Going back to this study:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
One has to temper the impatience factor with the risk taking factor.
Someone who is averse to risk will sigh, say "oh, well," and wait for the train. They won't be happy, but they'll accept it.
Someone who doesn't see blowing the crossing as a substantial risk will blow the crossing.
I'd just about bet that if one were to do a study measuring impatience, and at the same time measured the risk taking factors as was done in the linked study, there would be a correlation.
So what we're coming down to is that certain people will attempt to make it through a crossing no matter what the potential impediment to their progress may be.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
zugmannYou were talking about drivers don't want long delays. Fine. But most traffic light cycles are well under 2 minutes. Yet drivers don't want to wait even that long. So even if you waved a magic wand and only had train crossings occupied a maximum of 2 minutes every single time - people would still run the crossings.
I understand your point. We are looking at drivers taking a risk to avoid a delay in two different situations.
One is at traffic lights where the delay is certain to be no more than 2-3 minutes.
The other is at grade crossings where the delay is unknowable ahead of time, but it is certain that it could easily be 15 minutes. And it has the potential to be much longer. Not every driver is aware of the potential for crossing delay, but many are.
I don’t see any way to know if drivers take more risk at grade crossing because of the potential for greater delay. All I know is that they take risk at both intersections and grade crossings.
So the question I see is this:
Do drivers take more risk at grade crossings because the potential length of the delay is greater—OR—do they take the same risk across the board once the delay time reaches the 2-3 minute threshold?
I have no proof, but common sense tells me that the greater the potential delay, the greater the risk that drivers are willing to take.
Well,
Gonna add my 2 cents worth and get out.
Bucyrus, you have run just about every thread dealing with grade crossing accidents to the extreme, pointing out your assumption/ assertion for the need to put some form of additional warning in place at grade crossings.
If ya got something, then put it out here for discussion.
The following is my opinion, said opinion based on personal experience and on the job observation.
As was pointed out, most auto drivers stop for the red light at intersections, even when its “way up there”.
Sure they do, because every driver out there has seen either an accident as it happened at an intersection, or has come up on the aftermath of one…most of us have seen several such things.
Either way, we all have firsthand experience of what happens when you ignore the warning light; even way up there we pay attention to it.
We either feel, hear and see it happen, or we see the sheet draped bodies as we drive by, no matter which, it is a personal and up close, real time experience.
Now, how many of you have seen a grade crossing accident as it happens?
I don’t mean photos, videos off the net, but up close, where you can smell the oil, hot metal, and creosote and diesel fuel?
Or come upon one just after the fact, and watched the EMS people try to pry the wreck open, trying the get the victim out before they bleed out?
Bet you that outside this and other railfan forums, the number of folks who see that, or witness a grade crossing accident is tiny, minuscule compared to the number of you who have see auto accidents.
We all know the very real likelihood of being in an accident if we ignore the traffic light at the intersection; we all have had the experience of the end result in person.
Most of us have never seen the result of a train hitting an automobile.
Trust me, be It from the cab, or from the road way, it is the most terrifying thing you can witness, because you immediately understand it’s no contest at all, the train will destroy the auto, and there isn’t a single thing anyone can do about it once it’s put in motion…
You can take this to the bank….ever railroader I know will approach grade crossings, slow down and look both ways, not glance, but look, before crossing, regardless of whether the crossing has gates bells, the Full Monty treatment, or just cross bucks, we pay attention.
None of us trust crossing arms to function correctly, we automatically assume there is a train on the tracks, and we proceed under that assumption until we can ascertain the way is clear.
It’s not only because we are railroaders, but because almost all of us have had the personal experience of seeing or being involved with the result of not paying attention at grade crossings.
If you put up barricades, people will drive into them.
Put up nets, they will drive into the net.
Pop up spike strips to puncture tires, they will drive over them.
Full quadrant gates with median dividers, they will drive over the dividers or run into or under the gates.
Over and over and over.
Putting up a warning sign, bells, in pavement LED warning 100 yards, 1000 yards away from the crossing will make no difference.
Flashing lights, even a ten foot tall neon arrow pointing at the closed crossing arms won’t stop them, because they truly do not understand what will happen if they hit or get hit by a train….they have no type of real world experience to compare it to, have never seen it, felt it, smelled it or cleaned up after it, and they will continue to ignore any warning device until they see/ experience the results in person.
My railroad had a problem at an industrial crossing; we had a rash of near misses, then finally a good smack down with a big rig.
