|
Toucan Sam posted:If you get hit by a train it is your fault. I don't care if there are crossing gates working or not. The train isn't going to swerve to hit you, they run on tracks. I cross a railroad crossing by my home multiple times per day. I always stop to look regardless of gate position and regularly get honked at for slowing down and stopping. If other people want to trust the gates that's fine but i will check for myself. Word, they are a simple safety device. We don't go around pointing guns at each other and pulling the trigger in hopes that the safety will do its job. Depending on this kind of device to supply you with everything you need to avoid death is stupid.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Toucan Sam posted:If you get hit by a train it is your fault. I don't care if there are crossing gates working or not. The train isn't going to swerve to hit you, they run on tracks. I cross a railroad crossing by my home multiple times per day. I always stop to look regardless of gate position and regularly get honked at for slowing down and stopping. If other people want to trust the gates that's fine but i will check for myself. I'll generally agree with this, but there are some cases where the railroad can be culpable. My friend's father was killed by a train in 1987, I can't recall the exact details but from what I recall the train was running 70+ MPH in an area that was supposed to be limited to 30 (or disregarded a signal limiting it to 30) being run by a guy who was still in training, at a crossing with a defunct gate. His mother took the first settlement they offered without even consulting with an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Like i said, stop and look both ways. The train runs on tracks and if you look for a train at crossings you will see it and you will be able to avoid it. It is traveling on tracks after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
Toucan Sam posted:Like i said, stop and look both ways. The train runs on tracks and if you look for a train at crossings you will see it and you will be able to avoid it. It is traveling on tracks after all. So at what point does the RR become even partially at fault - when the crew is dropping acid? Like I said, I don't know all the particulars. Maybe there was a blind turn just before the crossing and the train going more than twice as fast as it should have while approaching a non-functional signal with an inexperienced operator at the controls was a factor. I think it speaks volumes that the railroad settled without even a hint of legal action. Unless railroads are incredibly twitchy and settle if there's even a possibility of a lawsuit, most businesses that have deep enough pockets to have armies of attorneys don't settle unless their rear end is on the line. Geoj fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jun 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Like I said, I don't know all the particulars. Maybe there was a blind turn just before the crossing and the train going more than twice as fast as it should have while approaching a non-functional signal with an inexperienced operator at the controls was a factor. I think it speaks volumes that the railroad settled without even a hint of legal action. Unless railroads are incredibly twitchy and settle if there's even a possibility of a lawsuit, most businesses that have deep enough pockets to have armies of attorneys don't settle unless their rear end is on the line. Railroads lose these suits a lot. They offer what seems like a lot of money with an agreement not to sue. It works exactly like a car accident with injury where you get a seemingly huge amount that doesn't actually cover your long term care numbers. Railroads always want to settle in cases that aren't clearly someone going around the gate. It is reallyg hard to argue to a jury that not having a gate or at least lights (or worse a broken gate) isn't negligent at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:Wrong! Sponge! posted:Same thing, the prime mover is coupled to the alternator, and head end power is tapped off as AC, and the juice for the traction motors is passed through the rectifiers and sent on down the line to the motors themselves. Naaa, I gotta call bullshit on this. Notches are a legacy thing. "Notches" might be from selecting different winding sets on early electric or diesel electric power. It could also be to make sure that when you're running MU you have a coherant set of semaphore commands to send. I actually can ask someone who would know about that history... he's on the board at the local rail museum. But the notches are not due to alternator frequency. If you're running a classic DC motor setup, the "frequency" is completely meaningless as the power goes through a rectifier and comes out (more or less) clean DC. As I understand it, even the AC locomotives rectify then invert the power again to get the right frequency for the speed they're going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 10:05
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:But the notches are not due to alternator frequency. If you're running a classic DC motor setup, the "frequency" is completely meaningless as the power goes through a rectifier and comes out (more or less) clean DC. New DC-electrified EMUs use AC traction motors with frequency converters. It's pretty cool to hear the VFD on the Stockholm subway changing "gears" when starting from a standstill, going through different frequencies and voltages. Same with the newer AC EMUs on the main lines, they use variable frequency drive as well, converting from 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz to whatever gives the best torque/RPM/whatever from the motors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 10:50
|
|
|
