People Getting Hit By Trains - Who Is At Fault?

[The Yosemite Bear]

The idiot that get's HIT by the train.

there's no way something that big can stop in a reactable time.

[RedImperator]

If not already so I'd just make it flat out illegal to be on the tracks other than simply crossing. The train companies can put cameras on their engines and every time they have to emergency brake for some idiot or unsupervised child on the rails they can turn the footage over to local authorities for prosecution. No one should ever be hit by a train.

It already is trespassing. This does not stop people.

You will never stop people from being stupid, all you can do is make if more difficult for them. Hence why tracksides should be obstructed by fences or hedges (they mostly are here in the UK). It means that stupid people have to be more determined to get on to the tracks in the first place.

You're talking about thousands of miles of fences to do that. In urban areas, they do tend to be fenced off (and either elevated or underground to eliminate at-grade crossings with roads), but it's just not economically possible for the vast majority of the trackage in the US. Besides that, as Broomstick pointed out, a fence that can make it difficult for people to get on the tracks can make it difficult for them to get off, as well.

[Isolder74]

This also happened on a rail road bridge, right. This is a bridge that is built just for the train correct. The very fact they are walking across mean they are neadlessly putting themselves at risk. A brigde with only two tracks can be fairly narrow. Even under best conditions a Rail bridge is dangerous to cross. This on was described as having nothing between the ties and the air and whatever below but the railroad ties. Falling is a real possibility in this case. the railroads do not have the money to fence every road.

[Edi]

Besides that, as Broomstick pointed out, a fence that can make it difficult for people to get on the tracks can make it difficult for them to get off, as well.

Here's the thing that I don't get about fencing discussions: Why the seeming assumption that there must only be three inches of space between the fence and the passing train? The way they do it here is that the fences surrounding the rail tracks are several meters (at least two or three even in the narrowest places) away from the track proper, and most of the time the tracks themselves are elevated on top of a kind of earthen bank, so even if you get caught on the tracks with an oncoming train bearing down on you, there's plenty of room to get out of the way. Hell, there's even enough room (barely) in the damned subway tunnels here, though you'd risk getting electrocuted from the power lines running parallel to the track on the side where the extra space is.

I can understand why the space constraints in urban areas can sometimes render even modest safety margins impractical or downright impossible, but it shouldn't be that much of a problem in most places. Of course, this doesn't change the stupidity of being on the railway tracks in the first place one jot.

Edi

[Broomstick]

Edi, you are correct that leaving space between fences and tracks is a safer design, and certainly that is done when possible here. However, much trackage and buildings date back to the 19th Century. In some cases, building are so close to the tracks that there is no clearance between the buildings and the trains sufficient for a human being. Where new track is laid, parallel tracks are now given sufficient distance from each other to allow clearance, but that was not always the practice in the past. There are numerous chokepoints in urban areas.

In a similar vein, it would be safer to construct a walkway on railbridges, to give people a place to walk. But under US liability laws you then have the problem of this, potentially, making these bridges an "attractive nuisance". Instead of the walkway being a safe haven for workers (as an example) the existance of such walkways might encourage even more pedestrians, bringing more people into close proximity to trains, causing greater hazard.

It would be grand if we could go back and rebuild all the crossings, bridges, tunnels, and miles of track to be much safer but it's not economically feasible. And really, at some point people have to start taking responsibility for themselves, recognizing that no matter how well you design safety systems someone is going to go around them

[Edi]

As I said, I can understand the effects of urban congestion and old infra, so morons who do go into such places get no sympathy whatsoever from me if they get hit. It just struck me that it was held as a general assumption that even were fences to be built, there'd be no clearance. Which didn't make any sense as a general rule. Where necessity dictates, yes, but otherwise no.

Edi

[RedImperator]

As I said, I can understand the effects of urban congestion and old infra, so morons who do go into such places get no sympathy whatsoever from me if they get hit. It just struck me that it was held as a general assumption that even were fences to be built, there'd be no clearance. Which didn't make any sense as a general rule. Where necessity dictates, yes, but otherwise no.

Edi

I made that assumption because in many places, the railroad's property doesn't extend far enough from the track to build a fence with clearance. It would cost a fortune just to acquire the land.

[Alyeska]

Just a little note. When you go into emergency braking, you stay in emergency braking. Train airbrake systems are designed to apply brake pressure when airpressure is released. This is to prevent run away trains when the hoses break. To go into emergency breaking you throw a lever which instantly drops the air pressure in the system and it casues a cascading effect down the airline which throws every single car into emergency. You can not release the brakes until you power the system back up to full power, which is at 75 PSI.

When that engineer saw the children on the tracks he was required by federal law and railroad regulations to throw that train into emergency. That train isn't going to let off its brakes for a very long time, well after the train itself is already stopped.

Now, the dynamic braking on the train works entirely different. Dynamic brakes are not as powerful a braking system as the airbrakes. However, its generaly sufficent for general control of the train in normal opperations. Airbrakes are used for actual stops while dynamic brakes are used for speed control (especialy on down slopes). Regulations also require the engineer throw the engine into braking mode (dynamic brakes).

If this guy let off the brakes for a moment when he saw the kids ahead, this is how it probably went down.

Option 1: The engineer saw the kids and threw the train into emergency and activated dynamic braking. When he saw the kids on the other tracks, he turned off dynamic braking to make the emergency stop less dangerous for his own passengers (I find this the most likely scenario)

Option 2: The engineer only applied dynamic brakes and never used the airbrakes. When he saw the kids move, he released the brakes. (possible, but unlikely IMO, you don't do such a half assed braking manuever)

Option 3: The engineer applied airbrakes, but did not trip the emergency braking manuever and possibly used dynamic brakes as well. When he saw the kids move, he released both braking systems.

Anyway, thats my take on the situation.

[Darth Wong]

Alyeska, you are assuming that he did everything by the book. If he did everything by the book, I seriously doubt the Appeals Court would have found that the case has merit.

[Alyeska]

Actualy, I threw in two options which are not by the book. Option 1 is the by the book regs and what the engineer should have done. From the information I've read on the case, those are the only three scenarios which can explain what happened from my experience. If the engineer used either option 2 or option 3, his ass is already canned and he has been fired from his job.

[The Yosemite Bear]

This also happened on a rail road bridge, right. This is a bridge that is built just for the train correct. The very fact they are walking across mean they are neadlessly putting themselves at risk. A brigde with only two tracks can be fairly narrow. Even under best conditions a Rail bridge is dangerous to cross. This on was described as having nothing between the ties and the air and whatever below but the railroad ties. Falling is a real possibility in this case. the railroads do not have the money to fence every road.

Steven King: The Body (filmed as "Stand By Me") yup.

[LordShaithis]

I'm almost automatically disinclined towards sympathy for people hit by trains. I mean, it's not like they can swerve to hit you, or like you can miss one coming. Still, I guess I won't argue against tighter industry regulations. Not like it's going to hurt anyone.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My sympathy for them ran out waiting by the road when I was side swiped by a redneck who was dodging the crossing guardrails....


oy frickin idiots.