Cyclist Hit by train: Inadvertent drift?

[Brate]

Obviously the engineer wasn't paying attention and drifted into the bike lane. Damn Ultra Cager.
(I'm doing this right? always blame the other person if a cyclist is in an accident?)

In reality no information has been released and the cyclist is still alive. I hope he recovers but being hit by a train is not a small thing. I know I was raised with a certain respect for the couple hundred tons of steel that is a fully loaded train and personally can't understand what was going through this individuals head when it happened. The intersection looks to be the Wetmore/Thousand Oaks intersection, there are railroad signals. Map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=13500++Wetmore+Road+san+antonio+Texas&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=29.559123,-98.422394&spn=0.026392,0.054245&om=1).

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA011007.accident.KENS.277bf502.html

[galen_52657]

I will wager the cyclist tried to beat the train at a crossing....

[dobber]

Perhaps the same mentality that makes a motorist challenge a yellow changing red. Then again the article doesn't say anything about where the accident occurred, was it at the crossing?

[Brate]

I can only speculate that it was at the crossing in the map, I live near there and drive that particular road several times a day. Thousand Oaks is 4 lanes with 1 sidewalk on the north side of the street. The Railroad tracks are raised on that berm(?) of gray gravel so it hard to imagine the person was up there unless he was using the tracks to cut across to a neighboring street to avoid wetmore which is worse than thousand oaks as far as facilities goes.

[AndrewP]

I was waiting for a train to clear a crossing then started to walk. I was then nearly hit by a train coming in the other direction

[fordfasterr]

Maybe if those pesky trains had bright lights, installed loud horns, placed long red / white barricades on all sides of the crossing, and used steel bars to mark the path where the trains will be moving on.. - less people would likely walk directly into their path.

[GaryA]

Must have been the day to get hit a train. There was a truck hit in my area last night.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Obviously the engineer wasn't paying attention and drifted into the bike lane. Damn Ultra Cager.
(I'm doing this right? always blame the other person if a cyclist is in an accident?)
Nah, you got it wrong. The cyclist was just exercising his right to ride wherever/whenever he darn well pleased and refused to comply with discriminatory segregation-based traffic regulations that give priority to rail users and would keep him off the tracks. A right guaranteed all VC Bicyclists in the Constitution, the Bible, and Robert's Rules of Order.

[LittleBigMan]

There really aren't enough details to know exactly what happened, except a very unfortunate cyclist will hopefully survive and be thankful he did.

[HAMMER MAN]

years back when I lived in ca. this young guy in his twenties use to ride with the bike club I rode with. He was a very strong rider He just kind of disappeared from the club rides.
Later I learned that he had taken his road bike, and he was drinking as well and was riding it on the R/R tracks or trying too when he got hit by a train.
It cost him both of his legs

[richardmasoner]

I was waiting for a train to clear a crossing then started to walk. I was then nearly hit by a train coming in the other direction

This is exactly how almost all of the non-suicide pedestrians and cyclist deaths occur around here. If the gates are down DON'T CROSS THE TRACKS, especially if you are crossing multiple sets of track. The commuter train speed limit is 79 mph which is really fast.

[Helmet Head]

Obviously the engineer wasn't paying attention and drifted into the bike lane. Damn Ultra Cager.
(I'm doing this right? always blame the other person if a cyclist is in an accident?)

Ironically, "inadvertent drift" is a term that I use to describe a relatively rare but never-the-less should-not-be-unexpected-by-cyclists phenomenon. Since you put it into the title of this thread, I'll try to explain exactly what I mean by it.

All people are inattentive from time to time.
Motorists are people.
Therefore, all motorists are inattentive from time to time.

To a significant extent, motorists choose when to take their focus from the road to attend to other matters. For example, a motorist is more likely to be inattentive for longer periods on a straight and empty rural road with good sight lines and no intersections than in dense and fast urban traffic. When his path up ahead appears to be clear with little to no chance of obstacles in the next few seconds, a motorist is more likely to choose to look away for an extended period (a few seconds) than when his path up ahead is full of potential obstacles.

When motorists are inattentive for more than a second or two, they may drift out of their lane.

In general, a cyclist up ahead in an adjacent bike lane is likely to be considered (consciously and/or subconsciously) to be of less relevance to a driver than a cyclist up ahead who is riding in his intended path.

