This guy has a serious rap sheet.
Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-seek-cause-amtrak-crash-injured-55-085032668.html
Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-seek-cause-amtrak-crash-injured-55-085032668.html
Truck Driver involved in North Carolina Train Wreck A CONVICTED FELON!
- Thread starter jordon412
- Start date
MeowRailroad
CKRail
Why would he even be hired? Why didn't the Highway patrol escort call the number n the crossing gate when the truck got stuck? I assume the truck was stuck there for awhile.
Not a real upstanding citizen, but I think the bigger issue is the fact that a lot people didn't do there jobs. At the first sign things were not going well, someone (the State Patrol?) should have called the railroad. In fact, it might have been a good idea to call the railroad before hand to let them know of the move and then call again when clear of the crossing. It's up to the courts to sort out now.
His domestic assault charges, which automatically become felony offenses really don't matter in this case:
"...There's nothing in the rules that disqualifies a driver with a criminal record from getting a commercial license, as long as the crime wasn't committed while driving a truck, he said."If that crime was committed during the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, then yes, they could be disqualified," Hebert said.
What does count is his poor driving record, which seems to me to be totally reckless and with undue care.
This investigation does, however, open up other things such as why the trucking company did not contact the railroad prior to the move.
John
"...There's nothing in the rules that disqualifies a driver with a criminal record from getting a commercial license, as long as the crime wasn't committed while driving a truck, he said."If that crime was committed during the operation of a commercial motor vehicle, then yes, they could be disqualified," Hebert said.
What does count is his poor driving record, which seems to me to be totally reckless and with undue care.
This investigation does, however, open up other things such as why the trucking company did not contact the railroad prior to the move.
John
cascaderailroad
New member
There are new State Police positions available in North Carolina, due to the State Police truck escort officers being removed from duty.
Three applicants bidding for the job are from Mayberry NC: http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net...House52.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110422155645
The truck drivers photo has been released to the press: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net..._sues_4.png/revision/latest?cb=20140422055312
video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/antraj-train-derails_n_6833122.html
Three applicants bidding for the job are from Mayberry NC: http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net...House52.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110422155645
The truck drivers photo has been released to the press: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net..._sues_4.png/revision/latest?cb=20140422055312
video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/antraj-train-derails_n_6833122.html
Last edited:
Hi everybody.
I have to say I feel that those of you residing in the United States are very lucky people if all that your truck drivers are convicted of is felony. During the years that I was a heavy goods vehicle driver which was from the mid-1960s until the early 1980s quite a number of my working compatriots turned out to be psychopathic serial killers…. Honestly (LOL). The best one of these became world famously known as the “Yorkshire Ripper” although he was not convicted until I had moved on from driving into industrial safety in the same industry.
The above stated, undoubtedly the road haulage industry (trucking) has moved on a long way since those days here in Britain. The move from a basic car licence to obtaining a class one HGV licence (now known as LGV) will involve the applicant in up to 18 separate tests and examinations many of them written, which has certainly brought a different grade of person into the road haulage industry as drivers.
With regard to the driver of this vehicle having speeding convictions on his licence, I would have to say there are not many HGV drivers here in Britain do not have penalty points on their licences for speeding. Considering the hundreds of thousands of miles each year these persons drive it is not surprising that at times you will get caught by a speed camera doing 42 mph in a 40 mph zone.
The same situation applies to vehicle overweight convictions. It is often the case that a driver goes to pick up a preloaded trailer and is given the consignment documents stating there are 25 tons on the trailer when in fact the gross weight may well be much higher than that. Sadly the driver very often has no way of knowing that until he is stopped roadside by the vehicle Inspectorate with their weighbridge. The courts here in Britain take a lenient view in these cases providing the driver can prove the documentation is authentic and they then usually go after the shippers.
With regard to the driver involved in this accident still retaining the vocational side of his licence following his conviction for driving while the licence was revoked, all I can say is that here in the UK the traffic Commissioners would have thrown the book at him and he would certainly not have been holding any vocational licence for a very long time into the future.
