Sounds good, coupled with a robust program to permanently close many of those passive crossings.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Overmod The idea, and Euclid now has confirmed this, is to provide at least the same level and type of indication to people at passive crossings as they would see at a comparable active-signaled crossing. "More" may be better, in direct proportion to the ways an active ungated crossing could be 'improved' -- but, as noted, that hinges much more on modifying driver behavior than on providing more lumens.
"More" may be better, in direct proportion to the ways an active ungated crossing could be 'improved' -- but, as noted, that hinges much more on modifying driver behavior than on providing more lumens.
Yes, I have limited the purpose to as you describe because I believe that the conspicuity of active crossing flashers is 100% adequate to get the attention of a driver unless a driver is not looking at it. If that is the case, no added conspicuity will overcome that problem. So my point is only to improve the conspicuity and active signal, train presence impression for passive crossings to the extent that it equals active crossing signals presently in use.
Once that level of signalization is achieved, I think that non-compliance will be either due to gross inattention or trying to beat the train. Of course, that part of the problem will be solved by our self-driving cars.
Overmod Norm48327 Photon Torpedoes anyone? Where would you propose to use one, provided you could build it? And how would you cope with the over-the-horizon radiation damage? My point was to get him off the whole idea of using really bright light in the first place, not to re-introduce a semantic discussion of how bright a light can be before we can call it a cannon, or whatever. The idea, and Euclid now has confirmed this, is to provide at least the same level and type of indication to people at passive crossings as they would see at a comparable active-signaled crossing. "More" may be better, in direct proportion to the ways an active ungated crossing could be 'improved' -- but, as noted, that hinges much more on modifying driver behavior than on providing more lumens.
Norm48327 Photon Torpedoes anyone?
Where would you propose to use one, provided you could build it? And how would you cope with the over-the-horizon radiation damage?
My point was to get him off the whole idea of using really bright light in the first place, not to re-introduce a semantic discussion of how bright a light can be before we can call it a cannon, or whatever.
The idea, and Euclid now has confirmed this, is to provide at least the same level and type of indication to people at passive crossings as they would see at a comparable active-signaled crossing.
And all of the above reveals that this thread has taken such a dive into an abyss of infinite depth as to be totally useless.
I'm outta here.
Norm
Norm48327 Overmod I think that you, or perhaps "we" who are reading this thread, need to come up with a better descriptor than "light cannon", as the nature and intensity of the light source(s) are highly secondary to what you're describing. Photon Torpedoes anyone?
Overmod I think that you, or perhaps "we" who are reading this thread, need to come up with a better descriptor than "light cannon", as the nature and intensity of the light source(s) are highly secondary to what you're describing.
Photon Torpedoes anyone?
Johnny
Norm48327Photon Torpedoes anyone?
OvermodI think that you, or perhaps "we" who are reading this thread, need to come up with a better descriptor than "light cannon", as the nature and intensity of the light source(s) are highly secondary to what you're describing.
Euclidhe power of this light cannon is not intended to make an exceptional impression on drivers as might be the intent of improving the flashers of active crossings to discourage drivers from trying to beat the train. It is not meant to be a version of the DEATH crossing that was set up in Indiana. The only point is to get the driver's attention to the fact that a train is approaching a passive crossing.
I think that you, or perhaps "we" who are reading this thread, need to come up with a better descriptor than "light cannon", as the nature and intensity of the light source(s) are highly secondary to what you're describing.
To get this started, many years ago (you can date this by when it was recognized that multimode fiber had problems because it turned out a common 'spinning defect' at the fiber core caused problems with beams that required low jitter, and one of the 'cures' involved reducing speckle in the incident beam) I began thinking that one use of laser projection combined with 'reflector gunsight' optics (which create a 2D image that is 'in focus' regardless of the distance from optics to eye) would be to have an active laser projector on the locomotive which targeted a turning reflector on the crossbuck, with optics intentionally distorted to produce a larger 'picture' with distance from the crossing. This would give both active lighting and an alphanumeric/pictorial 'message' across the whole crossing approach zone -- in theory. (I won't go into the problems implementing this, but suffice it to say there are too many to risk proceeding with testing the idea, let alone trying to implement it 'in the field' as a crossing safety device.)
