The after-effects of 'after train hits car'
The AP reported that a “train hit a car carrying three children” near Live Oak, Fla., on April 27. Thankfully, there were no injuries to the 27-year-old driver or her 6-, 3- and 1-year-old children.
The Florida Highway Patrol said the sport utility vehicle failed to stop at the crossing guard arms, the second paragraph states. A Union Pacific Railroad train then hit the front end of the vehicle on the tracks.
Obviously, the driver was at fault, as gathered in the second paragraph. But the AP chose to say “after train hits car” instead of “after car impedes train” in the headline and lead with “train hit a car carrying three children” rather than “sport utility vehicle failed to stop.” I’m sure (at least, I think I’m sure) the AP didn’t mean anything by phrasing the headline or structuring the news item that way. But I’ve seen many headlines and read many articles like this over the years that paint railroads as the accident causer — oftentimes, much more dramatically than this case.
Anyone in the rail industry will tell you railroads get a bum rap in the press, getting practically no coverage for local or national events that warrant it — such as a short line that upgraded its track or the Railroad Day on Capitol Hill — and a lot of coverage for events not of their doing, a la the Florida crossing accident. Most local and national media don’t have much, if any, knowledge about the rail industry, railroaders say.
The Association of American Railroads and grassroots organizations like GoRail try to get the word out that railroads have made and continue to make strides to improve safety, especially at crossings. But I expect the “after train hits car” headlines and articles to keep sprouting up in newspapers and on news wires unless more railroads can get their local media and other oulets to understand how and why they operate they way the do. And stress that they’ve taken great care to upgrade crossings to protect citizens, who are the ones putting locomotive engineers and conductors in danger if they violate crossing laws.
Posted by: 
Jeff Stagl | Date posted: 4/29/2008
Comments
Posted by Kurt on 4/30/2008 10:19:43 AM
Here in Seattle we often see sympathy for the person on the tracks, rather than the 'big bad railroad.' It's certainly skewed, because it defends the illegal and unsafe acts of a public that crosses the right of way with little thought of what a multi-ton monster can do to them physically. I've had discussions with someone who adamantly defended a man who crossed the tracks in a small town north of Seattle, and got hit by an Amtrak train doing 77mph. In so many words he said, "well it's Amtrak's fault because they go fast and there are no other convenient crossings nearby." While I argued that the gates were down and there was a highway overpass a 1/4 mile south, he insisted that the pedestrian was within his right to cross with the horns and bells blaring. Will education fix this? Maybe only part of it. I think the importance of safety is lost on some people, when faced with waiting for a train to pass.
Posted by Emeril on 4/30/2008 11:29:41 AM
Not only did they treat the railroad unfairly, but it's the wrong railroad!! Union Pacific does not go to Lakeland, FL. Obviously, the train had a UP locomotive on it, and the reporter did not bother to find out who actually owned the railroad. I agree, it'a always "..train slams into car..." rather than "Idiot challenges 15,000 ton train with 2 ton automobile; kills sefl and family as a result."
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 4/30/2008 12:42:29 PM
If you were to study the highway-grade crossing accident statistics issued by the FRA, as I have, you would find also that in just about 15% of all train-motor vehicle encounters, the motor vehicle struck the side of the train. This results from the phenomenon of "over-driving the headlights," going so fast that by the time the headlights inform the driver there's a train in the crossing, it's too late for the brain to instruct the foot to hit the brake pedal and to have the car stop before ploughing into the train. In effect, by the time the driver sees the train, he/she is as good as dead.
Posted by Michael on 4/30/2008 1:33:22 PM
I don't disagree that there is repeated ignorance demonstrated by the public in terms of rail crossing safety, but to make an issue about the wording of the news headline is a bit silly, is it not? If a pedestrian was hit by a bicyclist, regardless of who is at fault, the headline will read exactly that - Bicyclist Hits Pedestrian. Airplane hits bird. Bus hits horse. Etc. So in the aftermath of a train-car collision feel confident that the headline will always be about the train hitting the car regardless of fault and stop being so sensitive.
Posted by Dave on 4/30/2008 8:00:34 PM
The fact is that the use of the locomotive horn to warn motorists of an approaching train is an anachronism in today's world. Who doesn't listen to the radio, CD player, or an MP3 player while driving? It's going to take either having flashing warning lights accross the board at all crossings, and/or a return to the good old "Stop, Look & Listen" requirement on all unsignalled crossings, complete with stop sign. It may also be that crossing arms are not sufficiently visible to distracted drivers, judging from the storyline. It is not clear from Jeff's blog if the driver crashed through the gates before entering the train path, or if the driver went around them. How about using strobe lights and scatter-sound alarms? And to top it off - automatic tire spikes!
Posted by Ted on 5/1/2008 10:26:53 AM
The unsaid and unthought of after effects are of the crew of the locomotive. Think of yourself in the locomotive cab unable to stop your train before you hit a car with people, especially children, in it. Think of the nightmares that the crew will continue to experience. There are a lot of victims when a train and a car come together.
