Major grade-crossing accident in Valhalla 2/3/15

I guess it's all a matter of the acceptable threshold of "situational awareness".
Whenever police in urban areas start writing tickets for "blocking the box", guess what? Peoples' awareness of this suddenly prevents them from blocking the box. It's not as though some complex mental calculation is required to predict whether there is space for your vehicle beyond the exit threshold of the controlled space.

by dt_rt40 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:08 pm
I guess it's all a matter of the acceptable threshold of "situational awareness".
Whenever police in urban areas start writing tickets for "blocking the box", guess what? Peoples' awareness of this suddenly prevents them from blocking the box. It's not as though some complex mental calculation is required to predict whether there is space for your vehicle beyond the exit threshold of the controlled space.

DING.

That's why I'm so gung ho on serious penalties and 100% cameras, 100% enforcement.

Some dumb people will always think they can beat the train, I'm in a hurry, I'll look to see if it's really coming, ooops I appear to be stuck on the tracks because there's a tailback in front of me, why didn't I see that coming etc. etc. - No amount of education, and safety systems, can take account of all that stupidity.

But even the dumbest numbnut who is sure they can beat the train every time will stop when they KNOW there's a pretty much 100% chance that breaking that particular law will get them a new set of bracelets and some serious penalties.

Mike

abaduck wrote:But even the dumbest numbnut who is sure they can beat the train every time will stop when they KNOW there's a pretty much 100% chance that breaking that particular law will get them a new set of bracelets and some serious penalties.

Operation Lifesaver sometimes mentions the "Three E's," Education, Engineering, and Enforcement. OL does crossing safety and anti-trespassing education very well, but relying on volunteers, I think in most or all states they have a tough time getting the message out.
Engineering (quad gates, cameras, etc.) makes a big difference, but in one study some years ago (in NC, I think) those measures were only 98% effective. ("Just when you think you've made something idiot-proof, somebody makes a better idiot.")
Enforcement is really the short (or missing) leg of the safety tripod, and that's a major problem.

Some of the things you mentioned in an earlier post are in here Model State Legislation on Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Violations by Motorists. Many times, the law of averages allows "beat the train brigade" (as a 1999 article in Railway Age put it) to squeak by, and they don't get hit. They're even less likely to get written up or arrested for their stupid impatient behavior. As long as crossing collisions are regarded as "accidents," not something foreseeable and avoidable, good luck getting state legislatures to regard that behavior as a serious offense.

could weight sensors or whatever it's called placed anywhere near the tracks have prevented this?

I, too, agree with the serious penalties folks. I look at a few prior incidents for my reasoning. Specifically, the South Shore's 1998 coil truck incident and the Amtrak 2011 Nevada incident. Both situations resulted in innocent passenger deaths and were caused by semi trucks that totally knew there was a crossing but just didn't care. You can put up all the quad gates you want but you won't stop these idiots.

In Nevada, the trucker thought he could beat the train and so grossly misjudged the speed that he hit 3+ cars deep in the consist. In Indiana, a trucker stopped on the tracks in a traffic jam off US12 (sound familiar) and waited for the trucks to continue into the steel mill. A 65mph South Shore train came around the bend and hit him, knocking the 25t coil loose and letting it roll like a bowling ball down the center of the electric MU. It killed three people. The driver: "was cited for 15 violations, including being 70,000 pounds overweight, having malfunctioning brakes, and a trucker's log that was nearly a month out of date. He also tested positive for marijuana."

You can't tell me quad gates would stop the 1998, 2011, or 2015 tragedies, especially with a knucklehead like the driver from 1998. In this day and age of municipalities needing more revenue, why do we question the concept of huge financial penalties and lost licenses? We don't build overpasses to navigate around drunk drivers, we put them in jail. We should do the same with people who block the tracks. Heck it might be a good way to find and remove knuckleheads from the road.

Tadman wrote:I, too, agree with the serious penalties folks. I look at a few prior incidents for my reasoning. Specifically, the South Shore's 1998 coil truck incident and the Amtrak 2011 Nevada incident. Both situations resulted in innocent passenger deaths and were caused by semi trucks that totally knew there was a crossing but just didn't care. You can put up all the quad gates you want but you won't stop these idiots.

In Nevada, the trucker thought he could beat the train and so grossly misjudged the speed that he hit 3+ cars deep in the consist. In Indiana, a trucker stopped on the tracks in a traffic jam off US12 (sound familiar) and waited for the trucks to continue into the steel mill. A 65mph South Shore train came around the bend and hit him, knocking the 25t coil loose and letting it roll like a bowling ball down the center of the electric MU. It killed three people. The driver: "was cited for 15 violations, including being 70,000 pounds overweight, having malfunctioning brakes, and a trucker's log that was nearly a month out of date. He also tested positive for marijuana."

