And, the suggested "S"-curve, which physically forces a slowdown (or "into the dirt"), might have some effectiveness. But, of course, it also costs more! Cost-benefit analysts, please report back to the conference room!
Well, there you go. Information we haven't had up until now, other than speculation.
I'm still not convinced on the flashing lights. A driver rummaging around his lunch pail or typing in a text would probably miss a marching band and the (name your team) cheerleaders.
Unless someone is going to regularly be there to enforce a reduced speed limit, I see limited effectiveness, and possibly more accidents as 70 MPH cruisers run up the tailpipes of 40 MPH law abiders.
With the rumble strips and some accompanying signage, I think we're on to something.
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...
Well look at this. The Amtrak engineer on the train hit by the truck says the crossing was particularly dangerous and he recommends several improvements including adding distant active advance warning lights or a speed reduction zone, two improvements which I have suggested in this thread. The engineer also says there have been many close calls reported by train crews at that crossing in recent years:
This is from Trainorders.com:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2530346,2531142
The post with this information:
In a e-mail to friends and fellow workers, the engineer of the Amtrak train struck broadside by a tractor trailer called the site of the accident" a very dangerous crossing" and offered suggestions on how to help prevent such accidents in the future. "At the hearing, the National Transportation Safety Board inspector asked what I though could be done to have prevented this accident and what could help to avoid a similar one in the future," Amtrak engineer Ron Kaminkow wrote in the e-mail. My response: post a permanent speed zone of perhaps 40mph through the crossing, together with warning signs with flashing lights further out from the crossing. (Maybe a "rumble strip" a half mile out would help to alert motorists to the crossing). In the bright sunshine of the desert, going 70 to 80 mph down a lonely highway in the middle of nowhere, a busy railroad crossing requires more protection, more advance warning. With such provisions in place, it is far likely that such a catastrophic wreck like the one on June 24 could take place. Kamainkow said in the e-mali; that"there has been all kinds of close calls reported by train crews at the Highway 95 crossing in recent years. In fact, just nine months ago, Amtrak Train No. 5 (the same train involved in the June 24 crash) was put into emergency at this crossing by the engineer as he fully expected an imminent collision with another truck, this one headed south bound. The truck skidded, hit the guardrail and slammed into the pole that supports the overhead flashers, which the crashed into the train. Miraculously, the truck failed to hit the train and no one was hurt in this 'trail run' for what would happen just nine months later."
One thing not mentioned so far is that there should be a video from the lead locomotive camera showing when the flashers and gates activated and time interval before the crossing was occupied. It may even show the truck approaching, if so it should not be too difficult to tell if the driver was exceeding his speed limit.
I believe I read somewhere that all Amtrak units are camera equipped.
BucyrusThe truck skidded 320 feet, so I don't see how witnesses could conclude that the truck did not attempt to stop.
I would take from that that the driver did not slow down on his approach to the crossing, as would be expected of someone who is aware that they will have to stop.
Extrapolating from theoretical travel times and factoring in the decelleration from locking up the brakes, one might conclude that he applied the brakes about 5-7 seconds before his collision with the train.
Since he hit the train several cars back from the locomotives, that means that at the point he applied the brakes the crossing protection (reported to have been working correctly) had been activated for at least 23-25 seconds, plus a little. The gates would have been down for around 15 to 20 seconds, maybe a touch more. He would have passed the pavement markings and roadside sign (which I take to be the "warning device") about 8-9 seconds before the collision. Visibility was reported to be excellent.
That puts him ~2000 feet from the crossing when the lights first started flashing. Even considering the nearly 500 feet necessary to stop the truck (per published estimates) at a rate of 100 feet per second (not considering decelleration), he still had 1500 feet (15 seconds at 70 MPH) within which to see the crossing lights and the train before he had to apply the brakes.
This still begs the question of what had his attention during the 15+ seconds during which he could have appropriately responded to the warnings that were provided.
Norm,
Union Pacific RR owns the crossing installation and is responsible for the operation of the warning system. Nevada is responsible for the road and the speed limit. I will certainly be interested in seeing the final report, but as I mentioned above, I see a defect in this crossing that stands on its own, independent of the crash. So that defect may or may not have contributed to this crash.
So. let me ask a question. Who is ultimately responsible for the warning at at a crossing? Does the responsibility fall to the railroad, the state, or others? Seems there could have been multiple failures in this case. I prefer to wait for the NTSB reoprt.. Somebody goofed,, but I don't think it was Amtrak. Remember the old saying of 'expect a train on any track at any time.
