Railroad crossing accidents

[Dakota 400]

One thing I think may help somewhat, is to add a “street” traffic light to grade crossings.
I think that the fact that it’s a highway installed and maintained apparatus may carry more “clout” with some drivers, than the flashing lights on the crossbuck poles, installed and maintained by the railroads. It should not be that way, but unfortunately, I perceive that it is.

There are some crossings that do have that, that are interlocked to work together...I wonder if the stats on accidents at those crossings would support my theory, or not?

We have a crossing with the main line that runs through our community that has traffic signals that work in conjunction with the railroad signals. To my knowledge, there has never been an accident at that crossing.

 

[Qapla]

We have some that have crossings and intersections - like this


Even though there are lights, warning signs and cautions, it is surprising how many people who stop at this light will do so sitting on the tracks while waiting for the light to turn green.

 

[TrackWalker]

I am wondering if there is a way for an employee on the train to take a picture or jot down the license plate number of a vehicle that is being naughty on the railroad tracks such that it can be "tracked" and sent a citation even if no harm ends up being done. Perhaps this is already in practice, but I don't know about it because ever since my shoe got caught between some railroad ties when a train was coming, I have been exceedingly subservient to trains.

BNSF has what is known as a "near miss" report train crews can fill out if they are able to get the needed information quickly enough.

 

[Cal]

I've previously suggested an inexpensive help - cameras that activate (and locally store information) when the lights are activated and a vehicle or pedestrian is detected in the zone. The police can then decide to look at the data if there are a lot of incidents and start sending out warning letters and/or tickets to offenders.

I support this...

 

[Cal]

We have some that have crossings and intersections - like this
View attachment 21027

Even though there are lights, warning signs and cautions, it is surprising how many people who stop at this light will do so sitting on the tracks while waiting for the light to turn green.

I have seen several situations where people waiting for the light sit on top of the tracks! One place I recall very well is near Surprise, Arizona along the BNSF tracks (No idea of the subdivision).

 

[PeeweeTM]

One thing I think may help somewhat, is to add a “street” traffic light to grade crossings.
I think that the fact that it’s a highway installed and maintained apparatus may carry more “clout” with some drivers, than the flashing lights on the crossbuck poles, installed and maintained by the railroads. It should not be that way, but unfortunately, I perceive that it is.

There are some crossings that do have that, that are interlocked to work together...I wonder if the stats on accidents at those crossings would support my theory, or not?

We were just thinking to do that to a crossing near one of our workshops! It may look more familiar (as a place where you are likely to get ticketed...?)

Just hoping car drivers won't turn right after a rolling stop too often.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.

I don't mind people who drive aggressively when conditions allow but when I'm driving around pedestrians I slow down and take my time. Where are we going that maiming or killing strangers would seem reasonable on the way? Telling people to "be safe" is not a practical solution and many college students have barely left their childhood home at that point. I'd rather give up a bit of road to keep students safe from angry drivers with a victim complex.

 

[ehbowen]

We had a particularly bad summer around here in 2007. In June, an unlicensed teenager stole an SUV, packed it with five of his underaged friends, and took a joyride around Baytown after dark. He drove towards an (unsignaled) crossing on a secondary road at top speed, intending to "catch some air". A train was parked, stopped, on the crossing. The SUV plowed directly into it, killing all four of the passengers in the rear seat. The driver was sentenced to eight years as a juvenile for murder; no idea how much time he actually served.

In August 2007, former Houston Rockets player Eddie Griffin drove around a crossing gate, ignoring lights and bells, and was killed in the ensuing collision.

Also in August 2007, three teenagers were killed when they also ignored warning lights and drove around the gates. They drove directly into the path of the Amtrak Sunset Limited which was making 55 mph. They were identified only by the license plate of their crumpled vehicle.

Serious business.

Article from the Houston Chronicle, August 23, 2007.

