Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist 'listening to iPod' when killed by train

I think lack of sense was responsible more than the Ipod. Still turn the volume down even if it's to save you from tinnitus.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3604337/Cyclist-listening-to-iPod-when-killed-by-train

I wonder if she was wearing a helmet.

I'm shocked by the implication that a train was actually moving in New Zealand

I'm shocked by the implication that a train was actually moving in New Zealand

:lol: :thumb:

The 55-year-old, who has yet to be named...

Is that a New Zealand thing? My parents named me at birth.

Cyclist at fault. Period.

-Kurt

Update: I know my post is off-topic, but the reason why I wrote this is I thought that fans of Apple would post this kind of message. I know this kind of mistake is serious and that this is not a tech site, so I've retracted my post. Pardon me.

One of the few cyclist fatalities in Arkansas in the past decade was something similar. A man rode right into a train after going around multiple stopped cars and the barrier arm. Is there something about bicycles and trains that shuts people's brains off?

There have been several cases of pedestrians wearing headphones getting hit by trains too. And tens or hundreds of thousands of cases of pedestrians and cyclists wearing headphones that stop and wait for the train and don't get hit.

Correlation/Causation.

However, to quote the internets: Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle it's eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'. So, go figure...

Pretty funny comic, actually...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

There have been several cases of pedestrians wearing headphones getting hit by trains too. And tens or hundreds of thousands of cases of pedestrians and cyclists wearing headphones that stop and wait for the train and don't get hit.

Plus thousands of cases of pedestrians - hampered by nothing but their lack of intelligence - that don't, and do get hit.

An perfect example: Metra's Downer's Grove incident. Watch if you don't mind seeing someone thrown like a hockey puck:

GRAPHIC IMAGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7m1KYcbA9c

For those of you who want to tear that video to pieces, here's an FRA accident report that spells everything out, word-for-word:

http://i903.photobucket.com/albums/ac237/Carfreak4/Picture20.png

-Kurt

I wonder if she was wearing a helmet.

95% chance she was. You can ride naked in NZ but you can't ride without a helmet.

I used to take the Burlington Northern out to Naperville every day. Once it got warm it seemed like once a month we'd have to stop on the tracks because someone got themselves killed. I remember one month in 04 there were 3. I thought they were all suicides but it seems lots of people just don't pay attention.

I mean i know sometimes people get distracted, but at train tracks?


Plus thousands of cases of pedestrians - hampered by nothing but their lack of intelligence - that don't, and do get hit.

An perfect example: Metra's Downer's Grove incident.

Personally I have never understood why people think they have to have an Ipod in their ears while they ride. One of the reasons I ride is to see and hear what is going on around me. Maybe if I were touring in New Mexico or the Arizona desert, a radio or Ipod might be nice, but other wise no. And of course there is the whole aspect of safety.

Personally I have never understood why people think they have to have an Ipod in their ears while they ride. One of the reasons I ride is to see and hear what is going on around me. Maybe if I were touring in New Mexico or the Arizona desert, a radio or Ipod might be nice, but other wise no. And of course there is the whole aspect of safety.

I ride exactly the same route, through rural areas with almost no traffic, 45 minutes each way, 300 or so times a year, year in and year out. I like to have audiobooks to keep me busy. I mean, I like time alone to think, but not that much.

I do only use one earbud though. Personally I have to hit pause on my player whenever it's playing music and I'm doing anything that requires concentration, so I wouldn't play music at all while riding, but that's just me.

Plus thousands of cases of pedestrians - hampered by nothing but their lack of intelligence - that don't, and do get hit.

An perfect example: Metra's Downer's Grove incident. Watch if you don't mind seeing someone thrown like a hockey puck:

<snip>

-Kurt

Note that her estate did try to sue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra#Notable_accidents) ...

I ride exactly the same route, through rural areas with almost no traffic, 45 minutes each way, 300 or so times a year, year in and year out. I like to have audiobooks to keep me busy. I mean, I like time alone to think, but not that much.

