coborn35 Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.
Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.
That's a good point, and of course, you can't really fix reckless [saw a guy try to turn a 90 degree corner at 50+ : wiped out, flipped a 360 and kept going]. Maybe the safer answer would be to carry some device that could be placed there that gives of a lot of flashing lights of differing colors - like police or firetruck flashers? Then retrieve it after?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann Bucyrus: It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train. But that doesn't that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won't people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)? For me, this isn't a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.
Bucyrus: It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
But that doesn't that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won't people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)?
For me, this isn't a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.
Well yes I think that, as you say, flagging inoperative signalized crossings would cause drivers to lower their guard if they became accustomed to the flagging and the might begin to extend this reduced wariness to passive crossings. And that would be another harmful unintended consequence.
However I see the flagging as being relatively rare occurrence, so maybe its effect on lowering drivers’ guard would not be significant. On the other hand, they cross inactive, signalized crossings every day, so the frequency of the experience would be high enough to make a habit of lowering their guard.
Bucyrus I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal. The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals. The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings. It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Bucyrus It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Very logical. And this addresses the underlying issue, that of doing something that is not especially costly in reducing the probability of railway crossing accidents.
schlimm "Full circle" "no breaking the cycle" "rehashing" Again, all I hear are descriptions of what is. Never an answer as to what is so personally offensive about that? Why can't that be tolerated? If it offends your aesthetics so much, why not let it be and participate on threads that "go somewhere?" The pages of all forums are now expanded to 40 threads, so there is surely room. And if no one likes it, then it will fade away. No, IMO, there is something else going on that some folks just cannot tolerate.
"Full circle" "no breaking the cycle" "rehashing" Again, all I hear are descriptions of what is. Never an answer as to what is so personally offensive about that? Why can't that be tolerated? If it offends your aesthetics so much, why not let it be and participate on threads that "go somewhere?" The pages of all forums are now expanded to 40 threads, so there is surely room. And if no one likes it, then it will fade away. No, IMO, there is something else going on that some folks just cannot tolerate.
Nothing personally offensive about it, sir. But I believe it is not in the best interest of the forum to rehash the same circular cyclic arguments again and again (I used to work for the department of redundancy department). Someone points out a thread is going nowhere, and then you get all worked up about the person that says the thread is going nowhere. If you don't believe my contributions to the thread are needed - then why do you respond? Just ignore them if they bug you so..
I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal.
The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals.
The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings.
Gentlemen...Lets just let it go.
Everyone's point is well taken.
Get get back to trains and railroading.
schlimm OK, why in the world would this thread be locked? Is it offending anyone, other than in matters of aesthetics? You continue make posts that appear to complain about the lack of progress. I get it, but why should that be a legitimate criterion for locking?
OK, why in the world would this thread be locked? Is it offending anyone, other than in matters of aesthetics? You continue make posts that appear to complain about the lack of progress. I get it, but why should that be a legitimate criterion for locking?
The thread had very little to do with the forum topic. Once again, it has descended into a peeing contest.
We've hit 4 pages and it has come back full circle. There is no breaking the cycle - our opinions are set in stone. Even our argument has been rehashed once before, Mr. Schlimm. But at least I have gotten good out of this thread. Check out my new signature: it is a direct result of this thread.
Have a great day.
It seems to me like certain people here have just discovered how internet forums, and Trains.com in particular, work. Things like this have happened all the time, and we have had many discussions on why it happens. How people can be mystified at why a thread was locked/the reasoning behind it is beyond me.
And we wonder why threads get locked...?
NOTE: it is not my intention for this thread to be locked, but c'mon, would it surprise ANY of us?
Murray C.O., I didn't "instruct" a Moderator to do anything. I don't have that type of power or authority. The moderators acted within their own power and authority.
C.O., I didn't "instruct" a Moderator to do anything.
I don't have that type of power or authority.
The moderators acted within their own power and authority.
"instruct" ..."calling out for"...(?) Same bit. Your lack of authority doesn't change your intent (to have the thread closed) , and that's all I called you out for. So again, what Have I falsely accused you of?
If you are offended that I saw a conflict between your actions and your behavior, then i'm sorry you are so easily offended, but i didn't accuse you of anything that you we not guilty of.
Bucyrus Well anyway, the dangerous idea that I was referring to was not about what gets threads locked. The dangerous idea is that there is some small wiggle room in the belief (the orthodoxy) that every grade crossing crash is 100% the fault of the driver. Nothing challenges this orthodoxy more than a grade crossing signal failure-to-activate incident. Last April, we had signal maintainers test a grade crossing signal because they had reason to believe it might not work. Their test was to observe the passage of a 79mph Amtrak train. The signals failed the test, and a woman was killed as the signal maintainers watched. Yet, if you read the comments attached to the news coverage of that incident, you will find people defending the orthodoxy, making pretzels out of logic in an attempt to blame the victim for the crash.
