UTA Frontrunner 02-04-25 Layton accident

[UserNameRequired]

I ran across this video today from Layton. This behavior of getting trapped by the crossing gate and not wanting to break on through to get out of the way of the train is interesting to me (although we don’t know, maybe the auto engine stalled?). They already took a hit to the tailgate, so the vehicle won’t get damaged much more from the gate.

I have a thought that people get so trained and ingrained to never cross a train crossing gate that they wont even do that to escape the obviously dangerous situation they are in. It is quite sad. Is this behavior caused by surprise factor resulting in one’s mind’s performance falling to the level of training you have had?



EDIT Do some vehicles automatically force the brakes on if they “detect” an object behind the vehicle? That would be so frustrating and a reason I could see to bail out. I have an older Buick that beeps when it detects something.

 

[Stevenz]

I think the DSM-5 categorises this behaviour as “chronic non-benign stupidity.” Or, to be more charitable, obliviousness to the world beyond one’s nose. The only thing this person did right was to get out of the car. I would dearly love to know what his insurance company thinks of this video. Just the cost of damage to public property is substantial.

I have never heard of a feature on a car (Consumer Reports would mention it) that automatically brakes when reversing. Going forward, yes, a collision avoidance system, but not backwards.

 

[UserNameRequired]

… I would dearly love to know what his insurance company thinks of this video. Just the cost of damage to public property is substantial.
…

I noted female shoes on the non-blurred portion of the driver. (Males and females both wreck vehicles). One other story noted $100,000 damage to the train only.

 

[tgstubbs1]

I think there might be auto-braking in reverse on some vehicles, but this car could have easily pulled forward. After all, they had already passed the gates.
?

 

[zephyr17]

The only thing this person did right was to get out of the car. I would dearly love to know what his insurance company thinks of this video.

The insurance company thinks the driver is liable and it will have to pay.

The fact the driver was at a grade crossing fouling the tracks, whatever the reason, crossing arms or not, is a case of dead bang liability since the video proves the grade crossing warning devices activated properly. The insurance company will not fight liability and their responsibility to pay because they know they don't have a case. They may go back and forth with UTA about the amount a bit, but UTA can probably back up their numbers pretty well.

I don't know about UTA, but Amtrak goes after drivers (or their estates) that cause grade crossing accidents.

Since the damage pay out will be over a few hundred dollars, the accident is "chargeable" meaning the driver will get dinged on their premium come renewal time. If they had another collision within 3 years their insurance company may refuse to renew.

I hope the driver has a good, high limit on their Liability-Property Damage coverage. A lot of people don't carry more than $50K in PD. If the damage exceeds the coverage limits, the insurance company will cut a check for the limit and walk away, leaving the driver on the hook for the balance. Also, paying out the policy limit also ends the insurance company's "duty to defend" the driver. If the driver wants a legal defense, they'll have to pay for it themselves, the insurance company isn't obligated to provide a defense after having paid the limit. Though the insurance company paying out and walking doesn't bode well for a successful defense. The driver would probably be better served by putting their money towards a bankruptcy attorney rather than a defense.

As to whether the insurance company "thinks" that this is in any way extraordinary, they don't. As far as the insurance company is concerned it's just another Tuesday.

 

[GDRRiley]

This seems a little less cut and dry given the car got hit into the intersection. Then they chose to partial back up over going forwards or all the way back.

 

[Stevenz]

The insurance company thinks the driver is liable and it will have to pay.

The fact the driver was at a grade crossing fouling the tracks, whatever the reason, crossing arms or not, is a case of dead bang liability since the video proves the grade crossing warning devices activated properly. The insurance company will not fight liability and their responsibility to pay because they know they don't have a case. They may go back and forth with UTA about the amount a bit, but UTA can probably back up their numbers pretty well.

I don't know about UTA, but Amtrak goes after drivers (or their estates) that cause grade crossing accidents.

Since the damage pay out will be over a few hundred dollars, the accident is "chargeable" meaning the driver will get dinged on their premium come renewal time. If they had another collision within 3 years their insurance company may refuse to renew.

I hope the driver has a good, high limit on their Liability-Property Damage coverage. A lot of people don't carry more than $50K in PD. If the damage exceeds the coverage limits, the insurance company will cut a check for the limit and walk away, leaving the driver on the hook for the balance. Also, paying out the policy limit also ends the insurance company's "duty to defend" the driver. If the driver wants a legal defense, they'll have to pay for it themselves, the insurance company isn't obligated to provide a defense after having paid the limit. Though the insurance company paying out and walking doesn't bode well for a successful defense. The driver would probably be better served by putting their money towards a bankruptcy attorney rather than a defense.

As to whether the insurance company "thinks" that this is in any way extraordinary, they don't. As far as the insurance company is concerned it's just another Tuesday.

It sounds like you’re in the insurance business so I can’t much argue with you but if I was the company I would say you put yourself in harm’s way by deliberate negligence and we don’t insure that sort of thing. Or if one was to, say, deliberately park in front of a speeding bus and the bus hit them the insurance company might just raise the premium next time? I clearly don’t understand the insurance business. Or maybe I’d like to have that insurance company.