The current version of the optical idea is to concentrate ambient light along the rough axis of locomotive approach into a beam that is rotated passively into the 'approach zone' of the crossing at an approximation of eye level (from low cars or recumbent bicycles through tall standing pedestrians or cyclists up to Class VIII truck cabs). That is a bit different from the specular reflection used in the Buckeye crossbuck (which is just Scotchlite glass spheres on an angled plate) but the basic idea -- to use the light of the oncoming train to produce an active light warning where a driver or pedestrian would expect to see a Holley Rudd set of red alternately-flashing lights -- is essentially similar.
Note that the idea works a bit better when the 'alternate flash' of the ditch lights goes all the way to 'dark' between alternations, which is not the normal way the lights are set up. I had thought that this might be a reasonable way to 'distinguish' the warning period of approach from the active period when determining enforcement semantics.
The passive shuttering can be either done with LCDs interposed at the tightest focus of the optics (as in microscreen devices) or via some form of MEMs device to do part of the rotation. Either of those can be made to work a considerable time from battery/solar power on unattended crossings, with at least the tacit recognition that if they fail they should do so in a way that sends a reflected indication back to the train crew (like the little 'portholes' or pilot lights that show crews that a crossing is activated and flashing on approach) so they at least have some warning that it's out.
So the point of this system is only to bring the active warning for passive crossings up to the performance level of active crossing flashers. Thus, the power of the light cannon is to get a reasonable active light signal from the locomotive to the driver. Maybe it would be used in conjunction with some type of crossing reflector to turn the light signal toward the driver as was the intent of the Buckeye crossbuck.
I'd concentrate on this functionality, particularly the idea of replicating recognizable 'active crossing' semantics for drivers and others, and make the actual "light emission" from the locomotive a secondary item of importance. I think you would be both right and justified in pursuing such an approach.
EuclidWith further thinking, I can define exactly what I want the light beam to do, but I have no idea how to technically achieve such light beam characteristics. It has to consistently achieve its purpose both night and day, and in different weather conditions.
I would recommend that the beam oscillate back and forth across the tracks, while also oscillating up and down, creating multiple figure eights.
Wait - that's already been done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6957o6RzdbY
The railroads used the Mars light and the Gyralite.
Of course, they got rid of them because they are a maintenance headache...
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...
OvermodThe trick is to use sensor fusion techniques to scan and identify the license number of drivers, then check social media to find out the music they don't like, cue some up on the locomotive server, and play it loud. Even has the Government seal of approval -- it worked for Noriega!
Or just simply play Nickelback.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Overmod,
Actually, I was thinking that you should be the one to design the light beam. I can see the overall function of this system. With further thinking, I can define exactly what I want the light beam to do, but I have no idea how to technically achieve such light beam characteristics. It has to consistently achieve its purpose both night and day, and in different weather conditions.
This system is an alternative to converting passive crossings into active crossing installations. In this system, the locomotive carries special equipment that “plants” an active crossing “installation” at a passive crossing upon approach to the crossing, and then removes the installation after the train clears. In effect, it is an automatic flagging system accomplishing the same thing as a man getting off a locomotive, walking ahead, and hand flagging a crossing, and re-boarding the locomotive as it passes the crossing.
The power of this light cannon is not intended to make an exceptional impression on drivers as might be the intent of improving the flashers of active crossings to discourage drivers from trying to beat the train. It is not meant to be a version of the DEATH crossing that was set up in Indiana. The only point is to get the driver's attention to the fact that a train is approaching a passive crossing.
So the point of this system is only to bring the active warning for passive crossings up to the performance level of active crossing flashers.
Thus, the power of the light cannon is to get a reasonable active light signal from the locomotive to the driver. Maybe it would be used in conjunction with some type of crossing reflector to turn the light signal toward the driver as was the intent of the Buckeye crossbuck.
OvermodI was thinking lasers. Bright, colored lasers in RGB that can raster colored images and graphics that move directly to the 'eye zones' of malefactors.
Holograms! The possibilities for images are limitless. Start with benign "there's a train coming," end with gory just before the train arrives...
zugmannWe need spotlights that move around. And strobe lights. And we would replace the air horns with sound systems that play rave music. That way drivers would stop, exit their vehicles and dance when the train approaches!
I was thinking lasers. Bright, colored lasers in RGB that can raster colored images and graphics that move directly to the 'eye zones' of malefactors. And high-repetition-rate industrial fiber lasers that will cut appropriate "warning" messages into vehicle paint if the video images are ignored.
And why replace the horns to get the rave music? We'll just modulate the diaphragms in the horns rather than blowing them with compressed air -- that's worked for PA loudspeakers for many years, why not now for Doyle's PA horns?