I do only use one earbud though. Personally I have to hit pause on my player whenever it's playing music and I'm doing anything that requires concentration, so I wouldn't play music at all while riding, but that's just me.


Interesting. I have no trouble with music, but would not be able to ride with an audiobook. I would either get to my destination and not remember a single word of the book or I would listen and ride around like a zombie.

I rarely listen to music on my ride, but sometimes I do. I always look behind myself about every 5 seconds, whether I am walking, riding, listening to music or not, so it doesn't make much of a difference. I do know some people who are only alive by some crazy coincidence. Wearing headphones does make them a bit worse.

if you don't want to get hit by the big ole train, don't walk on the train tracks. sounds like common sense, doesn't it

wutz with the snuff videos? can the a moderator check into this please

It must have been one of the new Ipods that block your vision too. In Seattle there is a area near a park on the waterfront that has a set of double tracks and some people on seeing a train coming from one direction carefully get over on to the other track and watch the train come by- until, that is, the train coming the other way, on their track, kills them.

I wonder if she was wearing a helmet.

Why? That's as immaterial as whether her favorite color is blue. No helmet will stop a moving train.

There are good reasons why it's illegal in many places to bike with earphones in, at least in both ears. Dampening a sense that brings you important information about the world you're traveling through isn't a great idea. There's a measurable loss of attention ( paid to the hear and now ) that comes from listening to music, books, etc. A shocking 40 % of people listening to music players didn't notice a clown on a unicycle they as walked by him. ( Source: The queerest of all queer things (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2055). )

Interesting. I have no trouble with music, but would not be able to ride with an audiobook. I would either get to my destination and not remember a single word of the book or I would listen and ride around like a zombie.

Yes, everyone's different. There are people here at work who can't work unless they have headphones on with music playing.

I can't work if I AM listening to music, I just want to sit and listen to the music. I simply can't concentrate with music playing. I think the problem is that I like music too much for it to just be background.

Interesting. I have no trouble with music,

Next time when you drive somewhere you have never been, when you get close and are looking for the number, you may notice you turn the music down. I know I do, i never thought about it until someone pointed out pretty much everyone turns down the music when they are looking around concentrating.

Why? That's as immaterial as whether her favorite color is blue. No helmet will stop a moving train.

There are good reasons why it's illegal in many places to bike with earphones in, at least in both ears. Dampening a sense that brings you important information about the world you're traveling through isn't a great idea. There's a measurable loss of attention ( paid to the hear and now ) that comes from listening to music, books, etc. A shocking 40 % of people listening to music players didn't notice a clown on a unicycle they as walked by him. ( Source: The queerest of all queer things (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2055). )

If we are going to blame distraction shouldn't we be talking about a case where she ran into the crossing arm? She had to detour around it to get into danger.

Not distraction, though I will buy into a complete disconnect from reality.

There are good reasons why it's illegal in many places to bike with earphones in, at least in both ears. Dampening a sense that brings you important information about the world you're traveling through isn't a great idea.

Is it illegal to ride while deaf -- as in, can't hear anything, maybe even since birth, uses sign language to communicate, etc... ?

The rider in the opening post made a mistake that had absolutely nothing to do with the earphones and everything to do with not looking.

Coincidentally, here's a recent poll right here on BF:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?624723-Poll-What-do-you-do-when-you-are-approach-a-railroad-crossing

Nobody says that they would just listen for a train instead of looking for one.

Is it illegal to ride while deaf -- as in, can't hear anything, maybe even since birth, uses sign language to communicate, etc... ?

No, because driving a car is an entitlement. If you don't believe me, ask ten people waiting in line at the local supermarket what they'd do if someone wanted to take their license away, and you'll be told about more violence than you can fit on TV. But this has little to do with the laws against cycling with headphones ( sometimes with two ).

New York state law:
Section 375 24-a. Use of earphones while driving or riding a bicycle
It shall be unlawful to operate upon any public highway in this state a motor vehicle, limited use automobile, limited use motorcycle or bicycle while the operator is wearing more than one earphone attached to a radio, tape player or other audio device.