 

[zephyr17]

It sounds like you’re in the insurance business so I can’t much argue with you but if I was the company I would say you put yourself in harm’s way by deliberate negligence and we don’t insure that sort of thing. Or if one was to, say, deliberately park in front of a speeding bus and the bus hit them the insurance company might just raise the premium next time? I clearly don’t understand the insurance business. Or maybe I’d like to have that insurance company.

You would have to prove that they deliberately drove onto the tracks with the intent to get hit by a train. Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts. That is very tough to actually prove and not worth the money to try. Plus they'd be painting a giant target on their backs for the Utah insurance commission. It is intentionally difficult to deny liability coverage.

It is simple negligence. Simple negligence, like texting, causing accidents is pretty much what insurance is for. And not very many repeated incidents of simple negligence will cause an insurance company to drop you. But it won't cause denial of coverage.

Anyway, this is just another day and not exceptional in any way to an insurance carrier, especially since only property damage appears to be involved. It is an easy case, with the driver's insurance adjuster and UTA's insurance or loss prevention people clearing it off their desks with minimum time and trouble, pretty much with UTA just documenting their costs and the driver's insurance cutting a check to cover them.

Then underwriting will decide whether or not they're willing to renew the policy and decide how much of a premium increase to hit them with if they are.

PS, Warren Buffett's fortune is founded in insurance. So there's that.

 

[AniAni]

I ran across this video today from Layton. This behavior of getting trapped by the crossing gate and not wanting to break on through to get out of the way of the train is interesting to me (although we don’t know, maybe the auto engine stalled?). They already took a hit to the tailgate, so the vehicle won’t get damaged much more from the gate.

I have a thought that people get so trained and ingrained to never cross a train crossing gate that they wont even do that to escape the obviously dangerous situation they are in. It is quite sad. Is this behavior caused by surprise factor resulting in one’s mind’s performance falling to the level of training you have had?



EDIT Do some vehicles automatically force the brakes on if they “detect” an object behind the vehicle? That would be so frustrating and a reason I could see to bail out. I have an older Buick that beeps when it detects something.

Interesting! I hadn’t considered that situation. Now I will! Thanks!

 

[rookzie]

So now someone needs to get the driver of that pickup cited and put on the hook for all that damage compensation; so far no one has mentioned this.

 

[TomPittsfieldMA]

This is an extraordinarly complete set of video clips, which reveal a complex situation.

There were two separate accidents.

First accident: The car that got hit was appropriately stopped before the gate. The car behind pushed it only the tracks.

Second accident: The first car then started to back up but stopped with its rear bumper against the gate: it couldn't back up further to clear the tracks because of the car behind it hadn't moved. When the car that started all this then did pull back, the first car tried to move back and encountered significant restistance from the gate. There's no reason to expect that an ordinary driver would know that the gate would break away, and very little time to process the situation. So with the passenger train bearing down, the driver understandably escaped. And evefything happened within seconds.

It seems to me that the fault is entirely with the driver who caused the first accident.

 

[Asher]

Looks to me like some automatic function stopped the SUV from moving after interference from that crossing guard, the driver definitely knew he had to clear the crossing. Thankfully he was able to get out of the vehicle.

“Many modern vehicles are equipped with an "Automatic Emergency Braking" (AEB) system which can automatically apply the brakes when it detects an imminent collision with an object, essentially "locking" the brakes if necessary to avoid or mitigate a crash; this feature is becoming increasingly common in new cars and is considered a standard safety feature on many models.”

 

[UserNameRequired]

So now someone needs to get the driver of that pickup cited and put on the hook for all that damage compensation; so far no one has mentioned this.

Isn’t the truck only responsible for the first hit, the light rear ending of the SUV? This is always what I have been taught about it as a non-insurance person.

If a Peterbilt rear ends my Yugo at at stop light, and they shove me into the Maserati in front of me which totals it, I am the person that hit the supercar and my insurance ends up paying for the Maserati.

 

[Stevenz]

I didn’t see any fault by the pick up truck. When it backed up there was room for the car to be clear of the tracks.

So the dilemma is to not get the heck off the tracks for fear of breaking a gate or a window, or leave the car on the tracks and … whatever.

By the way, any idea what that signal light would cost to fix?

 

[Stevenz]

Looks to me like some automatic function stopped the SUV from moving after interference from that crossing guard, the driver definitely knew he had to clear the crossing. Thankfully he was able to get out of the vehicle.

“Many modern vehicles are equipped with an "Automatic Emergency Braking" (AEB) system which can automatically apply the brakes when it detects an imminent collision with an object, essentially "locking" the brakes if necessary to avoid or mitigate a crash; this feature is becoming increasingly common in new cars and is considered a standard safety feature on many models.”

To my knowledge they do not work in reverse. Some systems give a warning beep if near an object in back of the car but do not apply brakes. I think the chances of this accident being down to a malfunction of the car are very remote. Until we have Train Collision Avoidance Systems it seems the best thing to do is not stop on tracks. Heck, it makes me nervous to stop on a track even if I know the line has been abandoned for decades.