Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Here we go again
- Thread starter Kris94
- Start date
This is very sad news.
The sad part is the railroad will be blamed for the accident anyway by the media even if the trucker is proved to be in fault.
John
The railroad is always blamed. Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right. The train will always win the matchup, so I don't know why people are so stupid and decide to attempt to do it anyways.
Last edited by a moderator:
cascaderailroad
New member
The crossing appears to be un-gated, on a slight road curve, with only a RR Xing painted on the roadway, and possibly a red flashing light crossbuck ... the truck was a total loss and the truck driver was seriously kilt'
Last edited:
Hi Everybody
Kris94, with all due respect I have to say that your statement that “Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right “is somewhat ridiculous in my view. In the recent Spanish HST and the Canadian runaway disasters the railroad had to be in the wrong as there’s were the only moving vehicles involved.
With regard to why people make seemingly senseless decisions while driving vehicles is very often found to be through lack of concentration due to other matters/problems in their lives. A driver who has serious domestic problems, financial problems, maybe living under the threat of losing their job or having problems with their health can find themselves thinking subconsciously about those matters rather than having full concentration on their driving.
Drugs and alcohol of course also play a major part in vehicle accidents. However, what is not often realised is the role that these substances can play even on the day following their use. In the case of some drugs their effects can still have a standing in a persons actions and thinking up to 24 hours following their use even though drug and alcohol testing following an accident may show them below the levels legally allowed (many of us know how hard is it to think clearly with a hangover).
The above are often found to be the real causes of an accident when the in depth investigations are carried out following a serious incident. Of course the press never report the findings of these investigations as they are often not completed until months after the accident. However they are important to insurance companies and employers when accidents occur with their vehicles or on their premises. The results then very often lead to changes to a company’s drugs and alcohol policies, testing as well as monitoring of employees known to have personal problems in their lives.
With all the above said, many people still find it easy to take a “holier than thou” attitude when it comes to vehicle accidents. I have worked in health and safety with regard to the British road haulage industry for the last 25 years. It is often said in that industry “show me a average mileage driver who claims to have never made a mistake while driving a vehicle and I will show you a liar”.
Bill
The railroad is always blamed. Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right. The train will always win the matchup, so I don't know why people are so stupid and decide to attempt to do it anyways.
Kris94, with all due respect I have to say that your statement that “Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right “is somewhat ridiculous in my view. In the recent Spanish HST and the Canadian runaway disasters the railroad had to be in the wrong as there’s were the only moving vehicles involved.
With regard to why people make seemingly senseless decisions while driving vehicles is very often found to be through lack of concentration due to other matters/problems in their lives. A driver who has serious domestic problems, financial problems, maybe living under the threat of losing their job or having problems with their health can find themselves thinking subconsciously about those matters rather than having full concentration on their driving.
Drugs and alcohol of course also play a major part in vehicle accidents. However, what is not often realised is the role that these substances can play even on the day following their use. In the case of some drugs their effects can still have a standing in a persons actions and thinking up to 24 hours following their use even though drug and alcohol testing following an accident may show them below the levels legally allowed (many of us know how hard is it to think clearly with a hangover).
The above are often found to be the real causes of an accident when the in depth investigations are carried out following a serious incident. Of course the press never report the findings of these investigations as they are often not completed until months after the accident. However they are important to insurance companies and employers when accidents occur with their vehicles or on their premises. The results then very often lead to changes to a company’s drugs and alcohol policies, testing as well as monitoring of employees known to have personal problems in their lives.
With all the above said, many people still find it easy to take a “holier than thou” attitude when it comes to vehicle accidents. I have worked in health and safety with regard to the British road haulage industry for the last 25 years. It is often said in that industry “show me a average mileage driver who claims to have never made a mistake while driving a vehicle and I will show you a liar”.