With regard to this particular accident, then as already stated in this thread, here in the UK and over much of the European Union there is a simple regulation that states that drivers of abnormal load vehicles must stop in the designated area prior to any rail crossing and inform the rail operators of their wish to proceed over the crossing. They are then told to wait while all rail traffic on approach to the crossing is brought to a halt on which the vehicle driver is told to proceed. There are severe penalties for any vehicle driver who does not comply with the above regulation. It is a good example of how a simple ruling can make incidents like this one totally preventable.
However, if regulations such as the above are not put in place it makes it far more imperative that a full and comprehensive risk assessment is carried out at crossings such as this one and probably all crossings. Such assessments bring forward the hazards that vehicles may encounter and in this case undoubtedly any trained proficient person assessing and evaluating the site would have pre-emptied and addressed the dangers that abnormal load vehicles would encounter at the crossing.
Responsibility for carrying out the rail crossing risk assessments here in the UK is held by Network Rail the track owners, but more especially the train operators who actually carry the passengers. Full details of the risk assessments are placed online and can be accessed by the police and industrial safety professionals within the road haulage industry. Therefore those routing and scheduling low loader vehicles and other abnormal size trucks can obtain full details of the hazards any crossing on a route may hold.
posted from the 19:30 First Great Western London Paddington to Weston Super Mare, Somerset HST service, running 15 minutes late, going like a bat out of hell, so I sincerely hope there are no trucks on the line in front of this one (LOL).
Added text, have just been served on the train a nice very large glass of cider so after a couple of these I will not care whether we hit anything are not, Especially it being the end of a very long but very successful day.
Bill
I have to say I feel that those of you residing in the United States are very lucky people if all that your truck drivers are convicted of is felony. During the years that I was a heavy goods vehicle driver which was from the mid-1960s until the early 1980s quite a number of my working compatriots turned out to be psychopathic serial killers…. Honestly (LOL). The best one of these became world famously known as the “Yorkshire Ripper” although he was not convicted until I had moved on from driving into industrial safety in the same industry.
The above stated, undoubtedly the road haulage industry (trucking) has moved on a long way since those days here in Britain. The move from a basic car licence to obtaining a class one HGV licence (now known as LGV) will involve the applicant in up to 18 separate tests and examinations many of them written, which has certainly brought a different grade of person into the road haulage industry as drivers.
With regard to the driver of this vehicle having speeding convictions on his licence, I would have to say there are not many HGV drivers here in Britain do not have penalty points on their licences for speeding. Considering the hundreds of thousands of miles each year these persons drive it is not surprising that at times you will get caught by a speed camera doing 42 mph in a 40 mph zone.
The same situation applies to vehicle overweight convictions. It is often the case that a driver goes to pick up a preloaded trailer and is given the consignment documents stating there are 25 tons on the trailer when in fact the gross weight may well be much higher than that. Sadly the driver very often has no way of knowing that until he is stopped roadside by the vehicle Inspectorate with their weighbridge. The courts here in Britain take a lenient view in these cases providing the driver can prove the documentation is authentic and they then usually go after the shippers.
With regard to the driver involved in this accident still retaining the vocational side of his licence following his conviction for driving while the licence was revoked, all I can say is that here in the UK the traffic Commissioners would have thrown the book at him and he would certainly not have been holding any vocational licence for a very long time into the future.
With regard to this particular accident, then as already stated in this thread, here in the UK and over much of the European Union there is a simple regulation that states that drivers of abnormal load vehicles must stop in the designated area prior to any rail crossing and inform the rail operators of their wish to proceed over the crossing. They are then told to wait while all rail traffic on approach to the crossing is brought to a halt on which the vehicle driver is told to proceed. There are severe penalties for any vehicle driver who does not comply with the above regulation. It is a good example of how a simple ruling can make incidents like this one totally preventable.
However, if regulations such as the above are not put in place it makes it far more imperative that a full and comprehensive risk assessment is carried out at crossings such as this one and probably all crossings. Such assessments bring forward the hazards that vehicles may encounter and in this case undoubtedly any trained proficient person assessing and evaluating the site would have pre-emptied and addressed the dangers that abnormal load vehicles would encounter at the crossing.