Because cyclists up ahead in bike lanes are likely to be less relevant to approaching drivers, they are more prone to inattentional blindness than are cyclists up ahead who are in the driver's path. Cyclists in bike lanes are less likely to be noticed because they are, or at least appear to be, "out of the way".

If a motorist is driving along a road with good sight lines and where the only potential obstacle up ahead is a cyclist in a bike lane that he has not noticed (ironically because the cyclist is "out of the way" in a bike lane) due to inattentional blindness, the motorist is prone to attending to a distraction, and drifting out of his lane into the cyclist. This is what I call inadvertent drift.

The best way to deal with it is adopting practices of riding more conspicuously (out of the bike lane, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable), which has the additional benefits of making you more conspicuous to the even higher risk from up ahead crossing movements, and giving you more "escape space" on the right.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Ironically, "inadvertent drift" is a term that I use to describe a relatively rare but never-the-less should-not-be-unexpected-by-cyclists phenomenon. Since you put it into the title of this thread, I'll try to explain exactly what I mean by it...


<the same ol', same ol'>


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/hijacked.gif http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/deadhorse3li.gif http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/hijacked.gif

[SSP]

Ironically, "inadvertent drift" is a term that I use to describe a relatively rare but never-the-less should-not-be-unexpected-by-cyclists phenomenon. Since you put it into the title of this thread, I'll try to explain exactly what I mean by it.

Sigh...yet another HHWoW (Helmet Head Wall of Words (TM)).

BTW, I think you mistook the intention of the OP. His use of "inadvertent drift" was not an "ironic" choice...instead, it was a funny parody of your insistent use of the term. At least, that's how I reacted to it when I first saw the thread title.

To the OP: :beer: :roflmao: :beer:

[nycphotography]

I would add that cyclists are people also, and therefor, all cyclists are inattentive from time to time as well.

You should add paragraphs to your philosophy which account for that fact.




Ironically, "inadvertent drift" is a term that I use to describe a relatively rare but never-the-less should-not-be-unexpected-by-cyclists phenomenon. Since you put it into the title of this thread, I'll try to explain exactly what I mean by it.

.
.
.

The best way to deal with it is adopting practices of riding more conspicuously (out of the bike lane, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable), which has the additional benefits of making you more conspicuous to the even higher risk from up ahead crossing movements, and giving you more "escape space" on the right.

[derath]

This whole thread is in poor taste.

-D

[SamHouston]

Ironically, "inadvertent drift" is a term that I use to describe a relatively rare but never-the-less should-not-be-unexpected-by-cyclists phenomenon. Since you put it into the title of this thread, I'll try to explain exactly what I mean by it.

All people are inattentive from time to time.
Motorists are people.
Therefore, all motorists are inattentive from time to time.

To a significant extent, motorists choose when to take their focus from the road to attend to other matters. For example, a motorist is more likely to be inattentive for longer periods on a straight and empty rural road with good sight lines and no intersections than in dense and fast urban traffic. When his path up ahead appears to be clear with little to no chance of obstacles in the next few seconds, a motorist is more likely to choose to look away for an extended period (a few seconds) than when his path up ahead is full of potential obstacles.

When motorists are inattentive for more than a second or two, they may drift out of their lane.

In general, a cyclist up ahead in an adjacent bike lane is likely to be considered (consciously and/or subconsciously) to be of less relevance to a driver than a cyclist up ahead who is riding in his intended path.

Because cyclists up ahead in bike lanes are likely to be less relevant to approaching drivers, they are more prone to inattentional blindness than are cyclists up ahead who are in the driver's path. Cyclists in bike lanes are less likely to be noticed because they are, or at least appear to be, "out of the way".

If a motorist is driving along a road with good sight lines and where the only potential obstacle up ahead is a cyclist in a bike lane that he has not noticed (ironically because the cyclist is "out of the way" in a bike lane) due to inattentional blindness, the motorist is prone to attending to a distraction, and drifting out of his lane into the cyclist. This is what I call inadvertent drift.

The best way to deal with it is adopting practices of riding more conspicuously (out of the bike lane, except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable), which has the additional benefits of making you more conspicuous to the even higher risk from up ahead crossing movements, and giving you more "escape space" on the right.


I read this, but I fail to see the relation to track crossings or an original perspective on drift. Make your own thread dweeb.

[AlmostTrick]

(I'm doing this right?...

Yes you did well. This will almost certainly become a multi page thread of somewhat entertaining (and occasionally downright funny) posts. Thank you. :)

[sbhikes]

Anybody who gets hit by a train is at fault if you ask me. Often times it may appear to be an accident, but suicide by train is quite common.