Yet, if you read the comments attached to the news coverage of that incident, you will find people defending the orthodoxy, making pretzels out of logic in an attempt to blame the victim for the crash.
And we also have some posters that never fail to jump on a thread where they can lay blame at the hands of a railroader, even if the logic has to be in the shape of many pretzels. They take just as much glee in blaming RRers as some take glee in blaming the drivers in crossing crashes.
Same concept for anything involving unions, democrats, conservatives, HSR, EPA, FRA, waving, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.
None of us are impartial. We all have topics that are hot buttons for us.
Well anyway, the dangerous idea that I was referring to was not about what gets threads locked. The dangerous idea is that there is some small wiggle room in the belief (the orthodoxy) that every grade crossing crash is 100% the fault of the driver. Nothing challenges this orthodoxy more than a grade crossing signal failure-to-activate incident.
Last April, we had signal maintainers test a grade crossing signal because they had reason to believe it might not work. Their test was to observe the passage of a 79mph Amtrak train. The signals failed the test, and a woman was killed as the signal maintainers watched.
Murray didn't influence anyone.
Murray didn't order/demand/direct/persuade/ask a moderator to do anything.
The moderators did what the moderators did.
Like the Judge on "Perry Mason says: "Asked and answered...Move on Counselor."
Bucyrus No. But that was not my point. My point was in response to Murray's contention that he does not have the power or authority to lock a thread.
No. But that was not my point. My point was in response to Murray's contention that he does not have the power or authority to lock a thread.
I still must fail to see your point. I don't think any one member without moderator status has the power or authority. Now he can be part of a collective opinion, but even then, the actual lock has to come from someone with the power.
Murray can not lock a thread. But he can influence those that do. Just like repeating the same arguments and peeing matches over and over can influence the moderators. But sheesh.. give the moderators a little credit. They allow a lot more leeway than the most other forums I ever visited.
zugmann Bucyrus: Oh I think that members have to power to lock threads. They may not have the technical equipment to lock a thread, but they vote with the button. We have been told many times that a thread was locked because people complained. There does not even need to be a rules violation for members to get a thread locked. They complain simply because they don’t agree with the ideas being expressed in a thread. They either complain with the button or they complain with a post in the thread. Yes, that is how it pretty much works on any internet forum. Do we expect trains.com to be any different...?
Bucyrus: Oh I think that members have to power to lock threads. They may not have the technical equipment to lock a thread, but they vote with the button. We have been told many times that a thread was locked because people complained. There does not even need to be a rules violation for members to get a thread locked. They complain simply because they don’t agree with the ideas being expressed in a thread. They either complain with the button or they complain with a post in the thread.
Oh I think that members have to power to lock threads. They may not have the technical equipment to lock a thread, but they vote with the button. We have been told many times that a thread was locked because people complained. There does not even need to be a rules violation for members to get a thread locked. They complain simply because they don’t agree with the ideas being expressed in a thread. They either complain with the button or they complain with a post in the thread.
Yes, that is how it pretty much works on any internet forum. Do we expect trains.com to be any different...?
I don't see any need to rehash the exchange between Murray and myself. We settled it and as far as I'm concerned that's it. However... I sincerely wish someone could enlighten me on how exactly the back and forth on the "This is bad" thread or on the "Question" thread, however boring or irritating it might be to some b/c it "goes nowhere", is so offensive as to warrant locking? I mean, there are a lot of other threads that to me "go nowhere" or are "about nothing." If I 'm not interested in them, I generally never open them, and I don't complain about them to anyone, be it moderators or openly. I simply exercise my free choice and move on.
Bucyrus Oh I think that members have to power to lock threads. They may not have the technical equipment to lock a thread, but they vote with the button. We have been told many times that a thread was locked because people complained. There does not even need to be a rules violation for members to get a thread locked. They complain simply because they don’t agree with the ideas being expressed in a thread. They either complain with the button or they complain with a post in the thread.
Convicted OneI don't see where I accused you of anything beyond what you actually did, when i concurred with schimm's comment about why you felt the need to instruct the moderators to euthanize a thread, (playing forum police, in other words)...So just what have I falsely accused you of?
Murray I was also accused by you and Convicted One for having been the person that caused the "Crossing" thread to be locked. You received an answer from both the moderators which confirmed that their action was not precipitated from me. Yet I stood accused by both you and Convicted One (in addition to Schlimm who at least had the maturity to apologize), and was unfairly accused of causing the thread to be locked. Would that not be grounds for a public apology (or at the very least an affirmation) that both you and Convicted One were also wrong in your accusations towards me?