Bill
Last edited:
And something similar in Australia too with a Rail Motor Service, but involves a pedestrian crossing tracks illegally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LZz0W8yo1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LZz0W8yo1Y
Far more common than drugs or alcohol, and ever increasing, is texting or fiddling with a GPS while driving a vehicle - train, semi, or just your personal car. This has been implicated in several railway and even more trucking accidents. There was something around here a few months ago where a truck driver wasn't paying attention to low clearances while messing with a GPS and chopped the top of his trailer off while causing significant damage to an old road overpass. No one was hurt in that case, but replace that overpass with an unguarded crossing and it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Hi opus722 and everybody
Opus, you are quite right that the use of mobile phones is a significant factor in vehicle accidents. Thankfully the British authorities are cracking down quite hard on this problem with penalties for using mobile phones while driving being increased in the last few weeks to I believe £100’s roadside penalty and three penalty points on your driving licence. For vocational drivers (HGV and public service vehicle drivers) the penalties are up over £1000 and the loss of the vocational side of your driving licence for an indefinite period. The above penalties I fully support.
Going back to my earlier posting regarding problems in people’s lives making them not concentrate while driving this was clearly demonstrated in a case my company was involved with approximately 18 months ago. An HGV driver with 15 years accident free employment with one company approached a road junction with an articulated unit pulling a 40 foot trailer. At the junction he turned too sharply to the left and the trailer collided with a lamp standard and electricity junction box on the pavement causing severe damage to vehicle and pavement furniture.
We were called in by the employer to investigate and on doing so it was found he was on his cab phone when the accident happened. When asked why he was using his cab phone while driving he replied that he was phoning his electricity company with regard to a bill he was unable to pay. When we stated to him that it could have been people on the pavement that he hit, he became very distressed and advised that he never thought something like that could possibly have happened to him.
On our recommendation to the employer the driver was dismissed even though he had an exemplary past record. Our grounds where, he was employed as a professional driver and that is what he should have been concentrating on. It would also serve as an example to the other drivers in the company not to let personal issues and work combine. Of course following the above the driver had even less chance of paying his electric bill.
Bill
Far more common than drugs or alcohol, and ever increasing, is texting or fiddling with a GPS while driving a vehicle - train, semi, or just your personal car. This has been implicated in several railway and even more trucking accidents. There was something around here a few months ago where a truck driver wasn't paying attention to low clearances while messing with a GPS and chopped the top of his trailer off while causing significant damage to an old road overpass. No one was hurt in that case, but replace that overpass with an unguarded crossing and it is a disaster waiting to happen.
Opus, you are quite right that the use of mobile phones is a significant factor in vehicle accidents. Thankfully the British authorities are cracking down quite hard on this problem with penalties for using mobile phones while driving being increased in the last few weeks to I believe £100’s roadside penalty and three penalty points on your driving licence. For vocational drivers (HGV and public service vehicle drivers) the penalties are up over £1000 and the loss of the vocational side of your driving licence for an indefinite period. The above penalties I fully support.
Going back to my earlier posting regarding problems in people’s lives making them not concentrate while driving this was clearly demonstrated in a case my company was involved with approximately 18 months ago. An HGV driver with 15 years accident free employment with one company approached a road junction with an articulated unit pulling a 40 foot trailer. At the junction he turned too sharply to the left and the trailer collided with a lamp standard and electricity junction box on the pavement causing severe damage to vehicle and pavement furniture.
We were called in by the employer to investigate and on doing so it was found he was on his cab phone when the accident happened. When asked why he was using his cab phone while driving he replied that he was phoning his electricity company with regard to a bill he was unable to pay. When we stated to him that it could have been people on the pavement that he hit, he became very distressed and advised that he never thought something like that could possibly have happened to him.
On our recommendation to the employer the driver was dismissed even though he had an exemplary past record. Our grounds where, he was employed as a professional driver and that is what he should have been concentrating on. It would also serve as an example to the other drivers in the company not to let personal issues and work combine. Of course following the above the driver had even less chance of paying his electric bill.
Bill
Red_Rattler
Since 09 May 2003
Axervich, you posted on the video link that it's not a train, it's a rail motor service. And what do you think a rail motor is?And something similar in Australia too with a Rail Motor Service, but involves a pedestrian crossing tracks illegally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LZz0W8yo1Y
BOLD WORDS: You can't make a statement like that.
The railroad is always blamed. Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right. The train will always win the matchup, so I don't know why people are so stupid and decide to attempt to do it anyways.
However to the original thread starter (& others), were you actually there?
Please don't speculate on what happened or who's fault it may have been. Wait until the investigation of the accident is finished before commenting on that subject.