The rig lost, and our MOW guys left the front end/grill hood assembly sitting by the crossing for several months…lots of the other debris were left in place on purpose.
Funny thing, we seemed to have solved the problem…truck drivers who look at that hood, the bent wheel rims and all the junk…well, they slow down and look now.
Nothing you do will prevent the ordinary driver from ignoring the at grade warning devices, until they experience the end results of doing so up close and in person.
Nothing….
23 17 46 11
Ed,
I understand your points and agree with most of them. However, I am not advocating that crossings in general need more protection equipment, and I have no ideas of what type of improvements could be made to make crossings safer. The only exception to my position on this was for the Nevada crossing with the 70 mph speed limit. I believe that crossing lacks advance warning because of the relatively high speed limit. And I am not referring to the 25 second activation warning, which confuses the issue of approach warning.
For that Nevada crossing, I do advocate adding the advanced warning system that has been designed and approved for such applications by the FRA. And I have suggested it here. But when I suggested that several times in the Nevada thread, it was met with fierce resistance. Yet the engineer of the Amtrak train that was hit by the truck at that crossing advocates the same advance warning or similar improvements. Why there should be fierce resistance to the idea is an interesting study in itself.
Other than that crossing, I have taken not advocated any crossing improvements that I can recall. I see a greater potential for improvement coming from looking at driver attitudes and perception, and possibly refocusing education on that.
In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. And I feel that if this is verified and understood, it could open the door to better crossing protection solutions or even better public compliance. That is where I see the greatest potential for reducing the problem. I do not hold the view that all drivers who have been hit at grade crossings, or just violated them, were simply incorrigible and would stop at nothing. I think that is the wrong explanation for their crossing behavior in many cases.
Earlier I did mention that flashing red crossing signals lack any advance warning such as would be provided by flashing yellow preceding flashing red. But I don’t know if that would help, and I am not advocating it. My larger point is that the law about the crossing is technically defective because it requires a driver to stop instantaneously if the red lights activate in the driver’s face on approach. It may not pose an immediate risk, but it does require the driver to break the law. And when we are carefully allotting and counting seconds in the various phases of the activation warning cycle, I think it is amazing that we have this timing ambiguity built into the front of the cycle by a law that requires the impossible.
I understand your point that some drivers will defeat every type of safety device. But I do not believe that all drivers who defeat some of them would stop at nothing no matter what else was done to thwart them. So all I am doing is looking mainly at the law, the warnings, and what goes on inside the heads of drivers. It is the same thing that the MUTCD and the FRA are doing as they constantly search for new ways to improve the warning systems and reduce the problem.
As far as seeing accidents first hand, I agree that people would all be more careful if they saw more of them. Maybe after seeing many, however, they would become hardened to them and resume taking chances. But I can say that for me, seeing an accident first hand has an emotional effect that comes right out of left field. It almost incapacitates my willingness to drive. That emotional impact does heal though in a day or so. I think that healed state is the normal condition for most drivers that have not just witnessed an accident. And in that state, people take risks without being stopped by the potential consequences. They rule out those consequences as part of their calculation deciding to take the risk.
But yes, the worst accidents possible in the abstract or seen in movies are not even in the same ballpark as one that is witnessed for real. They are as different as bird feathers and avalanches.
Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
regular intersections attract collisions, underpasses attract too high trucks, overpasses attract car and or trucks falling from the heavens....
I think this is getting a little silly, n'est pas?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
311,591,917 people in the United States as of July 2011.
Conservative assumption is that ¼ of those are legal drivers.
77897979 drivers result.
According to the FRA, there was 2054 accidents at grade crossings that year.
0.00263% of drivers in 2011 involved in grade crossing accidents.
Less than a single percent.
The only reason it is an issue is because we are railfans and read about it here, and because it makes spectacular press for a day or two in the real world.
A crushed car photo under the front page fold in any paper sells papers.
edblysard 311,591,917 people in the United States as of July 2011. Conservative assumption is that ¼ of those are legal drivers. 77897979 drivers result. According to the FRA, there was 2054 accidents at grade crossings that year. 0.00263% of drivers in 2011 involved in grade crossing accidents. Less than a single percent. The only reason it is an issue is because we are railfans and read about it here, and because it makes spectacular press for a day or two in the real world. A crushed car photo under the front page fold in any paper sells papers.
