, these things have to be investigated and we lack the exact facts from the scene, etc, but I’m saying apparently. I’m just trying to sort this out. I think what I read might have been talking about a RR repair vehicle; I’m not sure.
The other thing I don’t get here is the fact that this accident occurred in the middle of Chicago in a very urban area - now for those not from Chicago the entire city is lit up like a christmas tree at night, and Halsted is a main road and not some side street. In fact, you could be driving in the city at night with your headlights off and not even realize it because there is that much street lighting (yes, that’s happened to me once or twice in my life). So the fact is that this train would have been seen just by the ambient street light, but you need to be looking out ahead on the road to see it and not just at the 50 ft directly in front of your car. If this happened in the middle of nowhere in a place where’s it’s pitch black I could commiserate more with the driver, but not in this case.
I am very much in favor of reflective stripes, but I don’t think they absolve the driver from the responsibility of driving within their headlights. Just another tool to maybe save some careless person. Now I sometimes question whether these stripes applied to a curve surface (like a tank car) are as effective as they should be, but that is another issue.
That being said, if it was a tree that fell down in the same spot, I bet these jackasses would have hit it just the same. Gates weren’t down, but I bet the crossbuck is still reflective.
Bottom line: these morons would have hit anything that would be in the road. I wonder if they were even paying attention to the road or to their phones at the time…
Same here this is Chicago where I have seen people driving think they can fit a car UNDER a truck going down the Freaking IKE Expressway to make an exit 40 feet away.
Ha - what an interesting idea “Hey, let’s see if we can fit the car under the railroad tank car!”.
That totally would not surprise me.
In the photographs, the tank cars have highly visible reflectors, which are appear to be in excellent condition. Yet they did not prevent two run-into-train crashes.
The FRA said that trains can be hard for drivers to see at night. Yet, if drivers obey the laws already in place, they will not run into trains. When you say trains must be reflectorized because drivers have a hard time seeing them, it contradicts the rules that drivers must not drive if they do not see where they are going. This can’t be had both ways, although I doubt that the FRA has thought it through enough to see the conflict.
The fire department official on the scene said that the train was difficult to see and that is why motorists ran into it. He did not say anything about the responsibility of drivers to see where they are going. H
Oh god, I’d love to sit on the jury when these drivers sue. It’d be a chance for me to play a small part in ending this ridiculously over-litigious society we live in.
The fire department. Oh, the outfit that covers their trucks (All 4 sides) with LED lights and reflective stripes (including the newest trend of the European-style large chevrons on the rear)?
How the hell do you not see a large truck? I can see lights to the front for gaining right of way, but why to the rear? And to go even further - why do cars or trucks need taillights? I mean, that just promotes unsafe driving.
The slippery slope is already there, Bucyrus. The horse has done left the barn and is halfway across the state. Don’t blame the railroads for finally playing catch-up with every other mode of transportation.
I have yet to see anyone say reflective stripes will prevent all collisions. But I’m sure they may have prevented a few - but that’s the problem. It is hard to keep numbers on events that didn’t happen.
Easy to blame the driver, as usual. If you look at the video of the scene at night, it does seem that the black tankers blend into the sky. The idea that two separate drivers, coming from different directions, hit the same train within minutes of each other, makes the notion that it is the fault of idiot drivers seem unlikely. One driver, sure; but two? That theory becomes possible but improbable.