 

[railiner]

We were just thinking to do that to a crossing near one of our workshops! It may look more familiar (as a place where you are likely to get ticketed...?)

.

That’s my point...driver’s may respect a standard solid red traffic light, over the traditional flashing red crossing lights.

As for those “trapped” by a red light beyond the tracks, on the tracks; that signal should also be interlocked and remain green for a few seconds longer, than the preceding one before the tracks, to allow time to clear the tracks...

 

[joelkfla]

As for those “trapped” by a red light beyond the tracks, on the tracks; that signal should also be interlocked and remain green for a few seconds longer, than the preceding one before the tracks, to allow time to clear the tracks...

Better yet: have it tied to an intrusion detector.

 

[John Bredin]

We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.

It is the same way with train crossings.

I respectfully but firmly disagree that they're the same thing. A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion. While I don't think pedestrians should just cross the street willy-nilly, they are proper users of the street as a whole, and it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.

While I don't cross the street without looking for traffic, I have frequently (after confirming no vehicle is coming towards me) crossed streets in the middle of the block and/or against the traffic signal. Well-populated areas of towns and cities, where people actually walk sometimes to get around, are full of people doing the same. It ain't the jays (old slang similar to hicks) who jaywalk.

Nonetheless, too many places value above all not "impairing the travel of the cars" to any significant degree. Bike lines, bus lanes, stop signs, mid-block crosswalks with signs and flashing yellow lights, lower speed limits; all are unacceptable to the motoring public, which to many officials is the only public that counts. All duties to the pedestrian, all rights to the motorist, though the latter is the one who by license is in control of a ton or more propelled at 30, or 40, or 50 mph. And when some towns or cities do decide to address the matter, they run into criticism that echoes your post: the solutions being proposed are unfairly aimed at the motorists instead of just telling the pedestrians to watch where they're going.

Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.

 

[LookingGlassTie]

One thing I think will help is to trim back trees and other growth from around RR crossings.

I had started a thread a while back about a fatal incident that occurred not far from where I live. The driver was killed after her vehicle collided with a CSX freight. There were no gates at that crossing at the time (not sure about signs) and there were trees, bushes and such which were obstructing the view. As far as I know, gates have since been erected at that crossing (or at least the plan is to install them there).

I don't know if the driver stopped or slowed down to look/listen out for trains or not, but based on news reports, I don't think she was necessarily being careless. It was just a tragic situation all around.

Having said all that, approaching any railroad crossing should be treated the same way as a gun (treat all guns as if they're loaded). In other words, ALWAYS assume that a train is coming.

$0.02

 

[Barb Stout]

I respectfully but firmly disagree that they're the same thing. A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion. While I don't think pedestrians should just cross the street willy-nilly, they are proper users of the street as a whole, and it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.

While I don't cross the street without looking for traffic, I have frequently (after confirming no vehicle is coming towards me) crossed streets in the middle of the block and/or against the traffic signal. Well-populated areas of towns and cities, where people actually walk sometimes to get around, are full of people doing the same. It ain't the jays (old slang similar to hicks) who jaywalk.

Nonetheless, too many places value above all not "impairing the travel of the cars" to any significant degree. Bike lines, bus lanes, stop signs, mid-block crosswalks with signs and flashing yellow lights, lower speed limits; all are unacceptable to the motoring public, which to many officials is the only public that counts. All duties to the pedestrian, all rights to the motorist, though the latter is the one who by license is in control of a ton or more propelled at 30, or 40, or 50 mph. And when some towns or cities do decide to address the matter, they run into criticism that echoes your post: the solutions being proposed are unfairly aimed at the motorists instead of just telling the pedestrians to watch where they're going.

Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.

Some interesting and good points. Not only have I seen "both sides now", but I have also seen 3 sides now as a driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist.

 

[Barb Stout]

Just today I read someone's comment on the Next Door app where they were criticizing something by saying, "It's just like all that railroad crossing signage..". So he's an example of someone who just ignores signage, but going around crossing gates takes it to whole other level.