The trick is to use sensor fusion techniques to scan and identify the license number of drivers, then check social media to find out the music they don't like, cue some up on the locomotive server, and play it loud. Even has the Government seal of approval -- it worked for Noriega! Although, as someone who actually produced a couple of raves, I like the idea of 'carrot rather than stick' in giving potential violators a positive incentive to stop, get out of the car, but not trespass... the only problem is how we deal with the controlled dangerous substances that will start to pile up at the crossings after a while.
I'm surprised that Euclid has not proposed some of these obvious enhancements to his light-cannon alert system.
zugmann Overmod There are two basic situations here: where the 'light cannon' is bright enough to bounce enough light transversely to make a driver take note, and where the 'light cannon' is focused or targeted on the approach zones to make the driver notice in such a way that he slams on his brakes before going into the crossing. Which of these were you proposing -- or if another action, please be specific about what the light does and what you expect the response to be. We need spotlights that move around. And strobe lights. And we would replace the air horns with sound systems that play rave music. That way drivers would stop, exit their vehicles and dance when the train approaches! Of course the crew would need glowsticks.
Overmod There are two basic situations here: where the 'light cannon' is bright enough to bounce enough light transversely to make a driver take note, and where the 'light cannon' is focused or targeted on the approach zones to make the driver notice in such a way that he slams on his brakes before going into the crossing. Which of these were you proposing -- or if another action, please be specific about what the light does and what you expect the response to be.
We need spotlights that move around. And strobe lights. And we would replace the air horns with sound systems that play rave music. That way drivers would stop, exit their vehicles and dance when the train approaches!
Of course the crew would need glowsticks.
EuclidI am astounded to learn that the Ohio law draws the line at just 2 seconds. Are you sure about that? I have not looked it up.
That is not the Ohio law, it is the criterion that was used in the Buckeye crossing study for drivers crossing 'too close to the train'. (I will find the specific page in the report if it isn't clear when you read it.)
The enforcement difficulty is, of course, that a driver can't be responsible for a measurement made after he or she takes a particular action. A case in point is the issue you raise, where a driver used to a particular range of train speeds miscalculates an oncoming faster train and therefore has a 'nearer miss' as recorded by some enforcement device (or a trooper's car cam, etc.) It may not have the 'desired effect on forming behavior' to prosecute this as if it were a wilful close call. Therefore, I think that some sort of signal that actuates at least a determined number of seconds before the train physically reaches the crossing and that can unambiguously serve as the sign to stop or yield when observed is a better approach.
This raises a reaction-time and judgment question, of course, which implies that some pre-warning signal or action (comparable to the yellow indication in a traffic light, interpreted as it is in Pennsylvania where it is a conditional red and not conditional green) should be displayed before the one that means 'absolute' yield. I have a number of thoughts on this, but would welcome suggestions.
Active crossings are set to require 25 seconds.
As has been discussed elsewhere, that is a rather long time, and if known to be that long, there is some tacit incentive for an impatient driver to try to get across in what he or she may think is the 10 to 15 seconds or so before 'the train gets significantly close'. Then if something happens that delays their getting 'through the crossing' their perceived safety cushion can begin to erode dramatically, even if they have estimated oncoming closing speed correctly.
Regarding the “light cannon” that I mentioned earlier, saying that it will blind the driver is a convenient objection in a format where objection is always paramount. Obviously it is a frivolous objection. Who cares if a driver is blinded by a light they choose to look at?
If it works as a light cannon, it will almost by definition be as bright as automobile high beams, and to accomplish its stated purpose some meaningful intensity of light will need to be reflected into the driver's line of sight when the train is still far enough away that a stop makes sense. There are two basic situations here: where the 'light cannon' is bright enough to bounce enough light transversely to make a driver take note, and where the 'light cannon' is focused or targeted on the approach zones to make the driver notice in such a way that he slams on his brakes before going into the crossing. Which of these were you proposing -- or if another action, please be specific about what the light does and what you expect the response to be.
The light is perpendicular to the driver's line of sight while driving. What about the headlight of a train approaching at night? Is that not blinding?
One of the issues with excessive cp of light from an approaching train is that it can make distance perception more difficult or uncertain. One of the 'standard' arguments is that 'it doesn't matter' because the mere presence of so much light ought to make a driver stop. The problem so often, just as mentioned in the Ohio study, is that you have a driver who has already decided, rightly or wrongly, that he or she is going over the crossing to beat the train, and a "safety" device that has any tendency to blind or confuse a driver doing so may actually be counterproductive in that circumstance.