That is less than 1/100th of 1 percent.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Since the failure of a train to sound a horn when approaching a crossing somehow transfers liability for an accident to the railroad that had the right of way at the intersection I suggest that the vehicle and traffic laws be amended to require automobiles to sound their horn when they approach any intersection where they have the right of way to warn anyone who is considering running a traffic signal or stop sign that they are coming.
If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then the driver is too stupid to be allowed to roam free anyway.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
BaltACD That is less than 1/100th of 1 percent.
Or one in 38,000 drivers.
Or one per 1.5 Billion miles driven.
I'm reminded of a tongue-in-cheek editorial that appeared years ago in the old Pontiac (MI) Press.
The editorial advocated the removal of all "killer trees" from roadsides. After also advocating for mandatory vehicle spacing on highways, the piece concluded that even after all those measures, some clown would come along, roll his vehicle and kill himself.
Though tongue-in-cheek, the editorial had some validity. Even today, eight percent of highway fatalities (over 3000 per year) involve a collision with a tree. That makes them more dangerous than railroad crossings - and trees don't even move!
Yeah, and we ought to move those Deer Crossing signs to a place where it is safer for the dear deer to cross!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
tree68 The editorial advocated the removal of all "killer trees" from roadsides. After also advocating for mandatory vehicle spacing on highways, the piece concluded that even after all those measures, some clown would come along, roll his vehicle and kill himself. Though tongue-in-cheek, the editorial had some validity. Even today, eight percent of highway fatalities (over 3000 per year) involve a collision with a tree. That makes them more dangerous than railroad crossings - and trees don't even move!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmann Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
Zugmann,
Please allow me to clarify.
I was referring to “crashes” meaning all crashes in general, including those involving vehicles as well as those involving vehicles and trains. Specifically, the apt comparison would be trains and vehicles compared to vehicles meeting at intersections.
When you apply what I said about magnetism to banks robberies, this would be the analogy:
Of all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets. I believe that there is also an explanation for the magnetism of grade crossings attracting crashes.
BucyrusOf all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets.
Two percent of all robberies are of banks.
Six percent are of convenience stores...
Trailer courts attract tornadoes.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Bucyrus zugmann Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes? Of all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets. I believe that there is also an explanation for the magnetism of grade crossings attracting crashes.
Here is a very comprehensive report on crossing safety by the U.S. DOT. It certainly seems to me that they regard the crossing problem very seriously, and look for ways to mitigate it. It gives an idea of how much care and attention is given to finding solutions to the crossing problem.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/mh2004065.pdf
Quote from the link:
Motorist behavior caused most public grade crossing accidents. Risky
driver behavior or poor judgment accounted for 31,035 or 94 percent of public
grade crossing accidents and 3,556 or 87 percent of fatalities, during the 10-
year period. With the exception of 22 train passengers and railroad employees,
all of these fatalities were motorists. According to accident reports, motorists
failed to stop at grade crossings or drove around activated automatic gates. Of
the 10 states we visited, only Illinois had passed photo enforcement legislation
to deter grade crossing traffic violations. Further, only 4 of the 10 states we
visited—Illinois, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas—had imposed specific
grade crossing penalties for motorists’ violations. Safety could be improved
with enhanced education, legislation, and traffic enforcement to target motor
vehicle drivers who violate grade crossing safety laws and warnings.
Here is another report titled:
Risk assessment techniques and a new human reliability analysis technique, the Event Window specific to the behavior characteristics at Active and Passive railway grade crossings, how this can assist risk assessment and save peoples lives
http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2005_RailGradeCross_paper.pdf
Like the above report, this one goes miles deep into learning driver attitudes and how to modify those attitudes in order to mitigate crossing crashes.
Regarding comments about my bank robbery analogy:
It was only to reply to zugmann in the context of his comment where he used the same analogy. I don’t understand the points that some are now trying to make of it.
Regarding crash statistics comparing the number of crossing crashes to the number of drivers:
I doubt that any railroad company concludes that grade crossing crashes are not a problem because there are only 2054 of them in a year. Everything I have read about crossing crashes indicates that they are regarded as BIG problem.
Yes, but there's a difference between something being a "big" problem (based on someone's opinion), and a problem that happens in large numbers or rates.
Railroads are going to say vehicle crashes are a "big" problem. If nothing else it causes huge delays of moving freight - the whole point of the game. Quite frankly, automobiles crashing at intersections or into trees aren't that big of a deal for them (save for the occasional company truck or contractor van).