Norm
tree68 Officials said the railroad crossing gates and warning lights were working. Witnesses told authorities that the truck didn't seem to attempt to stop at the crossing and crashed through the gate. There was a warning signal 897 feet before the crossing, Weener said. -LA Times Both from the initial thread on this subject.
Officials said the railroad crossing gates and warning lights were working. Witnesses told authorities that the truck didn't seem to attempt to stop at the crossing and crashed through the gate.
-LA Times
Both from the initial thread on this subject.
The truck skidded 320 feet, so I don't see how witnesses could conclude that the truck did not attempt to stop.
I would like to know more about that "warning signal 897 feet before the crossing." I wonder if that is an active advance warning signal that I have advocated, or whether it is just sloppy reporting that refers to the passive RXR sign as a signal.
The truck that plowed into the train was the leader of a three-truck convoy, all from John Davies Trucking in Battle Mountain, Nev., Weener said. Visibility was excellent at the time of the accident, Weener said, and the drivers of the trailing trucks told investigators they saw the train coming and wondered why the lead driver, a man in his 40s, wasn't stopping.There was a warning signal 897 feet before the crossing, Weener said. The truck driver apparently slammed on his brakes, starting a skid mark on Highway 95 northbound that stretched 320 feet up to the tracks. … The truck could have required as much as 465 feet to stop if it was going the speed limit, according to widely used estimates. -LA Times
This is from someone that has travelled in a convoy to deliver a load before. The First thing you do when the Lead hits his brakes is STAND ON YOURS no questions asked since your not going to risk plowing into the back of the rig in front of you. 2nd The 320 feet of Skid maks blows that the 300 ft warning Distance for a Grade crossing IS PLENTY right out the WINDOW and buries it. With 320 feet of Skid marks he sure as hell was trying to stop and could not in the distance he had aviable from the time he had for Warning. IIRC from the news articcles that came out before the news media crucified the driver of the truck Amtrak has had all kinds of Near misses at theis Crossing but UP never did anything about them also. It was this company reporting them if they can prove it Look the hell out UP your screwed. Called UP was refusing to do it job to maintain a crossing. Boy were have they done that before IL I know I have read a story on that oh yeah they killed 2 teenagers by putting a shunt in a 4 bar crossing that ran in front of an Amtrak train. Then tried to cover it up.
UP is not going to end up smelling like a rose on this. Something tells me the Insurance carrier of the Trucking company is Fighting this tooth and nail. Yes this guy had a less than Perfect Driving Record however I did also when I had my Fatal Accident in 96 did not stop my boss or my Insurance carrier from defending me to the best they could. Yes we lost however when the Judge in the case won't allow the Toxicology tests from the Autopsy in on the other party that showed a BAC 3 times the legal limit your Screwed already from the begining..
Something tells me this company has maintained a record of every near miss they have had at this crossing every call to UP turned that over to their Insurance Company and they are the ones driving this Countersuit. They are the ones going You wanta play lets see what happens when all the evidence comes out.
tree68 erikem: A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions. And a third - two other drivers running in convoy with the driver in question were able to properly respond to all visual clues and slow down/stop, avoiding a collision.
erikem: A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.
And a third - two other drivers running in convoy with the driver in question were able to properly respond to all visual clues and slow down/stop, avoiding a collision.
But the other truck drivers were not abreast of each other and the driver that hit the train. They were farther away and had the advantage of seeing the lead truck in emergency braking (320 ft of skid marks!). At present we don't know how far behind they were. By their reports, they were close enough to see the accident, but just how close is not known.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
erikemA couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.
edbenton Not actually the Countersuit will have merit for one thing. UP maintains the RR Crossing Signals they Maintain the Timing Intervals for the crossing Gates. UP has a History of Failing to do so BIG TIME.
Not actually the Countersuit will have merit for one thing. UP maintains the RR Crossing Signals they Maintain the Timing Intervals for the crossing Gates. UP has a History of Failing to do so BIG TIME.
A couple of things. One is that there is no indication that the crossing signals in Nevada case were malfunctioning. Two is that the driver did have recent driving infractions.
I wonder, if the blame here just relies on society changing incrementally? When this road first went over the tracks, things were different than today. In say, 1920, the train would have been a steamer, going much slower than today. The truck would have been going much slower, carrying a much smaller load. In 1920, the truck driver had a far better chance of seeing and hearing the train sooner, as he also had the windows open in the desert with no air conditioner. As time went on, the trains got faster, the trucks got faster and heavier, requiring longer stopping distances. Also, the trucks got air conditioning, so the windows were shut. As the equation evolved between train and truck at this intersection, the crossing probably evolved as well. A simple cross-buck evolved into lights and crossing arms, etc.... With the addition of sattelite radio, killer speakers, cell phones, texting, portable DVD players, I-pods, etc...maybe it's just time for the crossing to evolve some more. Not neccesarily Nevada's fault. Evolution of a society. Maybe, we're all at fault. Never ask for whom the bell tolls.....................