I was also accused by you and Convicted One for having been the person that caused the "Crossing" thread to be locked. You received an answer from both the moderators which confirmed that their action was not precipitated from me. Yet I stood accused by both you and Convicted One (in addition to Schlimm who at least had the maturity to apologize), and was unfairly accused of causing the thread to be locked.
Would that not be grounds for a public apology (or at the very least an affirmation) that both you and Convicted One were also wrong in your accusations towards me?
I reply with the following not to inflame, but simply because I feel the message needs to be communicated.
I don't see where I accused you of anything beyond what you actually did, when i concurred with schimm's comment about why you felt the need to instruct the moderators to euthanize a thread, (playing forum police, in other words) when you yourself were "violating " forum rules. ...So just what have I falsely accused you of?
I may have missed it in anything you said, Bucyrus, in which case please accept my apology. However, it was only in Zugman's post back a page now that I felt someone understood the nature of moderation here.
Crandell
selector What I meant was that if everyone who enjoys coming here would take a hand in impressing on each other the benefit of more civil discourse, a lot of the heavy-handed moderation would probably.....probably...go away. Crandell
What I meant was that if everyone who enjoys coming here would take a hand in impressing on each other the benefit of more civil discourse, a lot of the heavy-handed moderation would probably.....probably...go away.
Oh sure, I think we have all been saying that. I was just wondering why you were linking it with Zugmann in particular.
I deleted a handful of posts from this thread. With each deletion, I sent the poster this message: I'm doing some housecleaning on the Dangerous Ideas thread. In essence, I'm removing all those posts that are there simply to get a rise out of someone, those that are replies to them, and those who quote them. Your post fell somewhere in the mix. I figured, maybe if we could get away from the "so's your mother!!" attitude on this thread, some meaningful thoughts could be civily discussed.
For those that require a reason for why their post was deleted, consider it as moderator's prerogative.
-Norris Let's see if we can discuss things without resorting to the name-calling and quasi-trolling type posts.-Norris / beleaguered moderator
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
.
[quote user="selector"]
But Zug has all but stated in so many words that the moderators would not be necessary if the 'adults' either participating or merely looking-on would do a better job of stewardship, either in threads they have initiated or in which they find some vicarious interest or pleasure.[/quote]
Selector,
Thanks for your comments, but I am not sure I follow you on this part. Could you please elaborate on this?
Fellas, I think Zug was very close to expressing how I feel about some of the threads that end up being locked or that have any number of posts deleted.
In some ways having moderators detracts from a public forum because their internal biases and the ones imposed on them by the rules combine to stilt conversation and free-flowing expression. But Zug has all but stated in so many words that the moderators would not be necessary if the 'adults' either participating or merely looking-on would do a better job of stewardship, either in threads they have initiated or in which they find some vicarious interest or pleasure.
That sounds great as written, but it may only be two people who share the same views on what is transpiring when tempers get the better of us. We like to get our shrift, and none of us likes it when he is either ignored, ridiculed, or insulted. It escalates to the point where someone says something so outrageous that the mods see it and act, or an observer/participant complains. However, the complaint may or may not go discretely either in a PM to the "perp" or to the mods via an RA...it is just as often posted with its ar.se flap open for everyone to see.
Just about the time all this happens, often by page two or three, the entire circus act ends up being a peeing contest between two or three or four people...the same ones, time and again. It gets a little irritating from this human's points of view. And obviously so from the points of view of those who may or may not complain.
Quite apparent to me is the fact that there are marked differences in opinion and in experience when these longer crusades get into full setup...to use an analogy related to RR. . This is often expressed in ways that are intolerable to the people opposite, and then 'we get into it'. If it were germane, and not merely seeing who was creating the longest steamy arc, who would really mind? Yet, as long as the arcs steam, the thread goes nowhere unless someone cries foul or an 'adult' steps in with some charisma and knowledge, and tact, to settle the matter. I think Zug was suggesting that this type of intervention happens too seldom.
I have neither the knowledge, nor the time, nor the pension-generating recompense, to settle such things except often by being draconian..and terminal. When I can't stare any of you down, and none of you have that pleasure yourselves, what is left but to use the administrative tools afforded to me...and to the complainers?
I don't want to go on at length. If you would truly like to continue to run the metallurgy on that gate crossing accident, please feel entirely free to take another stab at it. But please accept, without recourse to these types of conversations currently engaged, that I will have to lock it again if it becomes a hurtful, discourteous, uncivil sandbox populated by the same four or five people.
Police yourselves with civility, or have something you didn't initiate, and find unwelcome, imposed on you. I can't put it more succinctly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.