Florida law:
A bicyclist may not wear a headset, headphone, or other listening device other than a hearing aid when riding. Wearing a headset blocks out important audio clues needed to detect the presence of other traffic.


California law - which, apparently, is being enforced (http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=9513516):
Headphones covering both ears may not be worn while operating a bicycle.


The list goes on and on and on. And, as the Yiddish say, "the whole world isn't crazy."



The rider in the opening post made a mistake that had absolutely nothing to do with the earphones and everything to do with not looking.

If you've ever been within ear shot of one, trains make really loud noises to alert people who aren't looking. This is pretty well known; it's even a main theme running through a lot of songs, like Folsom Prison Blues, by Johnny Cash, which starts with "I hear the whistle blowing" - a reference to a train.

I almost always wear earphones when riding. I don't turn the volume up so loud that I can't hear what's going on around me. I also pay attention to my surroundings and impulsively look in my rear view mirror every 15 to 20 seconds.

I don't really listen to music, more likely to be NPR, BBC, podcasts, or audio books.

Does anybody else think it's absurd to ban earphones on a bike rider, while people are operating cars with speakers that are so big they take up most of the trunk space?

Does anybody else think it's absurd to ban earphones on a bike rider, while people are operating cars with speakers that are so big they take up most of the trunk space?
No. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a driver can hear important traffic noises while the volume of the stereo is so loud, the panels vibrate...

If you've ever been within ear shot of one, trains make really loud noises to alert people who aren't looking. This is pretty well known; it's even a main theme running through a lot of songs, like Folsom Prison Blues, by Johnny Cash, which starts with "I hear the whistle blowing" - a reference to a train.

Exhibit A: http://atsf.railfan.net/airhorns/

Exhibit B: U.S. locomotives, with some odd exceptions, are equipped with bells which must be sounded at grade crossings (unless the crossing is in a quiet zone).

-Kurt

I think there's some difference, in that the speakers at least don't deliver the sound directly to your ears, and never cup them. And it's illegal to drive a car with headphones, too.

But yeah, having the radio up too loud is basically the same thing. "I didn't hear the traffic officer yelling STOP!" And cyclists don't tend to get distracted while changing the CD. Nor do many cyclists park in front of the grocery store and rattle the roof with obnoxious music.

On the other hand, I don't begrudge other cyclists who listen to music or podcasts or whatever on the road. I don't think it's a good idea, so I don't do it. And I'm not surprised that someone was killed this way ... missed seeing the train, which is the ideal way to know it's there, and missed hearing about it, too. Most of the people replying here say they're a lot more vigilant with their eyes with the earphones in ... and that's good news.

Well, given the current trend of mounting train horns on cars/trucks to be cool around here, how do you know if it's even a train when you hear one?,,,,BD


I will admit it sounds hilarious when their alarms go off...;) Imagine a few loud blasts, then trailing off to a whimpering hiss. I laugh every time...

I use a small portable speaker with my Ipod that sits in my handlebar bag. Crap when windy, but does the job.

Well, given the current trend of mounting train horns on cars/trucks to be cool around here, how do you know if it's even a train when you hear one?,,,,BD

I prefer listening to the melodious chord of the Nathan K5LA where it belongs.

-Kurt

P.S.: Twist the situation all you like - the only victims in a grade crossing incident are the engineer and crew, same goes for anyone trespassing on railway ROW.

Anyone within the confines of a grade crossing whilst equipment is being moved through is at fault, regardless of his or her means of transportation. No ifs, ands or buts. Same goes for anyone trespassing upon railway property and/or right of way.

-Kurt

I think lack of sense was responsible more than the Ipod. Still turn the volume down even if it's to save you from tinnitus.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3604337/Cyclist-listening-to-iPod-when-killed-by-train

Regardless of her IPod, the fact that she went around the gate when it was clearly down, means she was 100% ignorant.

Yes, everyone's different. There are people here at work who can't work unless they have headphones on with music playing.

I can't work if I AM listening to music, I just want to sit and listen to the music. I simply can't concentrate with music playing. I think the problem is that I like music too much for it to just be background.