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I got it! I was driving home from work and came upon the solution.
Every crossing needs at least two wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube men! They can be activated when the crossing gates activate (just be sure to put ANSI-2 complaint vests on them).
I'd stop for them...
In case you are wondering what I am talking about: http://youtu.be/SC4vT1bRRgs
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
How about those little lane markers, the "bumps" that are designed to awaken sleepy drivers when they begin to drift into another lane?
A series of those, placed appropriately before any grade crossing would provide both audio and physical reminders/input that the person was driving towards a grade crossing, and heighten their awareness of the possibility of the crossing being active.
A series of strips across the road, placed in such a manner that the noise and vibrations get closer together the closer you get to the crossing should wake most folks up.
Low cost, easy to install, and can be reflective so night time warning is also visual.
23 17 46 11
In the traffic world, it seems that every fix, every improvement, always happens with the gift of hindsight -- usually after something bad has happened. (Here in California, the decision on where and whether to put up a "Stop" sign at an intersection depends on the number of accidents trhat have occurred there, which then points up the need.) But to say that, since there was no problem up to now, that the crossing was satisfactoy, is like a drunk driver saying "It's OK, I've driven like this lots of times, and never had a problem!" Maybe true, but not accurate.
So, maybe it hasn't "been fixed by now" because there wasn't an incident until now, highlighting the shortcomings of the crossing. And, maybe this is the incident that will convince the "traffic authorities, and for that matter the masses" of the problem
BucyrusI am only advocating that a defect be corrected with one specific improvement. Why should there be so much fierce resistance to that?
I suspect it's because if it was perceived to be a problem by traffic authorities, and for that matter the masses, it would have been fixed by now.
tdmidget Get over it!!! There is no excuse for thgis. The speed limit is a Maximum, not a required speed. A professional driver drives with consideration of road conditions and the capabilities of his machine. Of course that leaves out a few of the posters here but that is the law and how it is supposed to be. So, Bucyrus, lets say that they put up your weenie warning lights. When the next clown hits a train, what then? Warning lights for the warning lights? Your incessant argument here is a symptom of a disease that is rampant in this country and that is the refusal to accept responsibility.
Get over it!!! There is no excuse for thgis. The speed limit is a Maximum, not a required speed. A professional driver drives with consideration of road conditions and the capabilities of his machine. Of course that leaves out a few of the posters here but that is the law and how it is supposed to be.
So, Bucyrus, lets say that they put up your weenie warning lights. When the next clown hits a train, what then? Warning lights for the warning lights? Your incessant argument here is a symptom of a disease that is rampant in this country and that is the refusal to accept responsibility.
My incessant argument? What about the incessant argument against me?
I am all for personal responsibility and against the disease of refusing to accept it that you cite. However, with all due respect, I think you should look at this a little more closely if you think my argument here is a symptom of that disease.
I am not advocating lights warning of the warning lights ad infinitum until nobody gets killed anymore. I am only advocating that a defect be corrected with one specific improvement. Why should there be so much fierce resistance to that?
The other problem is the lack of warning for the activation of the red flashing lights. While it is true that that problem will not lead to a collision with a train, it could cause a driver to lose control while trying to stop for the sudden activation at close range. It is easy to say that the remedy is to just keep going if you are too close to stop. But it is one thing if you are driving in city traffic approaching a grade crossing, the lights activate when you are 30 feet away, and you just zip on across.
But at 70 mph, it is completely unreasonable to confront a driver with red stop signals without any pre-warning, and no time to stop for those signals. Frankly, I am amazed that the railroad industry, and the regulating authorities do not recognize the problem. And adding to the problem is the fact that most, if not all, state laws absolutely forbid crossing against the red flashing lights without stopping, under any circumstances. It is easy to say that a driver should just keep going, but 500 feet is going to feel like an awful long time to be bearing down with no intent of stopping, on those absolute stop signals and the law that stands behind them.