nm posted:That is a pretty typical practice. Jurys in this area are pure 100% loving stupid. It's a goddamn train track, trains can not stop, they cant swerve and if you are too stupid to not to look then you stand a good chance of being splattered. PLus trains are big noisy things that are not that hard to see at all. It truly is mind blowing someone could stand up and say it's someone else's fault if you cross tracks and you get belted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:Jurys in this area are pure 100% loving stupid. It's a goddamn train track, trains can not stop, they cant swerve and if you are too stupid to not to look then you stand a good chance of being splattered. PLus trains are big noisy things that are not that hard to see at all. Especially when the fucker is honking the horn as per protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 11:24
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:Especially when the fucker is honking the horn as per protocol. And lets face it even if it wasnt protocol - ANY awake train driver is going to be on the horn and leaning on it big time as they sure as hell dont want to hit a car or people if they see it coming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:PLus trains are big noisy things that are not that hard to see at all. I whole-heartedly agree. There is no scenario where you cannot see a train coming because every railroad crossing in the world has very long straights in both directions with nothing obstructing visibility, and there is no such thing as operator error. In fact, I think we should do away with nanny state regulations regarding crossing signals and trains having to blow their horn to give 15-20 seconds of warning before reaching a crossing because anyone who gets hit by a train is a stupid gently caress who needs to be taught a lesson in *personal responsibility.*
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
There really is no reason to be hit by a train other than negligence on the part of the person who got hit. Signals and gates exist because most people are too stupid to look both ways. There is a reason why busses and company vehicles "stop at all rr xings."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Paul Boz_ posted:There really is no reason to be hit by a train other than negligence on the part of the person who got hit. Signals and gates exist because most people are too stupid to look both ways. There is a reason why busses and company vehicles "stop at all rr xings." Yeah, cause screw the blind, deaf, elederly, mentally challenged and children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:Yeah, cause screw the blind, deaf, elederly, mentally challenged and children. The blind, who should have guide dogs, the deaf, who can still see, the elderly, who should be in a home or have someone helping them if they're so incapacitated they can't tell there's 100 tons of metal about to shatter their osteoporitic bones, the mentally challenged who should have minders or people helping them, and children whose parents should have the good goddamned sense to teach the kids not to die the way grandpa did. It's called responsibility, what the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:It's called responsibility, what the gently caress is wrong with you? Of course, this whole responsibility thing only works one way. The railroad or insert any monolithic corporate entity can do whatever the gently caress they want and its everybody else's responsibility to get out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
What exactly do you want the RR to do? Even if you remove all grade crossings in the US you're still going to have idiots walking on the tracks and playing with RR equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Speaking of level railroad crossings, why is it too hard to invest in bridges or over/underpass? It's a one-time payment to build the thing and railroads won't have to deal with lawsuits which are probably a constant drain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Fixed Gear Guy posted:What exactly do you want the RR to do? Even if you remove all grade crossings in the US you're still going to have idiots walking on the tracks and playing with RR equipment. I'm not talking about random jackasses playing on the tracks or running around gates. I'll give you that a high percentage of railroad fatalities are most likely the fault of the victim, but I don't think its as cut and dried as some are making it out to be. If it is so cut and dried that 100% of railroad accidents/fatalities are the fault of the victim, why not just grant the railroads blanket immunity to litigation? In the case of my friend's father, I know that the train was doing 70 when it was supposed to be doing 30, was under the control of a trainee and the accident occurred at a crossing with a malfunctioning gate. Are you saying that none of those conditions could have factored into his demise? steady posted:Speaking of level railroad crossings, why is it too hard to invest in bridges or over/underpass? It's a one-time payment to build the thing and railroads won't have to deal with lawsuits which are probably a constant drain. If you look at the number of crossings they would have to modify you'd understand the scale is impractical. And its not a one-time payment, every so often the bridge would need to be repaved and every few decades it would need to be replaced. Hell, its hard enough to get some railroads to repair bad crossings as it is. Geoj fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