I didn't quite get how inadvertant drift fit into the picture, but I did at least understand it was a joke. The wall of words didn't quite catch that unfortunately. Let the horse beating begin...

[SamHouston]

I was raised partially in the sticks where RR Xings are often just a bump in the road with a sign immediately to the right as you approach. Parental types never, ever failed to mention it to us young-uns all the dangers, every time we crossed.

Stop (remember there were no gates or signals)

Look, both ways

Listen carefully with the window down if you can see any bend in the track

Look again & cross

Then they'd tell us to not walk down the tracks, because the train could sneak up on you, which is true though we thought it hokum as kids.

We (me'n sis'n cousins) would make fun & light to ourselves of their dire warnings, but it worked for me at least, I always look & have enough respect for trains to never think of trying to bypass a gate that is closed. As far as I know my sis'n cousins have never been snuck up on by a train either. Tell your kids everytime you cross, is my only point.

[Helmet Head]

I would only add that cyclists are people also, and therefor, all cyclists are inattentive from time to time as well.

You should add paragraphs to your philosophy which account for that fact.
Using a conspicuous lane position by default, and only using the bike lane to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so (rather than riding in the bike lane by default), helps mitigate lapses in attention on the part of the cyclist.

First, riding in a bike lane arguably makes the cyclist more likely to not pay as much attention to traffic more often than the cyclist riding "out in the thick of it".

Second, amost all crashes involve at least some inattention on the part of both parties involved. By choosing a conspicuous lane position designed to grab the attention of others, the cyclist is less likely to be in a situation where the other party doesn't notice him during one of his own inevitable lapses in attention (which happen despite riding "out in the thick of it", though probably not nearly as often nor for nearly as long as when riding in the false sense of security of an "out of the way" bike lane).

How's that?

[SSP]

Using a conspicuous lane position by default, and only using the bike lane to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so (rather than riding in the bike lane by default), helps mitigate lapses in attention on the part of the cyclist.

First, riding in a bike lane arguably makes the cyclist more likely to not pay as much attention to traffic more often than the cyclist riding "out in the thick of it".

Second, amost all crashes involve at least some inattention on the part of both parties involved. By choosing a conspicuous lane position designed to grab the attention of others, the cyclist is less likely to be in a situation where the other party doesn't notice him during one of his own inevitable lapses in attention (which happen despite riding "out in the thick of it", though probably not nearly as often nor for nearly as long as when riding in the false sense of security of an "out of the way" bike lane).

How's that?

Still unconvinced...there are other, more convenient (and, arguably, safer) ways of increasing one's conspicuity.

You also neglected to add your provisos that your method is only applicable on "semi-rural roadways with few driveways/intersections, a wide OL/BL, good sight lines, and moderate traffic speeds" (and, "no rain" as I recall).

[Helmet Head]

Still unconvinced...there are other, more convenient (and, arguably, safer) ways of increasing one's conspicuity.
Sensory conspicuity, yes. Cognitive conspicuity? Make yourself relevant to motorists? I haven't read or heard of any ways of addressing that other than lane positioning.

You also neglected to add your provisos that your method is only applicable on "semi-rural roadways with few driveways/intersections, a wide OL/BL, good sight lines, and moderate traffic speeds" (and, "no rain" as I recall).
Perhaps your memory is playing tricks on you. This technique is useful in any traffic situation except in weather conditions with greatly reduced visibility (such as in a thick/low fog, riding directly into a low sun, or a heavy blinding torrential rain).

In urban environments with narrow lanes and/or frequent intersections/driveways such that it is never safe/reasonable to move aside to allow others to pass, the technique is still being used, just in a way that meets the conditions.

With respect to how this technique is applied on roads with WOLs and BLs, that particular manifestation of it obviously only applies on roads with WOLs and BLs.

[SSP]

Sensory conspicuity, yes. Cognitive conspicuity? Make yourself relevant to motorists? I haven't read or heard of any ways of addressing that other than lane positioning.

Conspicuity in the sense that "the motorist sees me, recognizes me as a cyclist, and exercises appropriate caution when passing me".

While lane positioning is an important component of safe cycling, there are other, broadly agreed upon methods for increasing conspicuity and safety that don't involve the hyper-vigalence and non-standard lane positioning that your "Peek-a-Boo(TM)" method calls for.

You've never heard of bright clothing, lights and reflectors, assertive body language, etc.?