Note that several versions of 'long light' were tried in the Thirties to mark the coming generation of high-speed trains to people at grade crossings. One approach was a vertical oscillating headlight, specifically aimed in a direction that would not produce 'glare' in the plane of potentially-dangerous train movement, but would produce a 'spotlight beam' that would be noticeable in the sky, over many lineside obstacles and around curves, that could be taught to drivers as "high speed train coming". Now, when I read about this, I thought it was a really great and effective idea ... come to find everywhere it was tried it was judged a failure and quickly removed.
Meanwhile -- the aspect of 'light cannon' rotated into the driver's line of sight came up with respect (as it turns out) to the 45-degree "wings" in the Buckeye crossbuck setup. I thought there would be mention in the report of the 'flashing' effect of ditch lights creating a specific and noticeable visual signal to drivers -- this does not appear to have been considered something of enough note to comment on as a "line-item" in the analysis. Likewise, there appears to be no research into making the 'wings' a more distinctive color or providing them with more distinctive markings than simple reflective-orange striping.
What I had been assuming the 'light cannon' would do was to shine brightly enough, or with good enough focus and collimation, at specific items in passive crossings that would rotate the light into a driver's field of view, and perhaps illuminate specific signage so that it would both clearly and compellingly be perceived. My version of that approach used liquid-crystal 'shuttering' (driven by solar-powered battery, etc.) to modulate the steady head and ditch lighting into something approximating a familiar railroad-crossing warning signal. That was done long before LED prices fell as they have, so that light-shows in 'passive' signage (as for LightGuard signs) become practical, and before 'radar' or structured-light detection of oncoming traffic to trigger and control the light shows became cost-effective to provide and maintain.
samfp1943Wanswheel, reported one of those immediate Internet appeal for Response to the incident.. A 'gofundme' appeal for money for four of the young victims of the accident....Personally, I would be highly suspicious of something like that; in this day and time, it might be viewd as "an opportunity" to make some fast sympathetic cash for the unscrupelous...
The "gofundme" thing has gone to extremes. In my small town locale, it has become SOP for any family that loses a member below a certain age. Originally, it was often used for poor families that couldn't afford burial expenses. Now it's across the socioeconomic spectrum, with no limit on how much money can be raised and gifted. I find it odd. But no one wants to offer criticism during a period of mourning. Unless it's grade crossing victims on the Trains forum.
Overmod Euclid Overmod Euclid "Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across. That is what 'yield the right of way' means. I do know what “yield right of way” means. It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation. It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.” There is no need to invoke a ridiculous hyperbole for how long a driver at a passive crossing needs to wait; It is also unambiguous to drivers, requires no 'light cannon' blinding to be effective even when the locomotive itself may not be clearly visible,...
Euclid Overmod Euclid "Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across. That is what 'yield the right of way' means. I do know what “yield right of way” means. It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation. It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.”
Overmod Euclid "Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across. That is what 'yield the right of way' means.
Euclid
"Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across. That is what 'yield the right of way' means.
I do know what “yield right of way” means. It is the “if necessary” part that requires the dissertation. It is the same issue with the “proceed” part of “stop and proceed.”
There is no need to invoke a ridiculous hyperbole for how long a driver at a passive crossing needs to wait;
It is also unambiguous to drivers, requires no 'light cannon' blinding to be effective even when the locomotive itself may not be clearly visible,...
When I say it is hard to draw the regulatory line as to how close is too close, I include the difficulty of drawing a line that a driver or the police can interpret at the site. In my opinion, this has been one of the murkiest elements of crossing law.
In some cases the only line of definition for active crossings was that if the flashers are activated, you cannot cross. At some point, that was relaxed to apply to only if the gates are lowered. At this time, drivers are permitted to pass the flashing lights after stopping if it is safe to do so (and if the gates are not lowered); again allowing drivers to use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to cross. In some cases, language is added to clarify if it is safe by stipulating that it depends on whether the train is posing a hazard. In other language, it refers to the crossing horn signal of the train as defining whether or not it safe to cross.
Certainly a train stopped short is not posing a hazard—except for the hazard of blocking the visibility of fast approaching train on an adjacent track.
A lot of people have no idea that it is permissible to cross past activated flashers under certain conditions. Others believe that the same principles that allow crossing against activated flashers also applies to lowered gated.
