# Metrolink Train Strikes Car - First Use of Video Cams



## leemell (Dec 27, 2009)

A Toyota Camry that had pulled over for a police car with its siren blaring was rear-ended by a Nissan pickup Wednesday morning in the San Fernando Valley, with the impact sending the truck careening onto nearby railroad tracks, where it was struck by a Metrolink commuter train, authorities said.

[snip]

The collisions occurred about 7 a.m., halting train service on the Antelope Valley Line at the height of the morning rush. The No. 201 train was traveling north to Lancaster.

[snip]

The Federal Railroad Administration, which investigates some accidents, will not be involved. Rob Kulat, a spokesman for the administration, acknowledged the "unusual set of circumstances" of the accident but said it did not appear to involve malfunctioning safety equipment.

Starr said investigators would look at the data from three cameras that were placed on all Metrolink locomotives in October, one that shows the tracks in front of the engine, one in the cab facing the engineer and another showing the control panel.

The $1-million camera initiative made Metrolink the first railway in the country to use this type of system.

[snip]

Investigators studying Wednesday's crash will also examine the train's tapes, Starr said, which record data such as speed and radio transmissions, and measure braking distances, similar to a black box on an airplane.

"There was no indication the driver [of the train] was doing anything other than what he was supposed to," said Richard Katz, vice chairman of Metrolink's board.

The maximum train speed in that area is 79 mph, said Francisco Oaxaca, a Metrolink spokesman.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Dec 27, 2009)

Talk about bad luck! Really terrible for the driver of the truck. I sort of hope the tapes appear online it would be interesting to see the new system up and running.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 27, 2009)

and the stupid union wants to sue to have those cameras removed.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 27, 2009)

I wholeheartedly think that the DASH cams which look out the firemans side of the cab are a good thing, and I don't think that's the point the Union is arguing. I think the point they're trying to make is they don't want the cameras that are focused on the Engineer and the control stand. I agree with them in this point. In the United States, that I'm aware of, it's unprecedented. If you look at buses, subways, fairies, airplanes, and other rail lines many have forward facing cameras to monitor the road (or whatever) and passenger compartments for security reasons. However, I personally think it's a bit intrusive to do what Metrolink is doing. These men and women are professionals, and should be treated as such. If you can't trust them to do their jobs, then find someone who will. Mistakes will happen, but we as a society are so interested in pointing fingers. If you had a camera that showed the Engineer was at fault, what's the point? The lives have been lost, and the damage done. It's moot at that point. Let these guys do their jobs.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 27, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I wholeheartedly think that the DASH cams which look out the firemans side of the cab are a good thing, and I don't think that's the point the Union is arguing. I think the point they're trying to make is they don't want the cameras that are focused on the Engineer and the control stand. I agree with them in this point. In the United States, that I'm aware of, it's unprecedented. If you look at buses, subways, fairies, airplanes, and other rail lines many have forward facing cameras to monitor the road (or whatever) and passenger compartments for security reasons. However, I personally think it's a bit intrusive to do what Metrolink is doing. These men and women are professionals, and should be treated as such. If you can't trust them to do their jobs, then find someone who will. Mistakes will happen, but we as a society are so interested in pointing fingers. If you had a camera that showed the Engineer was at fault, what's the point? The lives have been lost, and the damage done. It's moot at that point. Let these guys do their jobs.


Why is this different from cockpit voice and data recorders?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 27, 2009)

Buses have videos of the drivers, in fact there is a video running around the net that shows a bus driver of a handicaped vehicle texting while driving and then crashing the bus because traffic stopped and he didn't notice. And the camera is quite clearly focused on him.

Additionally bank tellers are generally taped, as are many cashiers in stores to ensure that they aren't stealing. In fact, when I worked for JCPenny 30 years ago we had cameras over some of the registers. They moved them around so you never knew if your register was being taped that day, but every register was setup for them to plug in one of several cameras they had.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 27, 2009)

I understand your point Alan. I've got a camera over the current front desk I work at, in case I get robbed. The new desk I'll be working in a couple of weeks is littered with cameras, because it's in a high profile building. If there's a threat to your business on a daily business, then, yes, by all means have a camera. Also, I stand corrected with the bus driver incident. That still however does not mean that I abandon my position that it's an intrusion. We as a society are too focused on filling a position now, rather than filling it with the right person for the job. Hire the right people for the right jobs and you'll have fewer problems.

Petaluma, thank you for demonstrating my point. They have VOICE and DATA recorders. Not VIDEO recorders.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 27, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I understand your point Alan. I've got a camera over the current front desk I work at, in case I get robbed. The new desk I'll be working in a couple of weeks is littered with cameras, because it's in a high profile building. If there's a threat to your business on a daily business, then, yes, by all means have a camera. Also, I stand corrected with the bus driver incident. That still however does not mean that I abandon my position that it's an intrusion. We as a society are too focused on filling a position now, rather than filling it with the right person for the job. Hire the right people for the right jobs and you'll have fewer problems.
> Petaluma, thank you for demonstrating my point. They have VOICE and DATA recorders. Not VIDEO recorders.


OK. You know they're thinking about video recording, since that Buffalo plane crash. It's a matter of time.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 27, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> If you can't trust them to do their jobs, then find someone who will.


How are you to know that you can't trust someone to do their jobs unless you have a way of knowing what goes on in the cab?


> If you had a camera that showed the Engineer was at fault, what's the point?


Fire the engineer, determine if the problem is systematic and take steps to overcome them? You've also got to consider the alternative where the videotape exonerates the engineer and provides evidence to the fact that the problem lies elsewhere. Without the cameras the problem would go undetected, waiting to kill another day.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 27, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't trust them to do their jobs, then find someone who will.
> ...