[Helmet Head]

Conspicuity in the sense that "the motorist sees me, recognizes me as a cyclist, and exercises appropriate caution when passing me".

While lane positioning is an important component of safe cycling, there are other, broadly agreed upon methods for increasing conspicuity and safety that don't involve the hyper-vigalence and non-standard lane positioning that your "Peek-a-Boo(TM)" method calls for.

You've never heard of bright clothing, lights and reflectors, assertive body language, etc.?
Bright clothing, lights and reflectors, and assertive body language are of little help to the cyclist being unnoticed due to his relative irrelevance of being in a bike lane "out of the way" up ahead.

[SamHouston]

Conspicuity in the sense that "the motorist sees me, recognizes me as a cyclist, and exercises appropriate caution when passing me".

While lane positioning is an important component of safe cycling, there are other, broadly agreed upon methods for increasing conspicuity and safety that don't involve the hyper-vigalence and non-standard lane positioning that your "Peek-a-Boo(TM)" method calls for.

You've never heard of bright clothing, lights and reflectors, assertive body language, etc.?

not to encourage this derailment:p but you're addressing a dude who has claimed to educate motorists he's on the road with using a jedi mind trick of some sort involving a wink & a nod.

[Helmet Head]

not to encourage this derailment:p but you're addressing a dude who has claimed to educate motorists he's on the road with using a jedi mind trick of some sort involving a wink & a nod.
jedi mind trick?
wink and a nod?

What are you talking about???

[sbhikes]

Sometimes I think center lane positioning invokes cognitive dissonance in drivers. Why else do they come right up to you without any sort of planning ahead that there is a slow moving person on a bike in front of them?

[Helmet Head]

Sometimes I think center lane positioning invokes cognitive dissonance in drivers. Why else do they come right up to you without any sort of planning ahead that there is a slow moving person on a bike in front of them?
I think you're right about that in some situations. Even a cyclist directly ahead in a driver's path is subject to inattentional blindness because he might be unexpected (unexpectedness is a factor that contributes to inattentional blindness). Whenever I notice someone in my mirror approaching from behind too quickly/too closely, I adjust laterally, look back over my shoulder and/or use the slow/stop left arm signal. That always snaps them out of their trance.

Edit: The ability to be able to do the above (verify that those who are approaching from behind have noticed you, and know when to do something to grab their attention if they haven't), is yet another reason why I prefer a lane-controlling "centerish" position over riding "off to the side" and "out of the way". When I'm off to the side, those approaching from behind normally give me no clue as to whether they have noticed me or not, and, so, I have no way to know how vulnerable I may be to inadvertent drift when it's too late to do anything about it. They usually just keep driving at the same speed and along the same trajectory (parallel to mine), as if I'm not even there. That's fine most of the time, but puts me in the situation of essentially betting my life that they won't drift into an unnoticed me. It's not a big risk, but, never-the-less, one I'd rather not take if I don't have to. If I'm in the lane controlling position, on the other hand, they inevitiably slow down or adjust when they notice me still way up ahead in their path, at which point I move aside with a much higher level of confidence that they're aware of my presence and paying attention (not to mention that it virtually guarantees a slower pass with a greater passing margin).

[dobber]

cognitive dissonance

Sensory conspicuity

I ever realized cycling required such an extensive vocabulary

[Helmet Head]

I never realized cycling required such an extensive vocabulary
Cycling doesn't require this vocabulary. However, communicating in English about effective and safe cycling in traffic among vehicles operated by humans is aided by understanding and conveying the concepts represented by such terms.

[Bekologist]

what was the train doing in the traffic lanes anyway?

I sincerely hope the cyclist is recovering despite his lack of foresight about train crossings.

i CANNOT BELIEVE another thread, meant to be a light hearted satire about a seeming jackstrapped vehicular stagecoaching by a bicyclist turned into a diatribe by helemt head.

never overlooking the opportunity to soapbox.

Can I report helmet head to the moderators for continually steering threads off topic????

[Helmet Head]

what was the train doing in the traffic lanes anyway?

I sincerely hope the cyclist is recovering despite his lack of foresight about train crossings.

i CANNOT BELIEVE another thread, meant to be a light hearted satire about a seeming jackstrapped vehicular stagecoaching by a bicyclist turned into a diatribe by helemt head.

never overlooking the opportunity to soapbox.

Can I report helmet head to the moderators for continually steering threads off topic????
I don't think so. I'm not aware of forum guideline against "steering threads off topic".