Methinks it comes down to this: Crossing incidents are a problem (as are many things).
Fixing the problem involves two things: Engineering and Human Behavior.
I don't think anyone will disagree to the idea that grade separation is the ultimate engineering cure. There are many impediments to achieving that goal, the biggest being money.
I also don't think anyone has a clue on how to cure the human behavior aspect.
Given that scenario, all we can hope for is to engineer crossings so as to minimize the side effects of human behavior. But we all know that the usual outcome of making something idiot-proof is to generate a new class of idiots.
That said, and given that both railroads and governments want to reduce/eliminate crossing incidents, I believe that the vast majority of crossings are as good as they need to be.
The bottom line is that just because an incident occurs at a crossing, it doesn't mean that said crossing is defective. Unless a crossing has a documented history of similar incidents, it simply means that somebody found a way around the protections that were built in. Separation notwithstanding, no amount of engineering can prevent such incidents.
Just like that 150 year old oak in your front yard isn't a traffic hazard until somebody finally goes off the road and hits it.
There was a crossing warning sign near Granada Mississippi built by a Mr. Billups that used sirens and flashing neon signs. Here is a link to an animation on YouTube of what it may have been like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns
I wonder how well it worked.. (Sure got MY attention!)
See also:
http://depletedcranium.com/railroad-crossings-the-trouble-with-idiots/
for other info.
Phoebe Vet If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then the driver is too stupid to be allowed to roam free anyway.
(So what if their self worth dignity is insulted!)
Unfortunately the only foolproof crossing is a grade separation crossing where the road goes under or over the tracks, they majors out here have spent millions digging underpasses at the worst crossings out here to avoid this problem. but this cannot be done at all problem crossings and I'm sure somewhere some idiot went into the underpass, lost control and hit a support pylon and sued the RR for putting that pylon there in the first place.
Have fun with your trains
The real issue no one want to admit, you cannot fix stupid.
Impatient and in a hurry. I can make it.
I have lost track of how many I have seen, run a railroad crossing, stop signs, pedestrian crossing on streets. The list goes on.
Many videos have been posted in the different railroad forums.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Well yes, I am glad to hear everyone’s viewpoint on this. Being right or wrong is only relative. All we have is our opinions and the power of persuasion. Even technical studies and references are only worth their power to convince people.
What I am hearing is: Nothing can fix the problem, but in case you doubt that, there is no problem that needs fixing.
But that goes to the larger point about grade crossings. That being what we are discussing here in regard to quiet zones and whether they are more dangerous than normal crossings. I think they are. The U.P. thinks they are. Seemingly most railroaders on other forums think they are as well. The people who say quiet zones are safe are those who represent the noise complainers clustered around the railroad in the cities.
But here, the jury is still out on the matter. Anybody have any thoughts?
I stand by my previous post:
If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then I don't see how the train horn adds to safety.
What do the statistics say? Are there more collisions at quiet zone crossings than at more-or-less equivalent "normal" crossings?
Boulder, CO says that the railroads and the FRA say that quiet zones may increase the likelihood of accidents of crossings. That's a far distance from "will."
In a City of Matteson (IL?) document found on the web, they reported " In 1984, Florida imposed a horn ban and the FRA noted a 60 percent increase in grade crossing accidents." The document does not mention what measures were taken at the crossings (ie, barriers, four-quadrant gates, etc), so while the number is probably accurate, it lacks enough information to make any comparisons to the current situation.
That said, I was unable to find any current information indicating that quiet zones actually do represent a problem, safety-wise.
Bucyrus What I am hearing is: Nothing can fix the problem, but in case you doubt that, there is no problem that needs fixing.
Yes, but you missed one. Whose problem is it to begin with? Should I (taxes) have to pay for 45,000 gates and overpasses because someone doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to operate their motorcarriage in a most safe behaviour?
Nice idea, still would not work. Example, this week a double-decker bus "got lost" at a major air-port. Large signs, flashing lights denoted a low overhead bridge for over side tucks and buses. Signs say, make left hand turn now. Bus ran into said bridge and two elderly men on the upper deck were killed. There needs to be a physical barrier which gets us back to the discussion on when the barrier goes down and what kind of warnings to give.
The Florida quiet zone legislation did not require anything except for the carriers to stop sounding for crossings. Anecdoteally, I feel the 60% number is low, with just my 'seat of the pants' from working Florida territories during this time frame.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.