 

[Qapla]

A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion

While I agree that the road/street/highway has room for cars, bicycles and pedestrians - they must all obey the laws that apply to them. If we are going to hold the cars to obey the speed limit, we should also hold the pedestrians to cross with the light at crosswalks. If we adopt the idea that it is OK for pedestrians to disobey the laws that apply to their use of the road ... why hold the cars to also obey the laws?

it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.

Calling it a street or a road is just semantics, at least to me it is. I don't know where you live but have you ever been to a college town where the campus sits on the corner of a State Highway and a US Highway - both roads carrying traffic that is made of cars, semi-trucks, delivery vehicles with local and through traffic sharing the thoroughfare? Have you experienced the number of students who do not look before they cross?

Yes, I agree, the vehicle traffic should not be given a free hand to drive as they want - just that the "fix" should include the pedestrians using the same caution and obeying the laws as we expect the cars to do.

Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.

The parity is good - as long as they are held to the laws just as the cars are.

To get back to the topic of the thread ... I only used the example of this particular road because it has been in our local news. All to often the blame, and therefore the "responsibility" and "changes" are placed on the larger machine "only" instead of expecting all to do their part. A good example of that is the number of train vs car crashes that have occurred due to cars "running the gates" and people saying the trains should "do something" about it. Then, if the gates are extended all the way across the road and preventing anyone from bypassing them when they are down, people complain because they don't want to wait if they think they have time to beat the train.

While making crossings safer is a good idea - it does not replace the benefit of "Stop-Look-Listen" and obeying the laws. If the gates are down - Do Not Go Around Them. If a car does and gets hit - don't blame the train and don't phrase the headline as "Train Hits Car"

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If the gates are down - Do Not Go Around Them. If a car does and gets hit - don't blame the train and don't phrase the headline as "Train Hits Car"

"Rather than phrase it correctly let's butcher the wording so an illiterate reader will not misapply blame."

 

[ehbowen]

How about, "Was It Suicide, Or the Single-Minded Pursuit Of A Darwin Award?"

 

[MARC Rider]

I've previously suggested an inexpensive help - cameras that activate (and locally store information) when the lights are activated and a vehicle or pedestrian is detected in the zone. The police can then decide to look at the data if there are a lot of incidents and start sending out warning letters and/or tickets to offenders.

Why just warning letters? We have red light cameras all over our city, and I presume that driver who get caught on camera running a red light get a nice fat traffic ticket.

 

[me_little_me]

Why just warning letters? We have red light cameras all over our city, and I presume that driver who get caught on camera running a red light get a nice fat traffic ticket.

That solution is disliked by a lot of people because of its Big Brother feeling and in many places, it has been voted down or prohibited by law because of that resistance. So I hesitate to suggest tickets as a first solution and leave that for scofflaws. But more importantly, it shows where a problem exists and it might take more signage, crossing gates instead of signs or a police car at random hours to give out a ticket (since no radar is required in the police car).

When an officer is not busy, they are often doing their paperwork in their car to catch up. I requested our local town police that they park in our neighborhood at the bottom of the hill so even though the officer doesn't have the town's one radar unit, it is amazing how people slow down when they come over the hill and suddenly they see a police car facing them.

Prevention is the key. Enforcement is only necessary when prevention fails. And cameras really help to understand what happened when an accident occurs and the occupants of the vehicle are in too many pieces to give their side of the story. The train's camera only shows what the train sees and if it comes around a curve, it may miss what preceded.

The main thing is that the stationary camera with no wi-fi or cell-tower transmission is an inexpensive but big deterrent especially when it is accompanied by clear "camera in use" warning signs.

 

[MARC Rider]

That solution is disliked by a lot of people because of its Big Brother feeling and in many places, it has been voted down or prohibited by law because of that resistance. So I hesitate to suggest tickets as a first solution and leave that for scofflaws. But more importantly, it shows where a problem exists and it might take more signage, crossing gates instead of signs or a police car at random hours to give out a ticket (since no radar is required in the police car).