Posted by Dave Bearse on 5/1/2008 11:29:05 AM
Education and enforcement are key given about half of all accidents happen at crossings equipped with active warning devices. As information, FHWA has proposed rules requiring either a stop or yield sign be installed at all non-signalized (Ffederal Register Jan 2, 2008), research having determined that the public does not understand the crossbuck sign to require yielding to trains.
Posted by M.B. on 5/1/2008 11:41:04 AM
Crossing hazards are chronically well documented. The tragic loss of life and associated costs are huge. The FRA and countless other organizations have spent countless dollars/hours researching problems and solutions. What I find particularly offensive is that the team of engineers I work with were directed to design-build a hazard mitigation system by one of the largest RR in the US. Upon successful completion of project (cost effective, simple, reliable and autonomous system)Implementation at even a limited level is stalled in a "Bureaucratic Vacuum" How many more incidents are required before someone takes action?
Posted by Jack Fuller on 5/1/2008 12:09:22 PM
Seems that "overdriving the headlights" was hardly a factor in this incident ... "The Florida Highway Patrol said the sport utility vehicle failed to stop at the crossing guard arms, the second paragraph states." Maybe it's Darwin at work.
Posted by Joseph Hegwood Peagler on 5/1/2008 12:41:53 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$ and lots of it and enforcement talk (make safer crossings).
Posted by Peter Hine on 5/1/2008 1:00:51 PM
What I find even more baffling - as do I'm sure most industry insiders and many outside as well - are the significant number of grade crossing accidents in which the automobiles runs into the TRAIN.
Posted by Vince Burget on 5/1/2008 3:42:54 PM
When mentioning organizations that raise awareness of the need to obey the signs and signals at highway-rail grade crossings you failed to mention Operation Lifesaver. Active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and several foreign countries, Operation Lifesaver has been in the forefront of promoting safety, not only at grade crossings, but also attempting to reduce trespasser incidents. Another small, but nonetheless important item. In almost every case, a collision at a crossing is not an accident. A driver makes a conscious (or maybe it's uncouncious) decision to ignore the signs and proceed through the crossing. Approximately one-quarter of all crashes occur when the motorist strikes the train when it is already occupying the crossing.
Posted by Joe Steele on 5/1/2008 9:37:53 PM
Are Union Pacific Trains running in Florida?
Posted by Mike on 5/1/2008 11:35:18 PM
We are surprise that the Headlines didn't read "Uncle Pete's Omaha locomotive stalks familys'SUV, all the way to Florida, sneaks up on its victims, and without warring, smashes the innocent SUV with its with "cow catcher and horns".
Posted by Bob Lane on 5/2/2008 8:56:09 AM
Right on Vince! I am reminded of the vehicle that once pinned the crossing gate to the side of the third train car behind the engine in broad daylight. In this case there was no decision made. What concerns me and will forever is that people's last, absolutely LAST reaction, is to stop and wait. Stop and respect your life. Take the 90 seconds to stop and talk with the 3 little ones in the SUV while the train passes.
Posted by kraig on 5/4/2008 8:51:13 PM
I always get a kick out of railroad crossings that get labeled dangerous crossings because of the disregard and illegal actions of drivers. One accident at a rural crossing and that crossing will get labeled as dangerous. If people would slow down for one minute we wouldnt have the problems of car v. train. I dont think there are dangerous crossings just dangerous bad drivers who need to pay attention and slow down!
Posted by gary l. knight on 5/5/2008 1:35:02 PM
"right on !" both Bob Lane and Vince have excellant points concerning rail/auto safety. Millions of taxpayers and RR money are spent each and every year for the latest, greatest and safest equipment available to man. Not counting the special class of RR employees who maintain this system and for what ??
Posted by E. Morgan on 5/5/2008 2:42:24 PM
This incident reminds me of one I was a part of in the early 80's when in the am hours two young adults traveling at highway speed, without braking hit the 4th car behind the engine at a crossing with lights and bells. DOA. What the heck were they doing? Today is not much different. If drivers are not going to pay close attention when driving and be safe, they will be killed. Trains are not at fault, drivers are. Let's see what do we have in the drivers compartment these days: MP3's, GPS, Laptops, Cell phones, Video players for the unruly children, and readings for work. I predict many more highway deaths. I actually witnessed a Kentucky State Trooper doing his paperwork while driving. Be accountable people! It's not the trains or overpasses or lack of guardrails. IT IS YOU!
Posted by Sankar Narayan on 5/6/2008 5:38:20 AM
On Indian Railways, the right of way at a road crossing is ensured for the Railway by a full length lifting barrier and a protecting railway signal behind. When the barrier is up and the roadway is open, the prtotecting signal for the rail is at 'stop' aspect. When the road barrier is lowered and blocked for the road traffic the railway signal turns green. This way, the interest of the railway is ensured. These are all 'manned' level crossings where a gateman operates the lifting barrier by a electric motor or a hand wheel,when a signal is received from the station master about an approaching train. Unless, the gate barrier is lowered for the road traffic, the station master also cannot give green signal to the railway train. These crossings are also known as interlocked crossings. This procedure may involve extra manpower. But avoids the mudslinging on the railway engineer for no fault of his.