There is, however, a respectfulness general principle (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=general_principles#faq_respectfulness):

We expect our members to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them..

[Bekologist]

head, you haven't said a thing about trains in this thread yet. and I consider your repeated treatment of 'inaverdant drift and bike lanes' extremely 'offensive' and 'disruptive' in a thread about a cyclist injured at a train crossing. I think i'm going to do it.

getting hit by a train has got to hurt. I once got much too close to a train, long story....I hope the cyclist pulls thru.

[Dogbait]

............. I'm not aware of forum guideline against "steering threads off topic".].............

FYI (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_disruption)

[oldguy52]

Using a conspicuous lane position by default, and only using the bike lane to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so (rather than riding in the bike lane by default), helps mitigate lapses in attention on the part of the cyclist.

First, riding in a bike lane arguably makes the cyclist more likely to not pay as much attention to traffic more often than the cyclist riding "out in the thick of it".

Second, amost all crashes involve at least some inattention on the part of both parties involved. By choosing a conspicuous lane position designed to grab the attention of others, the cyclist is less likely to be in a situation where the other party doesn't notice him during one of his own inevitable lapses in attention (which happen despite riding "out in the thick of it", though probably not nearly as often nor for nearly as long as when riding in the false sense of security of an "out of the way" bike lane).

How's that?

I don't know ...... I dozed off before the end

[joejack951]

FYI (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_disruption)

Let' see, "inadvertent drift" in the subject line, Helmet Head posts to clarify the term (I believe he's the one who started using it here) and everyone moans that he's posting about something he's posted about before, as if he's the first person on this forum to post often about the same topic with a similarly worded post.

If it's a matter of you not enjoying his posts, then put him on ignore.

[wahoonc]

Let' see, "inadvertent drift" in the subject line, Helmet Head posts to clarify the term (I believe he's the one who started using it here) and everyone moans that he's posting about something he's posted about before, as if he's the first person on this forum to post often about the same topic with a similarly worded post.

If it's a matter of you not enjoying his posts, then put him on ignore.
Did it a long time ago...there are enough dead horses around here...:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

jedi mind trick?
wink and a nod?

What are you talking about???
The ability to herd motorists through "Steely Eyed Gazing" refresh your derailed memory?

[slowandsteady]

Cycling doesn't require this vocabulary. However, communicating in English about effective and safe cycling in traffic among vehicles operated by humans is aided by understanding and conveying the concepts represented by such terms.

Genius is the ability to explain complex ideas with extraordinary simplicity. Genius wannabe's create complexity where there is none, in order to look intelligent. It doesn't work.

[Helmet Head]

Genius is the ability to explain complex ideas with extraordinary simplicity. Genius wannabe's create complexity where there is none, in order to look intelligent. It doesn't work.
LOL, I never claimed to be a genius! I'm not even a genius wannabe. I realize I am challenged to explain things in simple terms, and tend to make them over complicated. That's why I keep trying to improve it. Heck, that's one of the main reasons I post so much here. The first post I made to this thread is an example of that kind of effort. I think my ability to explain it has simplified over time, but obviously I'm biased.

[SamHouston]

Actually Joejack, "inadvertent drift" is an old term coined in this function by law officers & others involved in traffic management. Regarding motor vehicles it dates to at least to the development & implementation of judder strips many decades back. It's also applied to cyclists in that regard, not just motorists. My father explained it to me when I was 5-6, as part of his explanation of said judder strips which we had just "tested" by falling asleep at the wheel.

As for the HH version of inadvertent drift, it's a term explained easily in just a few short lines, likely the reasoning behind the last post by slownsteady.

[slowandsteady]

LOL, I never claimed to be a genius! I'm not even a genius wannabe. I realize I am challenged to explain things in simple terms, and tend to make them over complicated. That's why I keep trying to improve it. Heck, that's one of the main reasons I post so much here. The first post I made to this thread is an example of that kind of effort. I think my ability to explain it has simplified over time, but obviously I'm biased.


You do realize that the whole point of this thread was not to get into a debate on VC, but rather point out the absurdity of so many posts on A&S where the cyclist is considered a victim rather than the perpetrator? It was satire. The train cannot be at fault. The train cannot drift. It was the cyclist's fault 100%. There is nothing for you to explain whether it be in simple terms or complex terms. So please, stop explaining.