I always thought this one by my house was a good one. If those gates don't work and you blindly trust them you are hosed. See the apartment complex behind there? No horn at this crossing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Fixed Gear Guy posted:It definitely seems a freak occurrence for freight, but out here in SEPTAland it happens every evening rush hour at my station. The outbound train is pulling out and a hoard of idiot commuter-drones are crowed around the pedestrian grade crossing, meanwhile an inbound train is about to pull into the station. Unfortunately the inbound train is blocked from view by the outbound one, so it's real easy to get killed. Happens out here with Metra all the time and it used to drive me up a wall when I was riding it everyday and would see this poo poo time and time again. Intrestingly back in the early 90's along the same Aurora-Chicago BNSF service something just like the above happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhzR42SrIkI (FYI it's yet another video of idiots being hit by a train)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I'm not talking about random jackasses playing on the tracks or running around gates. I'll give you that a high percentage of railroad fatalities are most likely the fault of the victim, but I don't think its as cut and dried as some are making it out to be. If it is so cut and dried that 100% of railroad accidents/fatalities are the fault of the victim, why not just grant the railroads blanket immunity to litigation? The train was doing 70, something that big going that fast makes a lot of noise. I don't blindly trust the gate for that exact reason, if it's not in operation you don't know until you get hit. If you stop at the tracks that you can't clearly see down then you can be sure there isn't a train coming to run you over. The train always runs the same route, it's on tracks. Part of the problem is everyone relying on crossing gates and lights. I completely agree that crossing gates are important but so is personal responsibility. It's your life so take a second and slow down and look both ways for blind crossings regardless of whether there is a gate or not. They put up stop signs at a couple by my house recently since they are on side roads and aren't busy enough to warrant lights or gates. The stop sign is a nice touch because it forces you to look instead of just blindly flying over the tracks. There are at least four sets of tracks within a mile or so of my house. Watching out for trains is a daily occurrence for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
Toucan Sam posted:personal responsibility I'll ask again; if the onus for safety around trains is completely on the potential victim then why don't we just give the railroads blanket immunity from any and all litigation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
It runs on tracks, is that hard to understand? Look both ways before crossing and you get to live. Jesus loving Christ, i was taught at a young age that a train would end me if i didn't stop and look both ways before crossing tracks. If a train is moving 70 loving miles an hour it didn't go around a corner in the time it takes to stop and see it. EDIT - Train derails and fucks you over, sue away. Once it leaves its tracks sue them until you get a cigarette boat. As long as it's on the tracks you have no excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 05:08
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I'll ask again; if the onus for safety around trains is completely on the potential victim then why don't we just give the railroads blanket immunity from any and all litigation? No, you tell US exactly when it's not your fault if you get belted by 1000 tons of very big, very obvious, very noisy and very obvious metal if you are crossing the tracks? quote:Are you saying that none of those conditions could have factored into his demise? He didnt LOOK, that's what caused his death - if he had done that he would have lived. You cross a track under any circumstance, you check. Basic common sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:No, you tell US exactly when it's not your fault if you get belted by 1000 tons of very big, very obvious, very noisy and very obvious metal if you are crossing the tracks? I thought trouser chili made a good point - trouser chili posted:If those gates don't work and you blindly trust them you are hosed. See the apartment complex behind there? No horn at this crossing. I dug up this crossing based on the street number and "roofer's mart" sign on the right side. Observe:  Nice, big berm taller than the speed limit sign just next to the tracks, and you can't see too far down the tracks even sitting right in the middle of them. If a train was doing 70+ MPH through this stretch of tracks (which they probably aren't supposed to do), not blowing its horn because of the proximity to a residence and the crossing gate was disabled you might look both ways, proceed through and still get creamed. As I pointed out, not every crossing has a half mile or more of unobstructed view in both directions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys, but I think steam trains are the best, and you will see their towers of steam coming from miles away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I thought trouser chili made a good point - People must get the gently caress killed out of them all the time there. Did you notice the curve there, the train is going to be going a reasonable speed so it doesn't take out an apartment building. I pass through a crossing with less than 100yds of visibility weekly, and i have been doing it for 12 years. I haven't been hit so i guess the stop and listen method still loving works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
Geoj posted:I thought trouser chili made a good point - So did he stop and look? Obviously not else he would be alive today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 09:18
|
|
|