Drawing the regulatory line in simple terms of time interval is remarkably simple, as you say. However, the problem is for the motorist to determine the number of seconds available before an approaching train fouls the crossing. It is already widely known that approaching trains appear to be moving slower than they actually are. In the book, Metropolitan Corridor, in the chapter, Crossing; the author describes the common effect of drivers getting used to judging the approach of slower trains, and then getting killed by misjudging a fast train.
I am astounded to learn that the Ohio law draws the line at just 2 seconds. Are you sure about that? I have not looked it up. Active crossings are set to require 25 seconds.
Regarding the “light cannon” that I mentioned earlier, saying that it will blind the driver is a convenient objection in a format where objection is always paramount. Obviously it is a frivolous objection. Who cares if a driver is blinded by a light they choose to look at? The light is perpendicular to the driver's line of sight while driving. What about the headlight of a train approaching at night? Is that not blinding?
OvermodI suggest, as a starting point, the time that an approaching locomotive displays alternating ditch lights.
Which assumes that there is a point at which alternating ditch lights (technically "auxiliary" lights) are displayed and that they are even required to flash (they are not - CFR 229.125). Our auxiliary lights do not flash at any time.
Inasmuch as flashing auxiliary lights are not required, there is no specific point at which they must flash. I believe they are often activated by the bell (which is sometimes activated by the horn). I could be wrong on that - I suspect there are several ways to set them to flash.
(I hate long nested quotes, but I want to keep the context open)
It is remarkably easy to define a regulatory definition of 'how close is too close' -- just get the legislature to put it in the code, together with appropriate mechanisms for enforcement. It is likewise not at all hard to draw a regulatory line inside rational safe distance, for example where the Ohio study did: less than two seconds from collision.
There is no need to invoke a ridiculous hyperbole for how long a driver at a passive crossing needs to wait; the important range over which train speed seems deceptively slow is considerably shorter than a mile except for precisely the sort of high-speed service where the FRA bans grade crossings entirely.
What might produce some gainful discussion here is what combination of signaling would indicate for a motorist when the duty to 'yield and stay yielded' applies to a greater separation distance. I suggest, as a starting point, the time that an approaching locomotive displays alternating ditch lights. This would be easily verified on a camera record for enforcement, is something that can be made fair to railroad crews charged with consistent operation of the lights, and in my opinion can be adjusted independent of horn/whistle timing to be speed-appropriate. It is also unambiguous to drivers, requires no 'light cannon' blinding to be effective even when the locomotive itself may not be clearly visible, and is either mandated (e.g. on Class I locomotives) or easily installed with OTS components on others.
Easy to add this little section to Op Lifesaver material, too -- although that would have to be done with some care, as you do not want to establish the implicit message that it's OK to jackrabbit across if you don't see the ditch lights flashing!
Note that the 'yield issue' is NOT the same issue as with the "proceed" part of "stop and proceed". Enforcement of a stop sign often only concerns whether the vehicle came to a full stop (not a 'California roll'); I dislike in principle the invocation of any type of 'going too fast for conditions' prosecution that might be applied to what an officer considers safe separation distance or recorded time, especially if rigor in effective prosecution is to be used to 'form driver behavior.'
I wonder whether some form of formalized signage saying "stop when lights are flashing" might be applied to many crossings, as it covers both the 'distinctive' use of flashing red lights to mean 'absolute stop' at lighted/gated crossings, and the prospective use of alternating ditch lights or strobes to signify the point of minimum separation.
Overmod Euclid You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close. "Yielding" really doesn't require a dissertation: it means that you stop if necessary and let the other vehicle proceed completely across. That is what 'yield the right of way' means.
Euclid You are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.
EuclidYou are not expected to stop at a passive crossing and wait for a visibly approaching train that is a mile away. It is hard to draw a regulatory line for how close is too close.
The Ohio study drew it at 'two seconds or less away from collision'. It is hard to fault this as being a wrong definition of 'too close'.
It is the definition of 'stopped' that would have the 'ambiguity' of whether a driver feels they can start up again and whiz across 'at the last second' to avoid delay -- yet another reason I don't entirely like the idea of adding 'stop signs' at passive crossings (with the assumption that the crossbucks supposedly have the meaning of 'yield to train' so they actually have a more restrictive meaning than the nominally more restrictive sign!)
