From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   John Albert  wrote:   
   >On 2/3/15 11:27 PM, De Bladder wrote:   
      
   >>The Metropolitan   
   >>Transportation Authority said the gates came down on top of the   
   >>SUV at the crossing, which was stopped on the tracks. The driver   
   >>got out to look at the rear of the car, then she got back in and   
   >>drove forward and was struck.   
      
   >Obviously, it was the inattention of the woman that caused the wreck.   
   >She paid for it, but unfortunately took 5 others with her.   
      
   It was absolutely NOT inattention. Why would you even say such a thing?   
   It was sheer wreckless behavior, and if she had lived, she should have   
   faced felony charges. I'll buy inattention for the initial violation of   
   the grade crossing, but that wouldn't have created disaster. It was her   
   subsequent, deliberate action that led to the loss of life and serious   
   trauma.   
      
   In fact, the O.P. mis-characterized her action. Because of the acute   
   angle of the grade crossing, there was extra room between the gate and   
   the first main. She stopped her vehicle between the gate and the first   
   main. The gate struck the back of her vehicle. She was not yet on the   
   track, or if she was, the front of her vehicle would have been clipped   
   by the train and it wouldn't have caused a disaster or death or even   
   any serious trauma.   
      
   Instead, after getting out of the driver's seat and trying to shake the   
   gate loose, she returned to the driver's seat AND THEN drove her vehicle   
   directly into the path of the approaching train.   
      
   >I've never seen a crossing with flashers and gates at which the flashers   
   >didn't begin flashing a few seconds before the gates began to descend.   
      
   >This woman certainly ignored the flashers (which were already on), and   
   >the fact that the gates were (at least) beginning to drop in front of her.   
      
   >Unfortunately, this is a dangerous crossing to begin with, located only   
   >a few auto lengths before a traffic light.   
      
   Well, there was room beyond the grade crossing in which a couple of vehicles   
   could have been accomodated, so that's really not so terrible, but her   
   exit from the grade crossing wasn't blocked and that wasn't a factor.   
      
   >My guess is that it will now be closed permanently, too late to do any   
   >good, of course.   
      
   There are much worse grade crossings out there. Despite the lack of clear   
   sight lines approaching from the road, the fact that the gate was so far   
   back from the first main actually made it safer.   
      
   Sight lines weren't an issue. Clearly once she violated the grade crossing,   
   she could damn well see the train bearing down upon the crossing.   
      
   The one thing that would have made the grade crossing safer would have   
   been providing street lights. Studies show that well-lit grade crossings in   
   rural areas greatly reduce collisions and grade crossing intrusion, even   
   if otherwise the rural road wouldn't be lit.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)