The public should be told to treat railroad crossings just like any other intersection where the crossing traffic has the right of way. It doesn't seem that driver's education gets that point across to people enough. I will concede the fact that there may be some crossings that are a little more dangerous than others, but you can pretty much eliminate the risk if you follow the rules. Trains have the right of way. They can't swerve, nor can they stop quickly. Of course no one can know what all the facts are in these terrible accidents, but I will bet that the majority of the automobile drivers didn't use their common sense and follow the rules when they entered the path of the train. More driver education is needed I guess, but some people just can't be taught.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 09:30
|
|
|
auzdark posted:I found this on my daily surfing on the internet, but I was not able to find a story for it, looks like a terrible case of buffer over run! (I always wanted to see what a train would do to a road haha) The driver saw Inception and thought he could pull off that sequence without CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:So did he stop and look? Obviously not else he would be alive today. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
You know, I think I like this thread. I have never thought twice that a gate could simply be not working. I live in Bethel, CT and the downtown area has tracks going right through it. I pretty much ignored them (unless they were operating) until I read all this stuff about why people get hit by trains. Here is a map of the crossing. Street View Notice it is in the middle of a bend. You can't really see much down the tracks in either direction. Luckily the presence of a station a little down the line means the trains aren't moving all that fast. (~30-40mph) Thanks LI, even though this sounds a bit of an exaggeration, you may have saved a life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Benjamin Disraeli posted:Happens out here with Metra all the time and it used to drive me up a wall when I was riding it everyday and would see this poo poo time and time again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Toucan Sam posted:People must get the gently caress killed out of them all the time there. Did you notice the curve there, the train is going to be going a reasonable speed so it doesn't take out an apartment building. I pass through a crossing with less than 100yds of visibility weekly, and i have been doing it for 12 years. I haven't been hit so i guess the stop and listen method still loving works. Clearly I said that people die every day there. You asked for a scenario where someone could be hit by a train without knowing it was coming, I provided one. Is it likely? No, but at the same time its not outside of the realm of possibility. Like, say, if a train was being run by an inexperienced operator at over twice the speed it should have been going and the gate wasn't working (I seem to recall someone talking about that same situation earlier in this thread...) And that curve isn't so sharp that a train would derail at high speed. But hey, even if it did it would be your problem if it hosed your poo poo up because you should have taken personal responsibility and gotten out of its way. Train derailments are big obvious loud things, after all. Geoj fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
Cat Terrist posted:So did he stop and look? Obviously not else he would be alive today.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5b0240f8
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Right when a train clears you have a poor view of adjacent tracks. Add not looking and you get this: I'm pretty sure this video has been posted earlier in the thread... In regards to crossings, there are hardly any in Australia where I drive around, the trains are all elevated across the roads until they hit the city, then its all underground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
auzdark posted:I'm pretty sure this video has been posted earlier in the thread... Isn't that because you didn't have trains that long ago?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I want to post a picture of the railroad crossing across a (controlled access) freeway (Beltline) in Madison, WI. Try stopping for that and not causing a 50 car pile up. Can't find a photo though 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
nm posted:I want to post a picture of the railroad crossing across a (controlled access) freeway (Beltline) in Madison, WI. Try stopping for that and not causing a 50 car pile up. Hmm, I don't see anything on Google Maps where a railroad and the Beltline intersect. Though there are three railway underpasses. But looking around I found a few retarded crossings in the area: John Nolen Dr. John Nolen Dr. (again) South Broom St
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
nm posted:I want to post a picture of the railroad crossing across a (controlled access) freeway (Beltline) in Madison, WI. Try stopping for that and not causing a 50 car pile up. There's one of these across US 250/30 in Wooster, OH. Can't find it on google maps as I believe the line may be inactive (crossing has "EXEMPT" signs on it,) but they do exist. And yes...stopping to look both ways before proceeding is just as dangerous as blindly trusting the gates in a 60 MPH zone. I get the feeling being rear-ended by a semi at highway speed is going to have the same effect as being broadsided by a train. e: Just found it - Street View Satellite View rcman50166 posted:John Nolen Dr. This is an excellent example. If the train is traveling NW the tracks are obscured by heavy foliage almost until the tracks meet the road...  ...also, the shallow angle at which the tracks cross the road would make it difficult to see down the tracks to the SE if you're traveling north. Geoj fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jun 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:12
|
|