This is why they have efficiency tests. They'll do banner tests, radar checks, random tape pulling, etc. to make sure everything is ok. I still stand by my position. You may not agree with it, but you can't say my stance is factually wrong. It IS an invasion of privacy in my opinion.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 27, 2009)

I never claimed that it was factually wrong, since there were no facts to dispute (unless you're saying "invasion of privacy" in a constitutional sense, then you are wrong). You're welcome to your opinion, but I'd look for the cameras to become more prevalent.


----------



## DET63 (Dec 27, 2009)

I don't think you have a "right to privacy" in the workplace, especially where public safety is involved. I can see the idea of safety in your own home; I think that's enshrined in the Constitution. But the car of a train, or the cockpit of a plane, or even behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler, is not a "private" place, IMHO.

But then again, I'm not an ACLU or even constitutional lawyer, so what do I know?


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 28, 2009)

Complete L.A. Times story:

Truck hits car, then collides with train in Pacoima; 2 critically injured

Didn't bother posting at the time (12-24) due to freakish nature of collision and the fact that no safety system can ever prevent such mishaps. Cameras are for legal butt-covering, assigning blame, and scaring people into compliance with the knowledge they're being watched.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 28, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > battalion51 said:
> ...


so you think its a invasion of privacy. so how is having a camera trained on a locomotive engineer any different then having it trained on the casher at burger king or meijers or kmart etc. the cab of the locomotive is a workplace. if a train crashed due to the engineer texting or falling asleep the camera would show that. thats my opnion. im guessing you work for the engineers union sense you and them both have the same view.


----------



## battalion51 (Dec 28, 2009)

No, I don't. I work in the hotel industry, thus how:



> I've got a camera over the current front desk I work at, in case I get robbed. The new desk I'll be working in a couple of weeks is littered with cameras, because it's in a high profile building.


I wholeheartedly agree that if you are in a place where there is high risk for you to be robbed, are in a high profile location, or if you have associates that are likely to steal from you, then yes, by all means have cameras. However, there is a fine line between associates who make $8/hour flipping burgers and Engineers who are making over $30/hour. The mind sets and level of professionalism are completely different, and your expectations as an employer are completely different.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree that if you are in a place where there is high risk for you to be robbed, are in a high profile location, or if you have associates that are likely to steal from you, then yes, by all means have cameras. However, there is a fine line between associates who make $8/hour flipping burgers and Engineers who are making over $30/hour. The mind sets and level of professionalism are completely different, and your expectations as an employer are completely different.


I'm gonna disagree with you on that point. While I'll grant you that the example I'm about to give doesn't have someone being responsible for other's lives, that doesn't change the fact that these guys are both supposed to be professional and they are well paid, and no one is showing up to rob them either.

More than 20 years ago I worked in a machine shop; we rented space within a larger building occupied by a metal fabricator. All of the employees for the fabricator were union men, and most made at least $15 an hour, with some like the arc welders making over $25 an hour and that was 20 years ago. While they didn't have a camera in their face like say the engineer, there were cameras that displayed all areas of the plant and the employees were quite visible. And the reason is that these professionals couldn't be trusted to actually do the work assigned to them in a timely manor and a few would even steal metal scraps to sell.

And this was before cell phones and the myriad of devices that we have today to help increase distractions.

I for one don't believe for a second that what one gets paid necessarily changes one's mindset about how to conduct one's job. It probably should, but it doesn't. And in this day and age, many will take jobs that they aren't perhaps qualified simply because the pay is good; assuming that they can get past the interviews and such.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 28, 2009)

As are the consequences of failure - if someone robs your hotel, your company is out some money. If an engineer screws up, dozens of people die. That changes the standards somewhat.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 28, 2009)

battalion51 said:


> No, I don't. I work in the hotel industry, thus how:
> 
> 
> > I've got a camera over the current front desk I work at, in case I get robbed. The new desk I'll be working in a couple of weeks is littered with cameras, because it's in a high profile building.
> ...


However, the only places you have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the workplace are in a locker room while changing or while in the bathroom. Any cameras in those locations will have the employer subject to fines and/or lawsuits. Otherwise the employer is free to monitor the workplace as they deem fit.


----------



## leemell (Dec 28, 2009)

PetalumaLoco said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your point Alan. I've got a camera over the current front desk I work at, in case I get robbed. The new desk I'll be working in a couple of weeks is littered with cameras, because it's in a high profile building. If there's a threat to your business on a daily business, then, yes, by all means have a camera. Also, I stand corrected with the bus driver incident. That still however does not mean that I abandon my position that it's an intrusion. We as a society are too focused on filling a position now, rather than filling it with the right person for the job. Hire the right people for the right jobs and you'll have fewer problems.
> ...


Actually it has been proposed as a response to 9/11 and is still being worked.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Dec 29, 2009)

tp49 said:


> battalion51 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I don't. I work in the hotel industry, thus how:
> ...


Walmart sued over surveillance camera in restroom.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 30, 2009)

A few years ago there was a case of train hitting school bus. Fortunately near empty so the death numbes were low. The bus was equipped with a camera to observe student behavior. In this case, by use of the camera it could be proven that the school bus driver did not stop in advance of the crossing as required by law. (The roadside trees and bushes in the camera view never stopped moving.) It was a low traffic road, so it had crossbucks only. But, the line had long sight distances both ways.

Bus driver's statement after the accident: I don't know where the train came from. It must have fallen out of the sky.

Line was a CSX line with several trains a day and a 50 or 60 mph speed limit. She played Russian Roulette one too many times.


----------