Personally, I think at least some of the problem is not that drivers think the dropped gates are 'advisory' -- they know darn well it's illegal to go across them; they just don't want to wait and think they can get across -- it's that they think that when the lights and gates are there together the indication is advisory until the gates have dropped to block the road, and there are a few seconds' leeway to speed up and zip over. Probably the same basic impulse behind this:
I can't say what the most effective methods of dissuading or 'breaking' that tendency might be; it's been a hot topic in traffic management and enforcement for a very long time. The 'backlash' from conventional red-light cameras has made it difficult -- at least in Tennessee -- to get the combination of cameras, monitoring, and consistent enforcement that I think is really the only practical way to start making the change toward enforcing "default driver behavior" toward yielding (with a safe separation time/distance) at crossings.
wanswheel Fast enough guy with consideration for the recalcitrant.
Fast enough guy with consideration for the recalcitrant.
Dismounting, running and mounting moving equipment. Not Class 1 material.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One video. So much cringe.
Overmod To relate this to the observations, more than half of the people who 'violated' the crossing, even with the new and improved design, were not deterred from going across less than two seconds from collision (!) And this is where ODOT concluded the improvement was 'not statistically significant' -- significant in terms of changing driver behavior of the people who needed additional deterrence to stop and stay stopped at crossings.
To relate this to the observations, more than half of the people who 'violated' the crossing, even with the new and improved design, were not deterred from going across less than two seconds from collision (!) And this is where ODOT concluded the improvement was 'not statistically significant' -- significant in terms of changing driver behavior of the people who needed additional deterrence to stop and stay stopped at crossings.
OvermodSo we might change the focus of the discussion slightly: what can be done at passive crossings to "change driver behavior" when issues of warning or clear presence of an oncoming train are not sufficient? (Be sure to note why the solution will change driver behavior, not just make the driver notice the presence of the crossing better...)
I think the biggest challenge is changing the "it won't happen to me" mentality. I would suspect than many people hold that opinion, even if they've been exposed to an event that proves otherwise.
The difficulty here is underlined by listening to the scanner. Many people pulled over for speeding have at least some previous convictions, and more than a few have multiple warrants for failure to pay fines - evidence of a "the laws don't apply to me" mentality.
As I've mentioned before, the "it can't happen to me" attitude is reinforced by a relative lack of trail traffic. Even a crossing with 24 trains per day (figure 5 minutes per train) is only busy/occupied 8% of the time.
Add to this slow speeds on many lines with crossbuck-only protection and drivers are left with am impression that even if they do cross in front of a train, the train can stop.
It would be interesting to compare collision numbers with train frequency on "unprotected" crossings. It is conceivable that a little-used crossing might even have a higher incident rate.
I suspect that passive signage alone cannot cure the problem. It may have a short-term benefit, but people will eventually return to old habits.
Getting back onto the substantive (if potentially boring and OCD) discussion
wanswheelExcerpt from “Driver Behavior at Railway-Highway Grade Crossings with Passive Traffic Control: A Driving Simulator Study” by Bryan Andre Bartnik (2013)...
It is particularly instructive, I think, to look back over the Ohio "Buckeye crossing" report, and compare the conclusions in its summary (which were universally positive, and mentioned that the benefits had a measure of statistical significance) with the current ODOT assessment of its value (remember, 'not statistically significant').
There is no question that the crossings were more recognizable. There is also no question that most of the approaches we've seen suggested so far (the inclusion of yield signs, including those modified to read 'yield to train' to resolve ambiguity, and the use of train light to signal approach, being specifically mentioned) were not only tried but carefully considered. As you will note from the stated conclusions, a larger number of 'violators' stopped at the modified crossings than at the default ones, and this was reason enough not only to recommend that the Buckeye design be adopted by MUTCD but also for Conrail to go ahead and install the things throughout Ohio.
What seems to have been recognized -- and it is important to this discussion in a number of respects -- was this conclusion, buried far down in the report:
Based on the before and after condition near-collision/violation frequencies alone, it seems that the new crossbuck devices (after condition) do not provide for a violator behavior that is substantially safer from the violator behavior that was observed under the before condition (Current Standard Crossbuck).
So we might change the focus of the discussion slightly: what can be done at passive crossings to "change driver behavior" when issues of warning or clear presence of an oncoming train are not sufficient? (Be sure to note why the solution will change driver behavior, not just make the driver notice the presence of the crossing better...)
schlimm IMO, this thread has long since become an OCD nightmare or, alternatively, boring beyond recognition.
IMO, this thread has long since become an OCD nightmare or, alternatively, boring beyond recognition.
Both.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.