From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net   
      
   "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote in message   
   news:mb2it9$a2n$1@news.albasani.net...   
   > 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.   
      
   The woman was obviously confused.  Her cafr was dinted, so she looked at the   
   damange and then decided to go forward rather than back.  Or stay put.  And   
   why was that third rail traveling along the roof the cars where you could   
   see it as it went between car 1 and 2?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)