And the media that is linked to twice already states that the truck collided with the train, not the train collided with the train, but we will have to wait until the investigation of the accident is over.
Last edited:
Hi red rattler and everybody.
You are perfectly right red rattler, rail drivers are not infallible. You only have to look at the Spanish HST disaster to have that point proved to you. He was certainly not concentrating on his driving as he approached that bend and that ended with so many dead and many others with permanently broken lives.
Bill
You are perfectly right red rattler, rail drivers are not infallible. You only have to look at the Spanish HST disaster to have that point proved to you. He was certainly not concentrating on his driving as he approached that bend and that ended with so many dead and many others with permanently broken lives.
Bill
it's a rail motor service. And what do you think a rail motor is?
The Term 'Train' is the rollingstock being towed or hauled/pulled, like when you have a Truck Pulling 4+ Trailers it's Classified as a Train, same with Railways, a Train is the Load the Locomotives are pulling, Rail Motors are not classified as train, you either have Rail Motor or Train Service, neither are Sparks, I was just pointing out it isn't a train as the headline on Channel 7 says.
Hi Everybody
Kris94, with all due respect I have to say that your statement that “Anytime there's an accident, the railroad is always in the right “is somewhat ridiculous in my view. In the recent Spanish HST and the Canadian runaway disasters the railroad had to be in the wrong as there’s were the only moving vehicles involved.
With regard to why people make seemingly senseless decisions while driving vehicles is very often found to be through lack of concentration due to other matters/problems in their lives. A driver who has serious domestic problems, financial problems, maybe living under the threat of losing their job or having problems with their health can find themselves thinking subconsciously about those matters rather than having full concentration on their driving.
Drugs and alcohol of course also play a major part in vehicle accidents. However, what is not often realised is the role that these substances can play even on the day following their use. In the case of some drugs their effects can still have a standing in a persons actions and thinking up to 24 hours following their use even though drug and alcohol testing following an accident may show them below the levels legally allowed (many of us know how hard is it to think clearly with a hangover).
The above are often found to be the real causes of an accident when the in depth investigations are carried out following a serious incident. Of course the press never report the findings of these investigations as they are often not completed until months after the accident. However they are important to insurance companies and employers when accidents occur with their vehicles or on their premises. The results then very often lead to changes to a company’s drugs and alcohol policies, testing as well as monitoring of employees known to have personal problems in their lives.
With all the above said, many people still find it easy to take a “holier than thou” attitude when it comes to vehicle accidents. I have worked in health and safety with regard to the British road haulage industry for the last 25 years. It is often said in that industry “show me a average mileage driver who claims to have never made a mistake while driving a vehicle and I will show you a liar”.
Bill
Well said, Bill.
There are many factors that can affect a driver. Today our biggest problems are more than just drugs and health issues. We also have technology problems as well due to the misuse of mobile devices. This issue isn't regulated at the federal level here and is enforced at the local and state level if the person is proven to be at fault. Sadly, this is all after the fact once the damage was caused. The telecom industry, meaning AT&T and Verizon, have paid a good amount of money to the politicians to keep any enforceable solutions off the books. Where I live in the Commonwealth here, there is a no-texting law. The fine for texting is $500. Three offences and the driver goes to classes and their insurance goes up. That's all? Seriously! If, however, mobile devices are shown to be used during an accident, then they are taken away and the person pays high insurance and maybe some jail time. Recently a teen boy killed a man and put a woman passenger in a coma. He was texting ever 30secs prior to the accident and had over 180 text messages to the same person just before the accident. He hit these people then claimed he was focusing on his school work, showed no remorse for hitting the other car, paid the $500, and lost his license for 15 years. Anyone caught drunk or on drugs would have gone to jail for 15 years, but because this was a cell phone and texting, he paid the maximum fine for this which is $500. The loss of a license was a compromise for the manslaughter charge. In my opinion, he should have gone to jail for the irresponsible actions just like any drunk or drug addict would if they were caught driving under the influence.