Responsibility for carrying out the rail crossing risk assessments here in the UK is held by Network Rail the track owners, but more especially the train operators who actually carry the passengers. Full details of the risk assessments are placed online and can be accessed by the police and industrial safety professionals within the road haulage industry. Therefore those routing and scheduling low loader vehicles and other abnormal size trucks can obtain full details of the hazards any crossing on a route may hold.
posted from the 19:30 First Great Western London Paddington to Weston Super Mare, Somerset HST service, running 15 minutes late, going like a bat out of hell, so I sincerely hope there are no trucks on the line in front of this one (LOL).
Added text, have just been served on the train a nice very large glass of cider so after a couple of these I will not care whether we hit anything are not, Especially it being the end of a very long but very successful day.
Bill
Last edited:
MeowRailroad
CKRail
That makes a lot of sense! I am surprised no one has thought to implement this in the US. Oh well, if there aren't any accidents, NIMBY's won't have anything to complain about. :hehe:
cascaderailroad
New member
I always thought that a short circuit was created when the 2 RR rails are connected by a piece of steel, turning on a red stop signal ? Perhaps that would just make the crossing gates come down ? There should be a key on a RR crossing junction relay box, that police have on their keychain, that turns on a red stop signal to trains, when they are escorting a truck, or in this case it was a 13 axle trailer across tracks
MeowRailroad
CKRail
That is a good idea.
I would imagine if one dug deep enough into the laws and regulations of North Carolina regarding trucking and railroad crossings, the laws are already in place to have avoided this miss hap had they been followed.
I don't think the railroads would want to give local and/or state police the ability to control signals at all grade crossings. Imagine the chaos. Nor do I think that law enforcement would want the liability.
Maybe it's not the case in NC, but I would think it is the trucking companies responsibility to get permits and inform all concerned parties, i.e. city, county and state police, all public and private utilities, phone, power, cable, water. And of course as we all know, the railroads should the chosen path cross any tracks.
I don't think the railroads would want to give local and/or state police the ability to control signals at all grade crossings. Imagine the chaos. Nor do I think that law enforcement would want the liability.
Maybe it's not the case in NC, but I would think it is the trucking companies responsibility to get permits and inform all concerned parties, i.e. city, county and state police, all public and private utilities, phone, power, cable, water. And of course as we all know, the railroads should the chosen path cross any tracks.
Hate to tell you, but nothing can be further from the truth. NIMBYs always find something to complain about. Noise, pollution, crime, "protect the children", eyesores, property values, etc. Many or all are standard fare in any dealings with NIMBYs, regardless of the issue.
This would make sense and is no different than the Dig Safe program we have in my state. Contractors are supposed to check with the public utilities prior to digging roads to avoid such things as buried power lines and gas or water mains. We had an issue with a contractor, working for what is now National Grid. They put a new pole right through our sewer pipe. We had stuff backing up into the house and a real mess. They had to come back and pull the pole out of the ground and repair everything. They were within inches of the gas main and scraped our water main. If they had consulted properly there wouldn't have been this mess.
I agree I wouldn't want the police stopping trains. There are some municipalities where the railroads aren't well liked, and all the railroad would need is a red signal because some NIMBY complained about the train noise.
NIMBYs, oh yeah. The ones that build fancy houses next to farms and complain about the smell, and the same ones that would rather spend 6 hours a day commuting instead of taking a 1 hour commuter rail trip. A local town, just up over the New Hampshire line, was interested in utilizing their empty park and ride lot, which is located next to the unused railroad station. They went as far as to enter into negotiations with the MBTA in Mass. for an extended service, which is actually one stop farther north on my commuter line. The NIMBYs, located 2 miles away in Atkinson, NH got wind of the new possible layover facility for the commuter trains, and came out en mass to protest that there might be noise and there might be smells from this facility. (Notice how far away these NIMBYs live...). So in short, they won. They screamed and yelled, threatened to sue the nearby town and everyone around them, so the deal is off. Instead, they migrate over the border, tie up the streets and our parking spots to use our commuter rail.
John
Hi everybody
Jonh, jkinzel, I am afraid it is a very common misconception that the heavier a vehicle is the more damage it will do to a road surface and underground utility supplies beneath it. However, it is not the maximum gross weight of the vehicle that needs concern, but rather the maximum weight that each axle on the vehicle is carrying.
The regulations on the subject are complicated and obviously I can only speak for the UK and European Union but I cannot see that the regulations could be much different in the United States.