I prefer to work with NPR in the headphones... why... because co-workers use speaker phones, fart, snort, talk loudly, talk about anything but work, and generally are distracting in my "cube world." NPR is a fairly constant and easy to to ignore drone that fairly well covers up the noises of co-workers. I also find music too distracting. How noisy are my co-workers? I once had a cube neighbor that made these loud snorting sounds that others would hear on business calls (I DON'T use a speaker phone) and would ask, "jeeze what was that.... a walrus?"

To me, sudden loud sounds and conversations are the most distracting. Impromptu meetings just outside my cube are just rude. But some co-workers are just that way.

It is actually very easy for a "normal" person, cyclist, motorist to get hit by a train. This is the scenario:

First car/bike/ped in line at a railroad crossing. Running late, waiting for a freight train to creep along. Railcar after railcar after railcar going by, reading the graffiti on the boxcars, thinking about being late for work or whatever. FINALLY...the last car is in sight. Start up the car, clip into the pedals, wait, wait, wait.......the last boxcar.....AT LAST....I am on my WAAAYYYY......

Then...a second train coming the opposite direction - hidden visually and auditorially by the first train - crushes you.

If you look at the video posted earlier in this thread by cudak888 (link) (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?638561-Cyclist-listening-to-iPod-when-killed-by-train&p=10701420&viewfull=1#post10701420), two women are crossing several tracks. First, the moving train is hidden by the parked train. Then the larger woman closest to the moving train perfectly eclipses the train from view of the second woman who is trying not to trip over the tracks looking down. Her peripheral vision only sees the other woman. Then....SMACK.

In that video, NO WAY should a passenger train moving at that speed cross an unprotected, blind intersection next to another train. NEVER EVER. Someone in a nice Caddy or Lexus with good sound protection and Guns-n-Roses cranked up on ten speakers will never hear that train.

So don't get too smug. Normal people get creamed all the time by trains. Never assume there is only ONE train.

So don't get too smug. Normal people get creamed all the time by trains. Never assume there is only ONE train.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize that HALF of 'em are stupider than that!" - Carlin, of course. ;)

I know I'm being callous, but climbing over barriers or ignoring flashing lights is just plain stupid, and demonstrates Darwinism at work. Create more safety warnings, and there will still be someone idiotic enough to ignore all of them.

These are probably the same people who cease to follow their mother's advice about looking both ways before crossing the street... that is, if they were ever taught it at all.

It is actually very easy for a "normal" person, cyclist, motorist to get hit by a train. This is the scenario:

First car/bike/ped in line at a railroad crossing. Running late, waiting for a freight train to creep along. Railcar after railcar after railcar going by, reading the graffiti on the boxcars, thinking about being late for work or whatever. FINALLY...the last car is in sight. Start up the car, clip into the pedals, wait, wait, wait.......the last boxcar.....AT LAST....I am on my WAAAYYYY......

Then...a second train coming the opposite direction - hidden visually and auditorially by the first train - crushes you.

If you look at the video posted earlier in this thread by cudak888 (link) (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?638561-Cyclist-listening-to-iPod-when-killed-by-train&p=10701420&viewfull=1#post10701420), two women are crossing several tracks. First, the moving train is hidden by the parked train. Then the larger woman closest to the moving train perfectly eclipses the train from view of the second woman who is trying not to trip over the tracks looking down. Her peripheral vision only sees the other woman. Then....SMACK.

In that video, NO WAY should a passenger train moving at that speed cross an unprotected, blind intersection next to another train. NEVER EVER. Someone in a nice Caddy or Lexus with good sound protection and Guns-n-Roses cranked up on ten speakers will never hear that train.

So don't get too smug. Normal people get creamed all the time by trains. Never assume there is only ONE train.

Gates, bells and train horns should be enough for "normal" people to understand that there is pending danger.

In the video, there were both bells and horns!

People that "get creamed" by trains ARE ignoring some warning system.