Yeah, I know the feeling. I once got a speed camera ticket, and I do find speed cameras annoying because many times the posted speed limits are far below what the road is engineered to safely handle. Thus, the speed cameras are a kind of entrapment. On the other hand, I have no problem with red light cameras. Speeding a little might not be so bad, but running red lights is really evil and dangerous to others. And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.

The problem with them is that the city isn't really transparent about whether these are used for safety or for revenue enhancement. They originally deployed them by contracting with a vendor who provided the equipment and took a cut of the fines. That let to suspicions that the vendor was setting up the cameras on a hair trigger in order to maximize the fines collected. This is more a problem with the speed cameras, where environmental factors can interfere with the radar signals. In fact, I once got a speed camera ticket that seemed off. I downloaded the camera images and radar data, went back to where the alleged violation occurred, and measured the distance between the two recorded locations of my car. This distance wasn't as far as it should have been if I had been traveling as fast as the camera system claims. I was going to challenge in court, but the city had a lot more problems with inaccurate speed cameras than mine, and they ended up dropping a lot of cases (including mine) and even shutting down the speed cameras for a while. But, as I said, this is more a problem with speed cameras than red light cameras.

 

[cocojacoby]

There are better options:

 

[me_little_me]

Yeah, I know the feeling. I once got a speed camera ticket, and I do find speed cameras annoying because many times the posted speed limits are far below what the road is engineered to safely handle. Thus, the speed cameras are a kind of entrapment. On the other hand, I have no problem with red light cameras. Speeding a little might not be so bad, but running red lights is really evil and dangerous to others. And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.

The problem with them is that the city isn't really transparent about whether these are used for safety or for revenue enhancement. They originally deployed them by contracting with a vendor who provided the equipment and took a cut of the fines. That let to suspicions that the vendor was setting up the cameras on a hair trigger in order to maximize the fines collected. This is more a problem with the speed cameras, where environmental factors can interfere with the radar signals. In fact, I once got a speed camera ticket that seemed off. I downloaded the camera images and radar data, went back to where the alleged violation occurred, and measured the distance between the two recorded locations of my car. This distance wasn't as far as it should have been if I had been traveling as fast as the camera system claims. I was going to challenge in court, but the city had a lot more problems with inaccurate speed cameras than mine, and they ended up dropping a lot of cases (including mine) and even shutting down the speed cameras for a while. But, as I said, this is more a problem with speed cameras than red light cameras.

The other issue with speed cameras was that some municipalities reduced the yellow light time. I believe that yellow lights nowadays stay on much linger than they used to and there is also a delay between when one light turns red and the other one turns green and I believe this time has increased from years past when it was zero. Supposedly, some municipalities have reduced these times for red light camera signals only which confuses drivers.

 

[me_little_me]

There are better options:View attachment 21274

That's an alternative for a FEW of the many crossings - the ones with gates. It is also EXPENSIVE. For those with just signals or just crossbucks, it is not a reasonable alternative to a simple solar-powered battery camera and a warning sign.

As to your comment - being better - building all overpasses and underpasses is even BETTER but the price is very high even compared to your solution.

 

[railiner]

And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.

And everywhere else, AFAIK...because the camera image is not good enough to positively identify the driver thru facial recognition, the image is designed to capture the license plate, and then cite the registered owner of the vehicle, which may be or not be, the same as the violating driver. Hence, no points assessed.

 

[Qapla]

Since a stationary camera at a RR crossing would/should be aimed at the area of the crossing where the track cross the road - it would/should not be difficult to show that the vehicle photographed is on-the-tracks when the gates are down - there should not be the same "technicalities" that are involved in a speeding camera or even a red light camera.

A vehicle is on the tracks with the gate down or it is not - fairly simple.

As for crossings without gates - that would not be helped with an enforcement camera.