Hey, there! Log in / Register
You'd almost think those train crossing gates were there for a reason
By adamg on Thu, 11/17/2016 - 9:03am
Rick Macomber posts some video showing a car whose driver went around some a down and flashing crossing gate in Revere last night, only to have the back half of her car immediately taken off by the commuter-rail train that was the reason for the gate to lower. The driver and a passenger got out OK, but for some reason they decided not to wait around for police.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Deserves a nomination for the Darwin award?
+1
Unfortunately the driver
Unfortunately the driver lived. Maybe Honorable Mention?
You're a jerk
The driver was an idiot. I, and all other sane human beings, are glad that the driver lived.
"Unfortunately the driver lived?" You sir are a jerk.
Darwin Award Qualifications
"Unfortunately the driver lived" -> You have to die to be eligible for the award. I think that's what the poster was getting at.
Dying by being struck by a train
has - unfortunately - become so commonplace that it no longer qualifies one for consideration for a Darwin.
perhaps
you should consider taking all this righteous energy and anger you have and doing something useful with it.
idk. go wear a safety pin.
I hope they find and
I hope they find and prosecute the hell out of the driver. Another idiot driver doing something similar killed 5 people on board a train in NY last year.
I'm guessing the train now
I'm guessing the train now has ownership of the tags, so he/she shouldn't be hard to find.
Unless it was stolen
which would not be the least bit surprising.
The SUV driver in the Metro-North crash
was even stupider than this person - she had pulled her SUV onto the tracks and STOPPED because there wasn't room on the other side to clear. When the crossing lights went off, she then attempted to clear the tracks by BACKING into the lowering gate.
Just desserts
Per the Globe, this person had allegedly just left the scene of a crash.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/17/lynn-man-involved-hit-and-ru...
"Allegedly left"?
Try "Did leave."
Journalism 101 again, sigh....
You report as fact what you personally know to be fact. If you did not see the car leave the scene of the previous accident, then you say, "The car had just left the scene of a previous accident, according to Medford Police," or "Witness said that the car had just left the scene of a previous accident."
"Alledgedly" is simply shorthand for that. True, its overuse can get lazy, but its omission is worse.
Were the driver and passenger waiting at the scene
when the police arrived? If not, then it's obvious to any reasonable person, even if they didn't witness the crash, that they fled the scene.
And, with respect, the term "alleged" is not "shorthand" for "I'm too lazy to report this properly". In reporting, the word is supposed to have one, and only one, use - to describe criminal charges against a person who has not yet been found guilty. That's what they used to teach in Journalism 101 before the experienced journalists who knew how to report facts were replaced with corporate lawyers who are too paranoid about the potential for nonexistent lawsuits.
Read the damn article
The article was referring to a prior crash -- I.e., they were in the middle of the "run" part of "hit and run" when they met the train. We have no idea if they in fact fled the scene of the prior crash, if they were involved in the prior crash, or if there even was a prior crash. Hence "allegedly"
"No idea" that they fled the scene
of the prior hit and run? Then why mention it at all? And what is wrong with stating "may have been involved in a prior hit and run?" instead of resorting to a stock overused and largely inaccurate lawyer-inspired disclaimer That's ANOTHER thing they used to teach people in Journalism 101, how to properly write.
But let's condone lazy reporting methods and sloppy writing style - just another example of the dumbing down of society.
"his car"? WCVB was
"his car"? WCVB was reporting and showed video of it being two women. Unless the car was stolen, the police should be able to determine who the owner is through the license plate or VIN.
Yep
Fixed.
I have to wonder about the passenger
I have to wonder about the passenger as I imagine he has to be screaming every swear word that in exist at this friend and his idiocy.
Perhaps
It was his passenger who was yelling at him to "just go around!"
Given that they ran it's not a stretch to assume ignoring gate was only one of many illegal things they were doing.
dont assume my gender
dont assume my gender
Consider this
Count it be that these types of incidents are becoming more commonplace because a) the MBTA has seen fit to extend the average wait times between when the gate is lowered and the train reaches the crossing to well beyond FRA requirements and b) because, at locations where stations are immediately adjacent to crossings (not the case here), Keolis seems to have no problem with the practice of train crews stopping their trains clear of the crossing, but still on the track circuit, thus leaving the gates down.