Gates, bells and train horns should be enough for "normal" people to understand that there is pending danger.

In the video, there were both bells and horns!

People that "get creamed" by trains ARE ignoring some warning system.

My point is... if there is ANOTHER train at the signal dead stopped, any reasonable person might assume that all of the noise is coming from THE TRAIN THEY CAN SEE. Especially if there are parallel tracks where trains can run the same direction side by side. Few people, actually very few statistically, get hit by a lone train. They attribute all of the auditory cues to the train they are seeing, then stroll out into the path of a second train.

If I saw a stopped train, with whistle blowing, bells ringing, and crossing gate down and lights flashing all over the place, I would cross anyway on my bike or on foot (but not in a motor vehicle) if the road was not physically blocked. But I would always look for a second train behind the parked one. Most people don't make that connection automatically. 9 out of 10 times a car is trying to beat a train they see, or get hit by one train that is hidden by a second train.

The lady in the video heard the train noises, looked at the parked train, and her brain combined the two into "one noisy parked train". Then, unfortunately, she stopped looking for trains. All of the cues were accounted for in her soon to be removed grey matter.

My point is... if there is ANOTHER train at the signal dead stopped, any reasonable person might assume that all of the noise is coming from THE TRAIN THEY CAN SEE. Especially if there are parallel tracks where trains can run the same direction side by side. Few people, actually very few statistically, get hit by a lone train. They attribute all of the auditory cues to the train they are seeing, then stroll out into the path of a second train.

If I saw a stopped train, with whistle blowing, bells ringing, and crossing gate down and lights flashing all over the place, I would cross anyway on my bike or on foot (but not in a motor vehicle) if the road was not physically blocked. But I would always look for a second train behind the parked one. Most people don't make that connection automatically. 9 out of 10 times a car is trying to beat a train they see, or get hit by one train that is hidden by a second train.

The lady in the video heard the train noises, looked at the parked train, and her brain combined the two into "one noisy parked train". Then, unfortunately, she stopped looking for trains. All of the cues were accounted for in her soon to be removed grey matter.

I see your point... my point being of course that they make "the assumption" in the first place, and then absolve themselves of responsibility.

I see your point... my point being of course that they make "the assumption" in the first place, and then absolve themselves of responsibility.

We all make assumptions. I assume that each manhole cover is tight in the hole when I have to roll over one. Therefore, it is the SERIOUS responsibility of those folks working in manholes to put the lids on properly.

Every railroad company on earth is fully aware of the "Second Train" scenario and dangers. And since I run red lights all the time, it is part of the fiber of my being to look both ways - and digest all of the cues - before crossing ANYTHING. But most folks are living life in the "Green means it is safe to go" mentality and pay a dear price.

Bottom line......it actually COULD be the railroad companies liability if they park a train at the edge of a crossing and SPEED a second train past that crossing. It is setting a very dangerous trap for motorists, and in this case, a cyclist who very well may have absorbed all of the cues into a parked train ( I don't know the circumstances ). No mention of a second train, but just like people who get "trained", we are assuming a lot by not knowing those details. The story was not very detailed at the OPs link.

And I certainly see your point and agree fully. Look both ways before you cross anything! It is your responsibility to not step in front of a train. It is the railroad company's responsibility to avoid setting a trap that many if not most of us might fall into.

It is actually very easy for a "normal" person, cyclist, motorist to get hit by a train. This is the scenario:

Your scenario speaks of someone who has no patience, and fails to wake early enough in the morning to get to work on time, figuring in possible delays.

...very much the description of a cager. A cyclist with this attitude is equivalent to a two-wheeled motorist with a bad attitude.


Bottom line......it actually COULD be the railroad companies liability if they park a train at the edge of a crossing and SPEED a second train past that crossing.

Cager logic.


It is the railroad company's responsibility to avoid setting a trap that many if not most of us might fall into.

There is no trap. If the gates are down, their responsibility has been fulfilled. No trap exists, because you're not supposed to go past those gates.

Correction - when the gates are down, you are ordered to remain behind the gates.