You can't tell me quad gates would stop the 1998, 2011, or 2015 tragedies, especially with a knucklehead like the driver from 1998. In this day and age of municipalities needing more revenue, why do we question the concept of huge financial penalties and lost licenses? We don't build overpasses to navigate around drunk drivers, we put them in jail. We should do the same with people who block the tracks. Heck it might be a good way to find and remove knuckleheads from the road.

Serious penalties have an ok chance of being effective.

However, you are not taking in account the worst kind of stupid there is: There is a certain breed of idiots that does the wrong thing over and over again without a care in the world, no matter how many harsh penalties or signs or warnings you put (You better have a watchful police force). There is no way to get rid of people who are irrational or are under the influence. You can try and restrict them as seen in the quote above, however.

Bollards on the sides leading up to crossings and then a flip up steel plate, you know those they use in some parking garages.. So thus, if you think you can beat the train, see what that steel flip up plate has to say about it

The problem with finding the resources to throw more cops and more 'Jetsons @#$%' grade crossing protection at the Harlem Line is that it still requires the towns to have a frank, real conversation about which of these crossings are absolutely necessary. Do you really station cops and mechanical barriers at 7-9 crossings, or is it time to admit that Commerce St. never should've been allowed to last this long as an open crossing if some selectmen weren't afraid of getting rid of theirs and their loudest constituents' laziest shortcuts to the parkway. See also Cleveland St. and Green Ln. It's a lot easier to throw more attention and energy at bolstering the human and crossing protection enforcement when there's 5 or 6 crossings instead of 9. Namely: Virginia, Lakeview, Roaring Brook, and Jay as the big four that merit the attention. I am sure there is some induced demand that's going to disappear and NOT end up paralyzing Lakeview if Commerce were simply blocked off and the part of the road on the other side of the parkway re-routed to Wall St. There isn't even that much of a risk blocking off Cleveland or Green. It's local-yokel pols' fear of the SUV that honks loudest that holds some of these advancements back. You can't build a shortlist of the crossings worthiest of the extra attention when it's a reaction to an accident at the ones that shouldn't be there at all. You simply can't expect a cop to be posted every morning and afternoon at these backdoor shortcuts that shouldn't exist. And until the towns get real about that, the chest-thumping about how the state's got to do something goes nowhere. If there's no compelling reason for the crossing to be, it shouldn't be. And not only should it not be, but it's diluted resources from protecting the ones that (for lack of practical or cost-effective options) must be.

Watchman318 wrote:Many times, the law of averages allows "beat the train brigade" (as a 1999 article in Railway Age put it) to squeak by, and they don't get hit. They're even less likely to get written up or arrested for their stupid impatient behavior.

Most of the time their behavior is not a problem. "Blocking the box" only causes a problem when there is opposing traffic. Otherwise it is just an annoyance for those who obsess over following rules. People who, if they are human, have their own rules that they like to break on occasion.

Watchman318 wrote:As long as crossing collisions are regarded as "accidents," not something foreseeable and avoidable, good luck getting state legislatures to regard that behavior as a serious offense.

Most collisions are accidents. Other than the suicides no one stops on a crossing intending to be hit by a train ... just like no one looks down to read a text message or change the radio station intending to cause a wreck through their lack of attention to the road. I agree that most incidents (an official term) are avoidable. It just takes training, willpower and acceptance by other drivers.

ACeInTheHole wrote:Bollards on the sides leading up to crossings and then a flip up steel plate, you know those they use in some parking garages.. So thus, if you think you can beat the train, see what that steel flip up plate has to say about it

Your solution does nothing to help the driver already on the tracks when the train approaches. It is also prohibitively expensive.

justalurker66 wrote:

Watchman318 wrote:Many times, the law of averages allows "beat the train brigade" (as a 1999 article in Railway Age put it) to squeak by, and they don't get hit. They're even less likely to get written up or arrested for their stupid impatient behavior.

Most of the time their behavior is not a problem. "Blocking the box" only causes a problem when there is opposing traffic. Otherwise it is just an annoyance for those who obsess over following rules. People who, if they are human, have their own rules that they like to break on occasion.

Watchman318 wrote:As long as crossing collisions are regarded as "accidents," not something foreseeable and avoidable, good luck getting state legislatures to regard that behavior as a serious offense.