Within European Union countries the maximum gross road weight of any standard construction articulated vehicle is 44 metric tons but this has to be spread over a minimum of six axles (three on the power unit and three on the trailer). The foregoing then gives a weight spread of 7.33 metric tons per axle.
Construction regulations surrounding all utility companies state that their minimum standards must be able to withstand the above weights and beyond for each metre of services laid.
It is a fact that a 40 ton vehicle can induce more wear on road surfaces and bridges than a 44 ton vehicle. This is for the reason that 40 ton is allowed as the maximum weight for a five axle vehicle which equates to 8 metric tons per axle as against the 7.33 tons on the six axle 44 ton vehicle.
The above is a very simplified version of the regulations as the distance between each axle both on the drive unit and trailer plays a large part in the maximum weight any individual vehicle can carry along with the type of suspension fitted.
Therefore, if as reported here in the UK the vehicle involved in this incident was carrying 120 tons on 13 axles that would equate to 9.23 tons per axle or 4.61 tons load-bearing weight on each end of the axle. As most likely each axle would have dual wheels (four wheels in total for each Axle) this again would equate to only 2.35 tons load-bearing weight for each wheel. The foregoing weights would be well within minimum construction regulations for roads and those laying utility services under them.
As stated I can only speak for the United Kingdom and the major countries of the European Union. I would think that similar regulations would have to exist in the United States but would be very interested to know if in fact it is the case.
Bill
Jonh, jkinzel, I am afraid it is a very common misconception that the heavier a vehicle is the more damage it will do to a road surface and underground utility supplies beneath it. However, it is not the maximum gross weight of the vehicle that needs concern, but rather the maximum weight that each axle on the vehicle is carrying.
The regulations on the subject are complicated and obviously I can only speak for the UK and European Union but I cannot see that the regulations could be much different in the United States.
Within European Union countries the maximum gross road weight of any standard construction articulated vehicle is 44 metric tons but this has to be spread over a minimum of six axles (three on the power unit and three on the trailer). The foregoing then gives a weight spread of 7.33 metric tons per axle.
Construction regulations surrounding all utility companies state that their minimum standards must be able to withstand the above weights and beyond for each metre of services laid.
It is a fact that a 40 ton vehicle can induce more wear on road surfaces and bridges than a 44 ton vehicle. This is for the reason that 40 ton is allowed as the maximum weight for a five axle vehicle which equates to 8 metric tons per axle as against the 7.33 tons on the six axle 44 ton vehicle.
The above is a very simplified version of the regulations as the distance between each axle both on the drive unit and trailer plays a large part in the maximum weight any individual vehicle can carry along with the type of suspension fitted.
Therefore, if as reported here in the UK the vehicle involved in this incident was carrying 120 tons on 13 axles that would equate to 9.23 tons per axle or 4.61 tons load-bearing weight on each end of the axle. As most likely each axle would have dual wheels (four wheels in total for each Axle) this again would equate to only 2.35 tons load-bearing weight for each wheel. The foregoing weights would be well within minimum construction regulations for roads and those laying utility services under them.
As stated I can only speak for the United Kingdom and the major countries of the European Union. I would think that similar regulations would have to exist in the United States but would be very interested to know if in fact it is the case.
Bill
Last edited:
It wasn't the weight I was thinking of so much, but some large, oversized loads such as house moves and in port areas like Seattle and Tacoma, WA we get some large short haul modular moves. Let water know the size and route and they can say: yes or no we have or don't have any fire hydrants that could impact your move and we do or do not have any utility work in progress on this route. And besides, some of our government people get hurt feelings when they are left out of the loop and lord knows, we don't need another government scandal. 
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
they did, it is usually protocol to notify the rail line of special movements. As was already determined, the police escort was not exactly following protocol.
They have a phone or radio to call in and notify the dispatcher so movements can be coordinated or stopped on the rail line, again, this was because protocol was not being followed. They should not be allowed to interfere with railroad operations on a whim however, so the key idea isn't such a good one. It is no secret that most police officers are not railroaders or like much of the population they know nothing about trains or operating them at all. I have seen a police car try to stop on a grade crossing with their lights going thinking this should stop a train.
Hi everybody.