At the crossings I normally drive across in Wakefield and Melrose, the typical wait time after the gate is fully lowered is approximately a minute or so. Given how infrequently the Downeaster is detoured down this line (which is the oft-stated reason for these extended crossing timings), these times are clearly excessive. And there is NO legitimate reason that a crew making a station stop CANNOT move the train the extra three or four feet to clear both the crossing AND the track circuit (yes, I'm looking at you, Greenwood outbound).
Speaking as both a responsible driver and as one who enjoys watching trains, I freely admit that these things can frustrate even me at times. So, although I personally would never attempt it, I can see how some people who regularly encounter these situations at crossings would be tempted, as stupid as it is, to run the gates.
at locations where stations
This is not a Keolis practice, it's a result of how track circuits work. It's a lot more complicated and expensive to set it up so that this DOESN'T happen. And guess whose responsibility it is to pay for that? The jurisdiction that owns the crossing road - i.e. the town, most of the time. There are a couple places on the T where this has been done - Ipswich for example, has a signal right before the crossing that remains red, forcing trains to stop before the crossing, which allows the gates to remain up. Then when a train leaves the station, the engineer either reaches out the window and punches a code into a keypad on a pole, or radios a DTMF tone that triggers them. Once the gates are down, the signal changes, and the train is off.
But this requires a new signal, which isn't cheap, and more complicated track circuit hardware, and back-end support (such that there is a unique tone engineers can radio), which doesn't come cheap. I think the only reason Ipswich got it was as a mitigation measure when the line was re-extended to Newburyport.
That would GREATLY surprise me.
That's not the reason. The Downeaster has the same top speed as commuter trains and doesn't require any longer gate time.
Are you sure? Because I'm willing to bet there is.
If you disagree with my comment about activation time
Go out to Franklin Street crossing in Melrose, Greenwood Avenue crossing in Wakefield, or Broadway crossing in Wakefield when an outbound train is due and measure the times from when the signals are activated to when the train enters the crossing. If you find this is only 35 seconds (FRA standard), I would be very surprised.
Regarding the extended warning times in Melrose and Wakefield, the stated "justification" I've always heard (from multiple sources) is that, when the Downeaster is detoured on the Western Route, it does go faster than the other trains and, more importantly, does not stop at those stations. Now this may be incorrect, but I'm just repeating what's been previously stated.
As for outbound trains not moving far enough to clear track circuits, we're only talking about a matter of FEET, which should not impact the ability to unload passengers at the adjacent station platforms. And, IMO, it is totally ILLOGICAL to delay road traffic AFTER a train has cleared a crossing.
BTW, the manual "push a button" system you mention, which is in use at a few locations - Framingham among them - is no longer acceptable under either FRA or MUTCD standards for crossing protection on commuter rail lines. It's also a crash waiting to happen the day a rushed crew forgets to push the button.
It's also a crash waiting to
I actually don't think so - for one, if they don't push the button they're still facing a red signal. So if the engineer forgets to push the button, he then has to run a red signal AND not notice that the gates aren't down. All of this when still moving slowly enough to stop quickly. The only way he would realistically miss all of that and proceed into the crossing is if he were deliberately ignoring them. Also, I assume the dispatcher would catch it pretty quickly, considering he can see the signal indications.
Finally, trains go through those crossings at little more than walking speed. The likelihood of an accident is miniscule even if the gates aren't down.
Walking speed?
Not in Framingham, where until recently departing inbound trains didn'teven have to wait for a track signal to clear after pushing the button. And, even at walking speed, in a train/car crash, the car still gets the worst of it.
Plus, you appear to have missed the point. ANY warning system that is activated or can be overridden by human intervention is not fail-safe and, therefore, is inherently flawed.
Not in Framingham, where
Yes they do. It's right here: https://goo.gl/maps/cRSAquWihqy
And you appear to have missed the point that it is incredibly unlikely that a train crew will have "forgotten" to activate the gates, AND run the red signal, AND not noticed the gates were down, AND not been contacted by the dispatcher.
And my point about walking speed wasn't that the crash would be less severe (though it would), it was that it could be easily avoided. Trains going at walking speed can still stop fairly quickly, and are also pretty easy for cars to avoid.
Thanks for the clarification.
Last time I was in Framingham was in 2003 after they had just upgraded the traffic signals on 146. At that time, the inbound trains pushed the button, but there was no holding signal. While the trains didn't get up to full track speed by the time they reached the crossing, they were still going faster than walking speed.