Most collisions are accidents. Other than the suicides no one stops on a crossing intending to be hit by a train ... just like no one looks down to read a text message or change the radio station intending to cause a wreck through their lack of attention to the road. I agree that most incidents (an official term) are avoidable. It just takes training, willpower and acceptance by other drivers.

ACeInTheHole wrote:Bollards on the sides leading up to crossings and then a flip up steel plate, you know those they use in some parking garages.. So thus, if you think you can beat the train, see what that steel flip up plate has to say about it

Your solution does nothing to help the driver already on the tracks when the train approaches. It is also prohibitively expensive.

Yeah thought about that bit afterward. Oops. I guess maybe you could have it so the flip up part folds down when somebody on the tracks needs to drive off.

Giving proper credit to the Member who linked to the You Tube video, it appears a few European drivers have no respect for the bollards that last July, I noted were more abundant over there - well at least in Salzburg. Somehow, I think that any Medieval city has these bollards around where during the night, trucks can come to resupply the shops and restaurants, but during the day when the tourists are loose "getting and spending", up they go (for the record, let it be noted my Customs declaration form showed US$140 for three discs of concerts I heard - and one hat!!!).

I have to agree from the photos of the scene that The Times has published, there was plenty of visibility to allow Ms. Brody to see there was not room for another vehicle to X. This is unlike the X-ing at AMTK MP 224 at Michiana Shores (link to Googlemobile's camera view earlier) where it is NOT possible for a driver X-ing to see if there is room on the other side for his vehicle. I trust that there will be an NTSB recommendation that X's will be painted, much as they were around these parts after Cary, so that traffic heading towards the Taconic (TSP in forumese) will know "there's no room for you". Meantime, I'm sure that the MTA "beagles" are sniffing around whatever jointly owned assets the Brody family has, for whatever insurance they have had just might cover attorney retainers. JQTaxpayer, get ready to "open 'em up".

Finally, here is material appearing in Today's Times relating to any a number of X-ings in the New York region:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/nyreg ... anger.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use quotation under 17USC, Sec 107

The former police chief in Elmwood Park, N.J., vividly remembers the moment 30 years ago when the gates at the railroad crossing on the edge of town lowered on the bus carrying his son and his classmates on a field trip.

Suddenly, they were trapped on the tracks, with a train bearing down.

“The fathers got out and started trying to push the rails off the bus so it could move,” the former chief, Don Ingrasselino, recalled. “We were all shouting at the bus driver to move, move. She was finally able to get out of there, but I still think about how many kids could have died that day.”

Through the decades, Mr. Ingrasselino would respond as a police officer and chief to a number of tragedies at the crossing, where Midland Avenue intersects with New Jersey Transit tracks at a sharp angle through his Bergen County town.

“It’s not even an accident waiting to happen,” said Mr. Ingrasselino, who retired in 2012. “It’s an accident that’s been happening, over and over. It’s ridiculous.”

GBN:

Interesting article from the NY Times about dangerous grade crossings - I will add that five of these crossings
are in a 17 mile stretch of the LIRR Ronkonkoma Branch which was electrified during the second half of the
1980s...Two of them - the Stewart Avenue crossing in Bethpage and the Washington Avenue/Brentwood Road
crossing in Brentwood - are located at the Bethpage and Brentwood LIRR stations respectively...

This makes me ask about how much more the Hicksville-Ronkonkoma Electrification project would have cost
had the MTA decided to eliminate all of the grade crossings in this roughly 25 mile route...

I am all for Operation Lifesaver and grade crossing safety in the aftermath of the MNCR Valhalla tragedy but
after this incident fades with time we all need to focus on how at risk crossings can be made safer - I think
that stricter enforcement and installing features like camera surveillance can be used as some posters here
have mentioned...

I hope that something constructive comes out of this tragic accident that will help make grade crossings safer
because unless billions of dollars are spent to eliminate them they are not going away anytime soon...

MACTRAXX

justalurker66 wrote:

ACeInTheHole wrote:Bollards on the sides leading up to crossings and then a flip up steel plate, you know those they use in some parking garages.. So thus, if you think you can beat the train, see what that steel flip up plate has to say about it

Your solution does nothing to help the driver already on the tracks when the train approaches.

(the prohibitively expensive aside) if the flip up places were not a vertical plate, meant to act purely as a barricade or wall, but a plate in the ground where the end outside the track area rotated upward, creating a ramp, then maybe that could help? I mean, hard to explain so hopefully you could visualize it, the side that goes up would be what cars trying to enter would hit,retarding their progress outright, whereas on the other side, the bottom being level with the ground would let drivers stuck use it like a ramp to get out...

