Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The orthodoxy is not just the belief that grade crossing crashes are the fault of the driver.  Most of them in fact are.  The orthodoxy is entrenched in extreme defensiveness of the position of being legally right most of the time.  The trouble with that position is that it leaves room for only one explanation for crossing crashes, which is that drivers are all morons and idiots.  And after 150 years of waiting for that to change without any luck, it appears that the problem of crossing crashes has no solution.    <o:p></o:p> While the law may be almost 100% clear, many of the causes for crossing crashes are based on elements of human nature.  And people are going to rely on their human nature rather than trying to decipher the Byzantine language of the crossing laws.  <o:p></o:p> Consider the topic of this thread:  <o:p></o:p> The second train coming on a second track has been bugaboo of crossings for a long time.  It catches people off guard because of human nature.  It has nothing to do with human intelligence.  Bells ring and lights flash.  They attract drivers’ attention to an approaching train.  The train is the point, and the lights and bells are only there to make the point.  The driver comes to that conclusion.  It is only logical.  So when the train clears, the point of yielding to it is thought to have passed as well.  That too is only logical.   <o:p></o:p> The bells and lights may keep going, but a driver just assumes they have not shut off in a timely manner.  Even on a single track where there can be no other train approaching, drivers are accustomed to seeing the flasher take a few seconds to shut off once the train clears the crossing.  So a driver concludes that the danger has passed, and therefore the bells and lights lose their meaning.  Thinking it is all clear, the driver pulls out in front of a fast approaching second train that is obscured by the first train both visually and audibly.  Did the driver break the law?  Sure.  Did the driver intend to?  Of course not.  <o:p></o:p> This is a death snare that catches drivers off guard just like the cheese in a mousetrap catches mice off guard.  The mice always make the same mistake, but it is only a mistake.  Likewise, people will continue to make the mistake of driving or walking into the path of the second train.  But the stubborn orthodoxy draws a line in the sand over the letter of the law and refuses to recognize the gray area of human nature.  <o:p></o:p> The development of the “Another Train Coming” warning system is a praiseworthy goal that does address human nature in order to actually fix the problem rather than complain about it.  The problem is that an effective warning for the second train is very difficult to make in a way that is clear.  In the past, the warning was only implied by a sign that specified the number of tracks.  It was up to drivers to connect the dots and conclude that the clearing of a train did not necessarily to mean that the crossing was clear.  <o:p></o:p> Automatic crossing signal installations coupled with the latest electronics and displays ought to be technologically capable of creating an execution of any warning that can be imagined.  The challenge is to imagine a warning that makes the point without ambiguity.  The ATS as shown in the video fails that mission.  You have two trains standing short of the crossing with an annoying audio message warning about another train coming.  There is too much noise, too much crying wolf, and an audible warning that makes no sense when no trains are moving.  This has not been thought through, and it is just as likely to get someone killed as it is to save a life.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag