EuclidPolice cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way.
I think I just pulled something, I was laughing so hard.
I often drive a big red truck with more lights than any patrol car, a BIG siren (two, actually), and air horns which rival those on trains (some fire trucks actual have train horns). And people still don't get out of the way. I've been behind people driving with their windows open that still don't react.
EuclidThey run through intersections with conflicting traffic without needing special flagging machines staged at each intersection to hold the conflicting traffic.
No - the powers that be want us to STOP at every intersection, even if we have the green light, to ensure that we have everyone's attention. And still we get hit.
Light canon - as opposed to a heavy tome?
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...
EuclidActually, if you could just make locomotives look like big highway patrol cruisers, it would probably end the grade crossing problem.
Appears to have been tried in Britain. Appears to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN7naLLeB0A
(starts at 0.17)
At first I thought it was a Class 55 (Deltic), but just wishful thinking, as it was actually a Class 37.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
When railroading first began, they added a little warning to the locomotive and a little warning to the grade crossings. As things progress, they added more warning to the locomotive and more to the crossings. While the warning remained cost effective for the locomotive, it could not do so with the more numerous crossings. So crossings were prioritized for the amount of warning they deserved according to the road traffic, rail traffic levels, and other factors.
This evolution lead to two distinctly different classes of grade crossings with one having warning devices activated by the train, the so-called “Active crossing,” and the other with just signage and pavement markings, the so-called “Passive crossing.” Ever since this distinction was born, the passive crossings have been seen as a safety deficiency. But nobody wants to pay the price to update all the passive crossings, making them into active crossings.
So there has been a natural reaction where people try to come up with some sort of compromise that will make passive crossings safer, although not necessarily as safe as active crossings. This of course demands the KISS principle to keep the improvement affordable.
One approach that is extremely KISS is adding a “Yield” sign to the crossbucks at passive crossings. The premise is that the drivers frequently do not know that the crossbuck means yield. So when you add the yield sign to a crossbuck, you have two yield signs in effect; one the drivers understand and one that they don’t.
tree68No - the powers that be want us to STOP at every intersection, even if we have the green light, to ensure that we have everyone's attention. And still we get hit.
Tree, you remind me of a story down here a few years ago. Like many Caifornia cities, San Diego has installed systems at signal-controlled intersections to detect oncoming emergency vehicles and set signals to give green to the emergency vehicle and red to everyone else. It helped a little, but still there were instances of drivers blowing through the red and hitting the trucks broadside. It even happened when the emergency vehicle has had the green for quite a while.
Nothing to do but shake one's head because of the many drivers operating vehicles with their heads placed where they can't see the situation.
On further review, it occurs to me that there is an analytical problem, to wit, we have a system to prevent collisions and participants in that system. When the collision occurs, the question becomes is it the doing of the system or the participant that caused the collision. At some point, one has to make that decision and act or not act accordingly.
One sees that decision-making in court cases where someone is driving like a maniac and crashes, then sues whatever entity owns the road claiming dangerous condition of public property. Most of those are thrown out at the summary judgment stage because courts make that system/participant decision against the participant.
tree68 Euclid Police cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way. I think I just pulled something, I was laughing so hard. I often drive a big red truck with more lights than any patrol car, a BIG siren (two, actually), and air horns which rival those on trains (some fire trucks actual have train horns). And people still don't get out of the way. I've been behind people driving with their windows open that still don't react. Euclid They run through intersections with conflicting traffic without needing special flagging machines staged at each intersection to hold the conflicting traffic. No - the powers that be want us to STOP at every intersection, even if we have the green light, to ensure that we have everyone's attention. And still we get hit. Light canon - as opposed to a heavy tome?
Euclid Police cars have lots of blue and red flashing lights that get people to pull over or stay out of the way.
Euclid They run through intersections with conflicting traffic without needing special flagging machines staged at each intersection to hold the conflicting traffic.
Johnny
DeggestyNo, Larry, a "light canon" is a very slender priest who is the canon of a cathedral. I have known the canon of a cathedral, but I was never sure what his responsibilities were.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I never won a spelling bee in my life. I don't think I ever got to the second round.
If we're getting a light canNon, can we at least get a bass canNon to accompany it?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
EuclidOne approach that is extremely KISS is adding a “Yield” sign to the crossbucks at passive crossings.
Around here I've seen the standard octagonal STOP signs added to the crossbucks, probably on the theory that people have learned to react instinctively to them. I still think most drivers turn their minds off when they drive, so many of the schemes that involve new signage have a limited effect.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Euclid One approach that is extremely KISS is adding a “Yield” sign to the crossbucks at passive crossings. Around here I've seen the standard octagonal STOP signs added to the crossbucks, probably on the theory that people have learned to react instinctively to them. I still think most drivers turn their minds off when they drive, so many of the schemes that involve new signage have a limited effect.
Euclid One approach that is extremely KISS is adding a “Yield” sign to the crossbucks at passive crossings.
In general, people do observe the flashing lights and gates at the TRAXX crossings. It's been quite some time now since there has been an item about someone's being being hit by a TRAXX train.
Yep. They react to them by going faster. Ask any cop.
Norm
DeggestyI doubt that adding an octagonal Stop sign to the standard RR crossing sign will mean anything at all to most drivers on highways and streets...
The only place I've seen stop signs accompanying crossbucks has been on very low use, private, and industrial crossings - both of which will get only limited use by the general public. It's possible the crossing in question here had stop signs (or not).
Placing stop signs at crossings where such a stop might actually make things more dangerous isn't common. Unless it's a very busy crossing (in which case it will likely have at least lights) the locals will, indeed probably just ignore it, or maybe "totally pause..."
There are still a lot of crossings around the country that have only lights and bells, which kind of creates three types - crossbuck only, crossbucks and lights only, and crossbucks, lights and gates (which has variations, too).
Zug - I just had to do it...
With the advent of the small device in so many driver's hands: A brass band, bells, whistles, gates, cheerleaders jumping up and down and flashing signage isn't going to make them pay any more attention to trains, planes, boats, fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, etc. They aren't "drivers" any more. They are "pedal pushers."
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Last time i checked we still have a crossing with a cross buck signs and bell only on one of the cross bucks.
MookieWith the advent of the small device in so many driver's hands:
Just thinkin', but it seems that the most dangerous device in most drivers' hands is the steering wheel.
BTW, I am old enough to remember when "pedal pushers" referred to trousers popular with young women.
Stupid is stupid and there is no defense against personal stupidity.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ChuckCobleighBTW, I am old enough to remember when "pedal pushers" referred to trousers popular with young women.
Chuck - I wore them.
They're back...
Yield signs are the default sign to add to crossbucks. In my opinion, the reasoning used to justify it is faulty. The reasoning is that many drivers believe that the crossbuck simply marks the location of a grade crossing, but do not know that the crossbuck means the same as a yield sign. So the MUTCD concludes that such drivers do not know what action is expected of them at passive grade crossings. So they add yield signs to the crossbucks to inform drivers that they must yield.
I believe that such drivers intuitively know that they must yield to trains at grade crossings even if they do not know that crossbucks mean the same as a yield sign. I believe that yield signs added to crossbucks may actually reduce driver wariness, because yield signs are perceived as a compromise with stop signs, and therefore imply a relatively smaller danger.
The traffic authorities also add stop signs to crossbucks, but more factors go into the decision. There is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings than there is at other locations. I assume that this is because drivers easily rationalize that the sign means stop for trains, while understanding the basic premise that they are expected to use their own discretion in yielding to trains depending on how close the train is and how fast it is traveling.
So drivers conclude that if they see no train approaching, they don’t have to stop. What would be the point of stopping with no train approaching? With stop signs at road intersections, driver are habituated to believe that a stop is expected regardless of traffic conditions.
Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections.
tree68Placing stop signs at crossings where such a stop might actually make things more dangerous isn't common. Unless it's a very busy crossing (in which case it will likely have at least lights) the locals will, indeed probably just ignore it, or maybe "totally pause..."
School buses are required to come to a complete stop at all RR crossings, even on busy highways. They obey the law and the following cars, even in other lanes of traffic also stop. They do not just run the stop sign and strike or side swipe the halted bus. Why not try instead of adopting the typical defeatist attitude of "nothing will work"?
One of the MUTCD concerns with 'yield signs at crossings' (and I think it is a correct concern) is that drivers expect a yield sign to mean "yield to vehicular traffic" (since it is a rules-of-the-road traffic sign) and if they don't see any road traffic proceed to beat any train. If there is a 'correct' approach it would be for MUTCD to develop a specific 'yield to train' sign, put that in the driver manuals, etc., and then to develop some national program (perhaps structured after MADD) that gets enforcement efforts going.
The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for "stop" signs at crossings. This might involve either color or a distinctive 'border' around an iconic 'stop' sign.
If there is a problem 'enforcing stop signs', put up cameras at the crossings with 'special' stop signs and be rigorous in sending tickets to drivers that run them and then following up with consequences.
It's pretty well established that 'putting crossbucks in driver manuals to teach that it means the same as a yield sign' is a failure. And rightly so: the crossbucks mark a crossing location, and only indirectly (and imperfectly) serve as a control device. Semantically, there should be red on the sign to enforce full stop before proceeding if there is any desire to achieve that.
One unfortunate thing that was done in MUTCD was to use 'yellow' for advisory speed restrictions. You, me, and the fellow behind the tree treat these things not as restrictions, but recommendations -- in large part because they are enforced that way. I would personally not want to see those strictly enforced, either, so in a sense "yellow is out" as a color to be applied to crossing signage to get people to slow down rigorously.
The idea with the 'light cannon' was well-meant, but its actual operation is so fraught with problems, and the range of circumstances where its functionality would be impaired or negative ("deer in the headlights" being very unfunny in context) so great, as to make it a poor alternative to the rather amazing light show already provided by headlight and ditch lights. I proposed years ago (and this was actually based on observations about 'blink' in terminals for critical systems in ITU group R10!) that instead of alternating the ditch lights, it would be better to alternately dim them, which would keep the light intensity higher while continuing the unusual pulse to get people's attention.
For the mad scientists, I do have a sort of alternative to Euclid's cannon that might be used. I don't know if everyone is familiar with the version of "Mars light functionality" used on some KCS locomotives, which is a bit similar to the lights put on early UP and C&NW streamliners except rotating on a horizontal rather than vertical access, sweeping a focused searchlight beam repeatedly over a much wider range of vision than the head and ditch lights brightly illuminate. It would be comparatively easy to adapt such a light to the equivalent of a pan/tilt head, and then focus its beam and modulate it (and perhaps color-cycle LEDs in it) all under crew control. This is an expanded version of the 'optical horn' idea first used to my knowledge by Volvo. The difference here is that, instead of being a brute-force approach, it permits more specific, and perhaps more recognizable, alerting to potential or actual trespassers.
Since we evidently no longer care about the beautiful daughters, I would like to point out that the monkey idea is all wet -- it does not work if the window is up, for example, unless the monkey also carries an emergency glass hammer, and this poses among other things a potential diversion problem. The answer is so simple I'm amazed one of you junior Edisons didn't think of it: the CO2 gun shoots aimed glue-and-elastomer loogies loaded with purple dye that glows under UV light, which the police are then trained to recognize. Or fast-deploying stickers with the kind of glue folks like towing companies use for those 'you're illegally parked here' things, printed on nifty Tedlar film so you can't scrape or cut them off with normal tools. I leave it up to y'all to figure out wording and graphics for these, or whether you care if the stickers attach to 'idots' or trespassers as well as vehicles.
schlimmSchool buses are required to come to a complete stop at all RR crossings, even on busy highways. They obey the law and the following cars, even in other lanes of traffic also stop. They do not just run the stop sign and strike or side swipe the halted bus.
That school buses stop for railroad crossings is fairly common knowledge, and if they're on a two lane road, the cars behind them have little choice but to stop as well. Even kids know the bus driver is going to stop, open the door, look, then proceed.
I've seen plenty of cars pass a bus stopped at a crossing on a four lane road.
Of course, you'd think that everyone would also know that nobody - nobody - can pass a stopped school bus with the lights flashing, but I'm willing to bet that every single school bus driver has plenty of stories about folks who have done just that, and possibly some close calls where kids were almost hit as a result.
schlimmWhy not try instead of adopting the typical defeatist attitude of "nothing will work"?
Pretty much anything will work for a while, until drivers discover that a crossing is little used and there's no real reason to stop. I used to go over a certain (gated) crossing twice a day. I could go a month or better and never see a train. As far as John Q. Public is concerned, the line could be abandoned.
There is a stop sign across from my house. That road comes in at a slight angle (to be made 90 degrees this summer), and it's not at all uncommon for people to roll right through the stop sign (which has been there for the nearly 40 years I've lived here, and more) while looking over their shoulder for cars on the intersecting road. Even "totally paused" doesn't come close - they roll right through.
It's the locals, not the out-of-towners, who are the problem.
Everything works, for a while.
The new intersection across from my house will include curbing. I'm waiting to see the look on the face of the first person who cruises over the old course, looking over their shoulder, as they nail the curb...
It's not defeatist - it's looking at the reality of human nature. I'm willing to bet that people try to drive around four-quadrant gates, too...
Common carrier buses also stop at railroad crossings--by law.
Can you rephrase this slightly, as it appears to be conflating two different types of signage and action into one?
Getting school buses to stop at railroad crossings is easy to mandate, and easy to enforce. (Of course, it far from stops fatal school-bus accidents on crossings, but as you say it's a necessary first step.) Now that we have onboard cameras, it's a simple process from 'reading the tape' to firing any driver that doesn't go through the whole full-stop-and-open-door rigmarole.
The problem comes up fairly rapidly, though, that both the stop and the process of opening and closing the door become routine, and the driver starts zoning out while going through the motions. It might be interesting to see just how many times a train that would otherwise not be detected is seen in time, and the driver stays stopped to prevent catastrophe, vs. the near misses when a driver continues on after the check, or the disasters when they continue on but not quite far enough to get the back of the bus off the track.
You must never have lived in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, or California, as in all those states people routinely pass buses or commercial vehicles on multiple-lane crossings. It's common-sense understood that those vehicles that are subject to the law have to stop for reasons completely inapplicable to automobiles (mostly, when the crossing laws were passed, related to stalling on the crossing and flooding out, or high-centering, or having the transmission not go into proper gear to proceed, or being so long as to take an extended time to traverse the active part of the crossing or multiple tracks). In fact there have been discussions of additional danger to other lanes of traffic when drivers following a bus or fuel truck or whatever suddenly have to change lanes, or get impatient and whip over.
The situation would be different, of course, if the bus triggered its red lights and folding stop signs when it stopped at the crossing. I have never seen that done, however, and I suspect any driver that tried it might produce far more complaints than the incremental "safety" would warrant. It would also, noncoincidentally, 'breed more contempt' for early actuation of the school-bus stop lights over time.
Now, by 'run the stop sign' do you mean the folding stop signs on the bus? Or in some states are the lights automatically interlocked with the door -- they obviously can't be just with the brake -- so that they suddenly come on in people's faces when the driver opens the door for the brief look and listen? That would be a disaster and a half for a very wide variety of reasons, with no practical safety benefit, or lesson on enforcement, at all.
EuclidBecause there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections.
Happen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part8/part8b.htm
From the above link (although there was no reasonging behind it, so I won't assume what they are thinking):
Guidance: 06 The use of STOP signs at passive grade crossings should be limited to unusual conditions where requiring all highway vehicles to make a full stop is deemed essential by an engineering study. Among the factors that should be considered in the engineering study are the line of sight to approaching rail traffic (giving due consideration to seasonal crops or vegetation beyond both the highway and railroad or LRT rights-of-ways), the number of tracks, the speeds of trains or LRT equipment and highway vehicles, and the crash history at the grade crossing.
zugmannHappen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings.
He doesn't mean the MUTCD, of course, which is just the manual, and he likely doesn't mean all the current 'editors' or contributors to that manual necessarily have that opinion. I have seen studies that said exactly what he did, although I have no current source for them (they were likely developed somewhere within FHWA, or 'academically related' to a federal highway safety program.) and they do note that stop signs should only be used when it really, really is necessary for everyone to come to a full stop. (Which appears to be the premise that some posters have about what everyone should do at any unsignaled crossing...)
I do look forward to seeing the specific reference(s) Euclid will provide.
Someone -- I think it was BaltACD -- brought up an Ohio study with reflectors on crossbuck signs. Julie at ORDC was kind enough to send a link to the PDF version:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32300/32364/14612-FR.pdf
Her comment, succinctly, was that the results were 'not statistically significant'.
Please read this through and comment on what might be done differently for better effect, if you think the idea may have merit that way.
I will look for some references to my point about the MUTCD worry about diluting the authority of stop signs by applying them to grade crossings. My direct knowledge of that comes from many phone and email conversations with a contact person at the MUTCD. We discussed questions I had about grade crossings, crosswalks, and trail crossings.
Incidentally, my impression was that MUTCD referred to the organization that produces the manual as well as to the manual itself. The person I conversed with worked at the MUTCD.
zugmann Euclid Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections. Happen to have any source for this? MUTCD 2009 edition has all sorts of guidelines for using stop and yield signs with passive crossings.
Euclid Because there is less compliance with stop signs at grade crossings, the MUTCD worries that using stop signs at grade crossings will degrade the overall compliance with stop signs, and thus reduce stop sign compliance at road intersections.
The following is from this source on page 23
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf
Quote from the source:
1. Studies have consistently observed low rates of compliance with Stop signs that are used at rail crossings even though their use is typically limited to more severe sites. There is concern that broad use at passive crossings would further reduce the perceived urgency and legitimacy of the Stop message, degrading compliance further.
2. Concern has been expressed by the traffic engineering community that the widespread use of nonrequired Stop signs will breed a general disrespect for this TCD that will generalize to other applications. There is no direct empirical support for this breeding of disrespect, and, in fact, it would be very hard to prove or disprove.
However, because Stop signs are so widespread and critical in intersection traffic control, there is a potential for severe consequences even if there is only a minor amount of generalized disrespect.
OvermodThe situation would be different, of course, if the bus triggered its red lights and folding stop signs when it stopped at the crossing.
Based on my observations of NY school buses, the driver turns on the amber flashers, usually prior to the planned stop. This transitions to the red flashers when the door is opened.
If the amber flashers are not turned on, the reds will not come on.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.