-Kurt

There is no trap. If the gates are down, their responsibility has been fulfilled. No trap exists, because you're not supposed to go past those gates.


+1 Failure to obey traffic control devices or other safety devices is both dangerous and often illegal. To suggest that the rail company is somehow to blame is silly. No matter how you try and prevent it, if someone is bound and determined to use the signal as a "suggestions" they will be vulnerable.

There is no trap. If the gates are down, their responsibility has been fulfilled. No trap exists, because you're not supposed to go past those gates.

Correction - when the gates are down, you are ordered to remain behind the gates.

-Kurt

One in a hundred crossings in the USA have gates and lights. Maybe less. So you should expect that "second train" scenario anytime you are waiting for a passing train to get out of your way. That is my message here.

As for the woman in the OPs post, going through a down gate - LOOK FOR THE SECOND TRAIN. Or look for any train. But LOOK!

On my bike, I have carefully gone through hundreds of down railroad gates. Sometimes the train is a mile away, sometimes the train is dead stopped at the next crossing, sometimes (rarely) the train is RIGHT THERE and I have to stop and wait. Same thing on foot. If I can safely proceed across the track even though the signal is ringing and the gate is down, I'm crossing. I am not going to stand there in 100+ degrees of direct sunlight in the swamp I live in if I can cross safely. It can be done SAFELY. I can't even imaging waiting for a train that is not imminent on a bicycle or on foot. In a car, I wait.

Here is an interesting resource: Operation Lifesaver (http://www.oli.org/)

It's a rail safety non profit organization with lots of info. Obviously, this is a huge problem. You would be surprised how many people get tagged by trains. I am sure they are ALL stupid people ;)

Why can't everyone be as smart and alert as those of us at BikeForums?

One in a hundred crossings in the USA have gates and lights. Maybe less.

Of which the 89,000 that don't (out of 139,000+) are generally crossings on shortlines that are either rarely-used, or have trackage speed limits under 30 mph.


So you should expect that "second train" scenario anytime you are waiting for a passing train to get out of your way. That is my message here.

Two track unprotected crossings are highly unusual, and are generally in rural areas - often very open areas..


As for the woman in the OPs post, going through a down gate - LOOK FOR THE SECOND TRAIN. Or look for any train. But LOOK!

Sure. Look for one. Doesn't help if you're standing in its path. Wojtyla looked for the Metra E9 that was barreling down the center track - a millisecond before it hit her.


On my bike, I have carefully gone through hundreds of down railroad gates. Sometimes the train is a mile away, sometimes the train is dead stopped at the next crossing, sometimes (rarely) the train is RIGHT THERE and I have to stop and wait. Same thing on foot. If I can safely proceed across the track even though the signal is ringing and the gate is down, I'm crossing.

Because you're an irresponsible daredevil. We all know that.


I am not going to stand there in 100+ degrees of direct sunlight in the swamp I live in if I can cross safely. It can be done SAFELY. I can't even imaging waiting for a train that is not imminent on a bicycle or on foot. In a car, I wait.

It can't be done safely. Calculatedly risked, yes.


You would be surprised how many people get tagged by trains. I am sure they are ALL stupid people ;)

I'm not surprised, and you're not too far from the truth with that last statement. Gate runners are to railroads as contraflow cyclists are to this community, if not 10 times worse. Take my word for it.

Remember, the majority of these people are motorists - the same kind who honk and buzz cyclists.

-Kurt

Because you're an irresponsible daredevil. We all know that.

I don't think dismounting and walking my bike past a downed gate so I can see if the train(s) are actually near the crossing would be considered daredevil material by most cyclists.

Here is an interesting resource: Operation Lifesaver (http://www.oli.org/)

It's a rail safety non profit organization with lots of info. Obviously, this is a huge problem. You would be surprised how many people get tagged by trains. I am sure they are ALL stupid people ;)



Well.... to get hit by a device that runs on a rail... with a VERY predictable course, while there are loads of warnings... :rolleyes:

I'm just saying... :innocent:

Someone has to fill that side of the bell curve.