Posted by Dave Bearse on 5/6/2008 10:42:13 AM
Let's not have one incident tarnish the enormous success of the federal Section 130 program that installs active warning devices at crossings. Fatalities and incidents are perhaps a third of what they were 30 years ago, while train and highway miles have doubled or more.
Posted by Michael on 5/6/2008 11:00:44 PM
Stop signs at all unsignaled crossings are a great idea, but only if they are enforced. Where I work in rural Illinois, there is a fairly busy private crossing that leads to a storage facility and a small industry. It is located on a busy mainline with a 45 MPH speed limit through the area. While working there five days a week, I can count on one hand how many vehicles (out of hundreds) actually stop at the stop signs. Most blow through it like it doesn't even exist. I think they take it that those signs don't really apply. After all, it is only a railroad crossing. When I spoke to a local police officer patrolling the area one day about the complete disregard people have for that crossing's stop signs and my concerns about hitting someone, it seemed as though there wasn't a lot of concern on their end about enforcement. A few days later, that same officer just cruised right through the crossing, without stopping, of course. You can put up all of the newest, fanciest signs and lights and bells and whistles you want, but if people don't abide by them and no one enforces the law, what can you do?
Posted by Stephen Montgomery on 5/12/2008 5:19:19 PM
A grade crossing incident here in Kern County California last year makes this point. Much noise was made in the press and by the public about the lack of gates on this particular crossing. Not much was said about the fact the driver of the pickup, a local businessman, ignored the BNSF train with its horn bell and lights and the flashing grade crossing lights and without any change in pattern drove in front of the train. The story discussed his business and how well liked he was in his home town of Delano Calif. My guess is he was on the phone taking care of business. Obviously not the business he should have been taking care of and that was of course operating his motor vehicle. Other cases have involved courts finding for the heirs of grade crossing victims because the locomotive event recorder indicated the engineer didn't blow the correct horn pattern on approaching the crossing. The carrier's reaction? Beat up on engineers who don't blow the correct pattern! As if anyone outside of rail operations even knows what the pattern is to say nothing of the clearly defective reasoning that concludes a motorist seeing grade crossing protection devices activated, seeing a train approaching with lights, bell and horn sounding and concluding it's OK to run the gates because some hot-shot attorney later determines the engineer wasn't blowing the correct horn pattern!
Posted by James Swidergal on 5/27/2008 2:38:53 PM
So why doesn't the reporting agency ever get it right, not only the headline but the story as well? And why can't the truth be spoken about deadly crossings and the lack of respect that the driving public has for the railroads. It seems that two flashing red lights mean hurry up and speed across the tracks, when one flashing red light means stop look both ways then proceed with caution. I'd like to recieve a grant from the gov't or one of it's agencies so I could place a human eye witness with a camera on every road grade crossing and not only capture the image of the violators, but give em a kick in the pants, and wake up their silly unattentive butt as a measure of assurance. But, it be simpler if only the press would factually report the story in the first place, put the blame on these stupid drivers who are constantly breaking the law anyway. Make it a matter of public service announcement at the least. Especially now for a particuliar cause and that is the ability for the CN to purchase the EJE here in Illinois. There is this uproar of tiny communities who are opposing this aquisition, when if one would see it for what it is. It's a good thing for this area (jobs,increased economy,etc.). And one of those areas that these bedroom comunities are raging about are the grade crossing issues. Let the railroads railroad,and the motorists need to take warning if only the press would tell the truth in their reporting style.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 5/28/2008 10:00:30 AM
James Swidergal's latest post on this blog expresses great frustration and anger -- undoubtedly justified. Without putting myself in the position of defending incompetent and uninformed journalists, I will say he is blaming the wrong miscreant. The railroad industry does a lousy job of explaining the grade-crossing issue to the public at large. Most rails seem to feel that an annual contribution to Operation Lifesaver and an occasional Trooper on a Train Day is enough. It's not. Rail lobbyists might spend some of their time persuading state legislators to pass laws requiring that stop signs be posted at grade crossings, and then demanding that local police enforce the laws by ticketing motorists who fail to stop. As for the shoddy reporting, sadly, it exists, but the real problem is that there are very few news outlets that have the staff any longer to send anyone out to the scene. They rely on information provided over the phone by local police. So, if blame is to be assigned, local police who do a lousy job of reporting should get their share. But be of good cheer. At the risk of being overly snarky, I'd observe that the dumb, the drunk, and the truly careless only will get themselves killed once at grade crossings. They won't do it a second time. But, God will produce more dumb ones. As for the CN/EJE brouhaha, this is classic Nimbyism - not in my back yard. The grade crossings are a smokescreen for the fact that the upscale suburbs of Chicagoland don't think regionally. They have high property values and don't want anything that might affect those values. Let the trains run through neighborhoods that are more ethnic and lower income. That something is good for the region is of little or no concern to the good burghers of Barrington and similar communities. Sorry for this overlong response, but Mr. Swidergal is aiming his outrage at the wrong parties. His post is a classic case of "kill the messenger." I guess it's easier to do that than to really deal with the problem. Perhaps judges who do not consider driving drunk to be a real crime and never jail those who come before them should get some of the blame. This is a societal problem, not a journalistic problem.