In this case even if the driver is proven to be at fault, the media will make a big deal on how "bad" the railroad is. For some reason they always do this perhaps out of ignorance on how trains work. What is sad in this case too, which I feel is worse, is this is a shortline and tourist operation. They don't have that bevy of lawyers and money to fight the lawsuits that will be filed whether it's their problem or not. The insurance companies will dive in as well and probably put the squeeze too because they are now a risk. Sadly, we lost some smaller railroads up our way due to the insurance premiums. They had no record of accidents, but their insurance climbed up higher than they could afford and sadly shutdown operations. Today one of them is a bike trail instead of an active rail line.
John
<snip>
In this case even if the driver is proven to be at fault, the media will make a big deal on how "bad" the railroad is. For some reason they always do this perhaps out of ignorance on how trains work. What is sad in this case too, which I feel is worse, is this is a shortline and tourist operation. They don't have that bevy of lawyers and money to fight the lawsuits that will be filed whether it's their problem or not. The insurance companies will dive in as well and probably put the squeeze too because they are now a risk. Sadly, we lost some smaller railroads up our way due to the insurance premiums. They had no record of accidents, but their insurance climbed up higher than they could afford and sadly shutdown operations. Today one of them is a bike trail instead of an active rail line.
<snip>
In a way, I think this cuts to the heart of the matter, but I think it goes beyond ignorance. With due apologies for the topic swerve, scare tactics sell, and saying a distracted driver hit a train doesn't sell as well as saying railroads cost lives. It's easier to focus malice towards something most people don't want anyway (at least where I grew up, the NIMBYs complained about both rail lines daily. Never mind it had been there for over a hundred years, and the neighborhood was mostly 30-60 year olds). God forbid a railroad should infringe upon the "right" to drive... (it's a privilege, not a right).
And also, it's partially people looking for a quick payday. Why work when you can sue for lots of money? Sadly, the precedent is set for people to collect from this at the railroad's expense. It happens in my industry (production) all the time; someone falls from a stage and sues, even if they shouldn't have been up there in the first place.
Ok, I think that's enough for me. This soapbox is starting to get wobbly.
cascaderailroad
New member
No doubt the scenic RR will lose it's operating license, due to it's insurance company canceling its coverage for the next coming years (as they had to pay out money to all the dozens of the injured passengers) ... and the truck driver will no longer be driving logs ... as he now drives the "Dirt Bus" !
Oh well ... "Stuff" happens to speeding distracted truck drivers, who run directly broadside into the side of the 6th car, of a 10 car train.
Oh well ... "Stuff" happens to speeding distracted truck drivers, who run directly broadside into the side of the 6th car, of a 10 car train.
Hi everybody.
As John and others have stated in this thread, it often seems to be a strange justice when a company or person receives court summonses even when the onus for an accident obviously lies with a different party. The reason for the foregoing (at least in Europe and I would assume it would be the same in the United States) is the way that courts and tribunal’s adjudge liability in cases brought before them.
If we take an imaginary case for demonstration purposes were a truck driver proceeds across a rail crossing when the red lights are flashing and collides with an oncoming train. On the face of it the truck driver would be 100% liable for the accident. However, if on investigation the trains recorder was to show that the train was doing 25 mph in a 20 mph limit then that in the eyes of any judge or tribunal chairman would somewhat change matters.
The court in the above circumstances will then very often award what is known as percentage liability. In the above case they would award 75% liability against the truck driver or his insurers and 25% liability against the railroad company or their insurers. These awards would be worked out on the grounds that the truck driver was negligent in entering the crossing while the red lights where flashing. However, on making his negligent misjudgement the truck driver would then have had 25% less time available to him than he should have had to avoid the accident on the grounds that the train was travelling at that percentage amount above the regulated speed for the line.
In real life the judgement against the rail company could be higher as the excessive speed may well have caused more injuries and damage than would have occurred had the train been travelling at the correct speed. In accident investigation things rarely turn out to be completely black or white even when on the surface they may look that way. However, in such investigations it is often the case that there are many shades of grey.
All that said, I am wondering what has happened to the opening poster in this thread as he made some rather swathing remarks and judgements that he has not returned to defend.
Bill
As John and others have stated in this thread, it often seems to be a strange justice when a company or person receives court summonses even when the onus for an accident obviously lies with a different party. The reason for the foregoing (at least in Europe and I would assume it would be the same in the United States) is the way that courts and tribunal’s adjudge liability in cases brought before them.