[Helmet Head]

You do realize that the whole point of this thread was not to get into a debate on VC, but rather point out the absurdity of so many posts on A&S where the cyclist is considered a victim rather than the perpetrator? It was satire. The train cannot be at fault. The train cannot drift. It was the cyclist's fault 100%. There is nothing for you to explain whether it be in simple terms or complex terms. So please, stop explaining.
Yes, I was able to understand the original point of the thread, which was made in the OP, and really left nothing to talk about. The dearth of posts about that point makes this abundantly clear.

Regardless of the point of the OP, the title used the term "inadvertent drift". The usage in this context would make sense to only those who have read my posts before. In case there was someone new around, I chose to make one post to clarify what I meant by that term in this thread, since it was referenced here. That spawned a discussion. So what?

[Helmet Head]

Actually Joejack, "inadvertent drift" is an old term coined in this function by law officers & others involved in traffic management. Regarding motor vehicles it dates to at least to the development & implementation of judder strips many decades back. It's also applied to cyclists in that regard, not just motorists. My father explained it to me when I was 5-6, as part of his explanation of said judder strips which we had just "tested" by falling asleep at the wheel.
Well, I don't doubt the previous usage, but I never heard it before I started using it. According to google, there are only 227 references to "inadvertent drift" on the entire internet, and that includes those I've made on bikeforums listed on the first page of search results.

As for the HH version of inadvertent drift, it's a term explained easily in just a few short lines, likely the reasoning behind the last post by slownsteady.
Well, what is meant by the term itself is indeed easy to explain: when someone unintentionally drifts off course out of his lane, usually after choosing to pay attention to a distraction.

But why inadvertent drift happens, and what cyclists may do to minimize falling victim to it, and how doing those things have other benefits, is something else again. I tried to cover all that as succinctly as I could in the first post to this thread.

[N_C]

I don't understand how people get hit by a train. It is not like they can go anywhere they want. A train is very limited as to where it can travel. Even if a crossing does not have gates or lights an engineer is required to sound the horn, I've yet to see a train cross an intersection with out sounding the horn, so the horn was not working is not a good excuse. You can still hear a train even if the eingineer may not sound the horn. They are not exactly quite machines, they make a lot of noise on the tracks. If you can't hear a train & you don't have a hearing impairment then turn the volume down on your radio or roll down your window at the crossings.

Here's a clue folks if you're stuck on the tracks in a vehicle that is stalled, train coming or not, get out & away from the crossing. If you see or hear a train coming or see the arms are down or the lights flashing do not cross. Do not ride bike, walk, rollerblade, jog or run on rr tracks. Do not try to beat the train because you don't want to wait or go around. If a train is stopped & you're waiting at a crossing on foot or bike do not pass between or under the cars.

Bottom line if you're hit by a train it is probably your own damn fault!

[noisebeam]

I don't understand how people get hit by a train.

...

Even if a crossing does not have gates or lights an engineer is required to sound the horn, I've yet to see a train cross an intersection with out sounding the horn, so the horn was not working is not a good excuse. You can still hear a train even if the eingineer may not sound the horn. They are not exactly quite machines, they make a lot of noise on the tracks.
It can be assumptions like this that result in people getting hit by trains.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Here's a clue folks if you're stuck on the tracks in a vehicle that is stalled, train coming or not, get out & away from the crossing. If you see or hear a train coming or see the arms are down or the lights flashing do not cross. Do not ride bike, walk, rollerblade, jog or run on rr tracks. Do not try to beat the train because you don't want to wait or go around. If a train is stopped & you're waiting at a crossing on foot or bike do not pass between or under the cars.
Who wudda thunk it? Gee, thanks.
But you forgot to mention to make sure your helmet is on correctly when crossing RR tracks. Just in case.

[MarkS]

I read this, but I fail to see the relation to track crossings or an original perspective on drift. Make your own thread dweeb.The thread was obviously designed as a stab at HH, so he has the right to make use of the situation however he sees fit -- which he managed to do without resorting to name calling. A classic case of making lemonade when life hands you lemons :)

[MarkS]

In reality no information has been released and the cyclist is still alive. I hope he recovers but being hit by a train is not a small thing. I know I was raised with a certain respect for the couple hundred tons of steel that is a fully loaded train and personally can't understand what was going through this individuals head when it happened. The intersection looks to be the Wetmore/Thousand Oaks intersection, there are railroad signals.
Not much information there. Does the crossing have crossbars? Most of ours do, but we still get about 2 cyclists down a year. I imagine without them the count would be much higher.