Ugh, my brain is not functioning...hopefully you understand what I mean. Of course, I'm not saying we should do it, or that it's a perfect panacea to a problem, just trying to think about if a design could exist that would allow those inside to get out, while keeping those cars outside from getting in, and doing such thinking in a vacuum outside of other grade crossing design issues, cost issues, that would realistically need to be taken into account.

I understand what you mean ... something that if the tires hit it from the track side it would push back down but if the tires hit it from the non-track side it would provide a curb effect. Prohibitively expensive aside, that would work while the tires were on the device but the device would need to be designed so it would stay down for long enough for the vehicle to exit and only return to full height after the vehicle passes. Otherwise it would pop up under a small car and scrape the bottom of the vehicle, encouraging the driver to slow down and/or stop instead of getting off of the crossing. (It would need to be low enough so the bumper of a low vehicle would not scrape.)

Yes, big picture is that it is better to scrape up the undercarriage of your car than get hit by a train ... but anything that slows the driver down when leaving the track is bad. A young driver lost her life last year in LaPorte Indiana because she got trapped between quad gates and did not simply ram the gate in front of her to get off of the tracks. I'm sure she's not the only one to ever make that mistake.

Crossing designers use flimsy square tubes with red and white reflectors and red lights as a barrier to keep people off of the tracks. Don't hit this tube! And for the most part it works ... people do not ram the gates to get on to the crossings. But we expect that people will push through the same type of gate to exit the tracks. It is like putting up a stop sign and expecting people to go. That is why I would like to see a crossing intrusion system where the second gate does not come down unless the crossing is clear in that direction. Give people an easy and highly visible way out.

I do not remember if the crossing in Valhalla had a "do not stop on tracks" reminder sign. Most of the signs I have seen are before the tracks. A "clear the tracks" sign on the exit side might help. Human factors are important. In an emergency someone needs to take control and if the driver in harm's way gets flustered a firm reminder may help.

I do not see a barrier that would in any way keep a car on the track to be helpful ... even if it were affordable.

justalurker66 wrote:I understand what you mean ... something that if the tires hit it from the track side it would push back down but if the tires hit it from the non-track side it would provide a curb effect. Prohibitively expensive aside, that would work while the tires were on the device but the device would need to be designed so it would stay down for long enough for the vehicle to exit and only return to full height after the vehicle passes. Otherwise it would pop up under a small car and scrape the bottom of the vehicle, encouraging the driver to slow down and/or stop instead of getting off of the crossing. (It would need to be low enough so the bumper of a low vehicle would not scrape.)

Yes, big picture is that it is better to scrape up the undercarriage of your car than get hit by a train ... but anything that slows the driver down when leaving the track is bad. A young driver lost her life last year in LaPorte Indiana because she got trapped between quad gates and did not simply ram the gate in front of her to get off of the tracks. I'm sure she's not the only one to ever make that mistake.

Crossing designers use flimsy square tubes with red and white reflectors and red lights as a barrier to keep people off of the tracks. Don't hit this tube! And for the most part it works ... people do not ram the gates to get on to the crossings. But we expect that people will push through the same type of gate to exit the tracks. It is like putting up a stop sign and expecting people to go. That is why I would like to see a crossing intrusion system where the second gate does not come down unless the crossing is clear in that direction. Give people an easy and highly visible way out.

I do not remember if the crossing in Valhalla had a "do not stop on tracks" reminder sign. Most of the signs I have seen are before the tracks. A "clear the tracks" sign on the exit side might help. Human factors are important. In an emergency someone needs to take control and if the driver in harm's way gets flustered a firm reminder may help.

I do not see a barrier that would in any way keep a car on the track to be helpful ... even if it were affordable.

They also work very poorly in this region with snow/ice gunking up the mechanism, a winter's worth of road sand/salt gunking up the mechanism, and the freeze/thaw cycle inducing faster fatigue. They're a lot more common in warmer and/or more arid climates out west and in Europe, and to the extent they're used in cold climates they work better when it's universally cold without the daily freeze-thaw and where you're more likely to see snow tires on a majority of cars and chains-on-tires on majority of trucks because of the relative ineffectiveness of treating the road surface with melt product below a certain temperature. It's something Amtrak may suck it up and do on the NEC crossings in track-speed territory in Waterford and Stonington where neverending MoW maintenance is worth the reduced liability, but otherwise the proverbial 'rain-snow' line traced through the region roughly by the I-84 corridor is the flat-out lousiest place in the country to try any pop-up protection at the road surface level.