If we take an imaginary case for demonstration purposes were a truck driver proceeds across a rail crossing when the red lights are flashing and collides with an oncoming train. On the face of it the truck driver would be 100% liable for the accident. However, if on investigation the trains recorder was to show that the train was doing 25 mph in a 20 mph limit then that in the eyes of any judge or tribunal chairman would somewhat change matters.
The court in the above circumstances will then very often award what is known as percentage liability. In the above case they would award 75% liability against the truck driver or his insurers and 25% liability against the railroad company or their insurers. These awards would be worked out on the grounds that the truck driver was negligent in entering the crossing while the red lights where flashing. However, on making his negligent misjudgement the truck driver would then have had 25% less time available to him than he should have had to avoid the accident on the grounds that the train was travelling at that percentage amount above the regulated speed for the line.
In real life the judgement against the rail company could be higher as the excessive speed may well have caused more injuries and damage than would have occurred had the train been travelling at the correct speed. In accident investigation things rarely turn out to be completely black or white even when on the surface they may look that way. However, in such investigations it is often the case that there are many shades of grey.
All that said, I am wondering what has happened to the opening poster in this thread as he made some rather swathing remarks and judgements that he has not returned to defend.
Bill
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
Nothing can fix a speeding log truck, with no brakes ... not even RR fuse's set up 500' distant the crossing ... "Stuff" will continue to happen, and people will die ... it has been going on this way since 2600 BC ... accidents do happen, and will continue to happen, forever ... there is no stopping an out of control vehicle. Accept life ... and death, they are inevitable !
Last edited:
KingConrail76
Active member
The Term 'Train' is the rollingstock being towed or hauled/pulled, like when you have a Truck Pulling 4+ Trailers it's Classified as a Train, same with Railways, a Train is the Load the Locomotives are pulling, Rail Motors are not classified as train, you either have Rail Motor or Train Service, neither are Sparks, I was just pointing out it isn't a train as the headline on Channel 7 says.
Different strokes for different folks;
In North America, a "Train" (in regards to Railroad terminology) is defined differently. Here, a "train" can consist of a single "light engine", with no cars coupled, a mile long Coal drag, or a piece of MOW equipment operating on any section of railway (or any combination there-of).
Then again, we don't refer to our highway trucks with double or triple trailers as "trains" either, they're just "doubles" or "triples" (or variations there-of).
Hi red rattler and everybody.
You are perfectly right red rattler, rail drivers are not infallible. You only have to look at the Spanish HST disaster to have that point proved to you. He was certainly not concentrating on his driving as he approached that bend and that ended with so many dead and many others with permanently broken lives.
Bill
Actually, it was proven well that he was concentrating...concentrating on deliberately exceeding the posted speed and showing off about it.
KingConrail76
Active member
No doubt the scenic RR will lose it's operating license, due to it's insurance company canceling its coverage for the next coming years (as they had to pay out money to all the dozens of the injured passengers) ... and the truck driver will no longer be driving logs ... as he now drives the "Dirt Bus" !
Oh well ... "Stuff" happens to speeding distracted truck drivers, who run directly broadside into the side of the 6th car, of a 10 car train.
Nothing can fix a speeding log truck, with no brakes ... not even RR fuse's set up 500' distant the crossing ... "Stuff" will continue to happen, and people will die ... it has been going on this way since 2600 BC ... accidents do happen, and will continue to happen, forever ... there is no stopping an out of control vehicle. Accept life ... and death, they are inevitable !
Where on earth do you get your information?
As the owner of a Trucking Company AND a Train "fan", I take great offense to just about everything you wrote, not to mention that half of it is lies.
--This link to the most up-to-date news report says NOTHING about the truck not having Brakes...it says there was no sign the driver attempted to stop...very different things, choice verses mechanical failure.
--There were also ONLY 3 cars in the train, not 10. A box car and two passenger cars, both of which got pushed onto their sides.
http://www.wdtv.com/wdtv.cfm?func=v...ver-Killed-Dozens-Injured-in-Train-Wreck12253
For the "hard-of-understanding", there are even pictures...please educate yourself before "hating" on Truckers.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 869
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 925
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 532
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K