With regard to the protocols that should be in place when abnormal size and weight vehicles are on the move then without doubt the answer is straightforward. The vehicle driver is and should be totally responsible for the safe movement of the vehicle and its load. The police escort are only responsible for the safety other traffic approaching from behind the vehicle and where necessary the safety of traffic approaching the abnormal load from the opposite direction.
With the above in mind it is for the abnormal load vehicle driver to ensure that the police escort are continuously kept informed of such things as traffic lanes that will need to be closed off while manoeuvring the vehicle, and where it is felt the vehicle can be moved far enough of the carriageway to allow following traffic to pass. After all, the person driving the abnormal load is being paid for his qualifications and skills in handling such loads and therefore the person behind the controls who has to make all the judgements and decisions.
When it comes to rail crossings I would totally agree that the driver of the abnormal load and the escort police should not have any means of controlling the crossing or any approaching rail traffic. It is only at that point that controlling decisions regarding the vehicle movement in its entirety should be handed over to the rail dispatcher(s). However, also in that situation there must be written system of safe working practice known, recognised and trained out by all involved in these operations. The safe practice system should also have legislation backing to ensure compliance.
All the above stated, it has to be said that certainly here in the United Kingdom and I suspect many other countries including the United States you do not get the most experienced and best qualified HGV drivers coming forward for abnormal load transportation jobs. In the late 1970s at the request of my employer at that time I trained up to drive such vehicles. I lasted less than a fortnight before requesting to go back to the retail distribution driving duties I held before the training.
My experience was that driving such vehicles and loads is a “nerve shredding” experience involving 100% concentration and judgement for every minute that you are at the wheel. However, worst of all is that every time you find a place to pull over to allow following traffic to pass you are then subjected to torrents of abuse from motorists who have been delayed behind your slow moving vehicle.
Driving such vehicles may look too many people like a glamorous high profile occupation that sounds good to others when discussing it in the pub on Saturday night. Believe me when I say “nothing could be further from the truth” as many who try the occupation quickly find out. The foregoing may account for why in this case a driver who continued to drive after his licence had been suspended still managed to obtain an abnormal load driving job.
Bill
With regard to the protocols that should be in place when abnormal size and weight vehicles are on the move then without doubt the answer is straightforward. The vehicle driver is and should be totally responsible for the safe movement of the vehicle and its load. The police escort are only responsible for the safety other traffic approaching from behind the vehicle and where necessary the safety of traffic approaching the abnormal load from the opposite direction.
With the above in mind it is for the abnormal load vehicle driver to ensure that the police escort are continuously kept informed of such things as traffic lanes that will need to be closed off while manoeuvring the vehicle, and where it is felt the vehicle can be moved far enough of the carriageway to allow following traffic to pass. After all, the person driving the abnormal load is being paid for his qualifications and skills in handling such loads and therefore the person behind the controls who has to make all the judgements and decisions.
When it comes to rail crossings I would totally agree that the driver of the abnormal load and the escort police should not have any means of controlling the crossing or any approaching rail traffic. It is only at that point that controlling decisions regarding the vehicle movement in its entirety should be handed over to the rail dispatcher(s). However, also in that situation there must be written system of safe working practice known, recognised and trained out by all involved in these operations. The safe practice system should also have legislation backing to ensure compliance.
All the above stated, it has to be said that certainly here in the United Kingdom and I suspect many other countries including the United States you do not get the most experienced and best qualified HGV drivers coming forward for abnormal load transportation jobs. In the late 1970s at the request of my employer at that time I trained up to drive such vehicles. I lasted less than a fortnight before requesting to go back to the retail distribution driving duties I held before the training.
My experience was that driving such vehicles and loads is a “nerve shredding” experience involving 100% concentration and judgement for every minute that you are at the wheel. However, worst of all is that every time you find a place to pull over to allow following traffic to pass you are then subjected to torrents of abuse from motorists who have been delayed behind your slow moving vehicle.
Driving such vehicles may look too many people like a glamorous high profile occupation that sounds good to others when discussing it in the pub on Saturday night. Believe me when I say “nothing could be further from the truth” as many who try the occupation quickly find out. The foregoing may account for why in this case a driver who continued to drive after his licence had been suspended still managed to obtain an abnormal load driving job.
Bill
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