What people forget is that there are more than Cars out there and the Heavy Trucks out there need more distance to Stop. Just because you give a Car enough distance to stop does not mean a Normal OTR truck enough time to stop at anytime. People need to realize that a Rocky Mountain Double that this guy was pulling will be needing 600-700 FEET to stop empty and might get it hauled down in 500 if he is extremely LUCKY on dry Pavement. You throw in rain snow or any moisture on the road that can Double Ice will Triple that. Yet we are the first to get blamed in any accident when Stats show 75-80% of all accidents with trucks are the Other Parties Fault.
Yet groups like AAA Crash PATT and others want more Regulations against OTR and all Truckers in General and refuse the 3 things that would improve safety across the Nations Highways the Most. 1st is require Drug and Alchohl teasting in any Accident involving a Commerical Motor Vechile for all Parties why do they oppose this since it would take away alot of ammo Lawyers use against us in Court.
2nd Ban all drivers from Texting OTR drivers are banned from even using a cellphone while moving unless it is Handsfree. Do the same for Cars
3rd Would be require every one that is going thru drivers ed and traffic school to do a Ride along with an OTR driver to LEARN how to Properly Share the Road with OTR trucks that way they quit Cutting us off 2 feet in front of our bumpers then standing on the brakes and then wondering why they get an airhorn blared at them.
Larry,
I seem to recall that the warning with the Nevada crossing was 25 seconds. And it is true that 25 seconds should be more than enough time to stop when moving 70 mph. But the warning of 25 seconds is meaningless if a driver is too far away to recognize it. So, the issue to be addressed with the advance distant warning is not to increase the 25 seconds. It is to shorten the sight distance to the warning device, so that the driver can use the entire 25 seconds.
Therefore, the solution to this problem would be to add yellow flashing lights at some distance out from the crossing.
This would be along the lines of warning systems currently in place on some highways for traffic lights. I've seen it done in Maryland.
But we're talking some apples and oranges here.
If an oncoming vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is on a collision course (assuming constant speed through the crossing and both arriving at the crossing at the same time) with an oncoming train travelling at 70 MPH the driver has upwards of 30 seconds of warning during which they can take appropriate action (ie, slow, then stop).
And that's true today, without additional warning devices, and barring any malfunctions or visibility issues.
The issue is with those who are from 300-600 feet from the crossing at the time of activation (at 70 MPH). At 300 feet, they hardly have time to react and will be through the crossing before the gates even start coming down.
At 600-700 feet, they probably have time to safely stop before reaching the crossing.
As such, perhaps a modification is necessary at the crossing. An experimental installation of amber "advance" warning lights would certainly provide some insight to driver response.
Advance warning, however, I don't see as particularly useful without mitigating factors. All of the advance warning I've seen for traffic lights involved limited sight distance and very heavy traffic.
tree68 So, given the information provided so far, and working on the presumption that the current warning is inadequate, what should the overall crossing package look like? We've spent plenty of time discussing what's wrong - what would make it right, to the extent that any normal driver would be as completely protected as possible? Pictures and specifications would be helpful. And I would strongly suggest that such a system be completely fixed - no pie-in-the-sky gotta-be-installed-in-every-vehicle solutions. Use what's available today.
So, given the information provided so far, and working on the presumption that the current warning is inadequate, what should the overall crossing package look like?
We've spent plenty of time discussing what's wrong - what would make it right, to the extent that any normal driver would be as completely protected as possible?
Pictures and specifications would be helpful.
And I would strongly suggest that such a system be completely fixed - no pie-in-the-sky gotta-be-installed-in-every-vehicle solutions. Use what's available today.
The crossing needs two elements of advance warning:
1) An at-crossing warning that the red flashing lights are about to activate.
2) A distant warning that the red flashing lights are about to activate or simply have begun to activate.
Item #1 would eliminate the problem of dropping a red stop signal in the face of drivers when they approach the crossing at 70 mph. This could be accomplished by having the red lights flash yellow for say 10-15 seconds before they start flashing red. Or it could be accomplished by installing a separate set of yellow flashing lights near the crossing red lights.
Technically, these yellow lights should probably not flash. Constant yellow would be analogous to the meaning of traffic signals where constant yellow indicates that the signal is about to turn red. However, for this unique application to grade crossings, it may be better to flash the yellow to help get the attention of drivers. There should also be some signage that explains how the crossing signal works. The decent of the gate should not begin until some time interval after the lights begin flashing red.
Item #2 would extend the visual active warning of the flashing lights of the crossing out from the crossing. With the current system, at the point where a train activates the signals, when a vehicle is on a collision course with a train, the driver is 3,000 feet away from the crossing. That is too much distance to expect an instant reaction by a driver. So the driver is likely to lose some of his or her advance warning before recognizing and reacting to that warning.
Therefore, the solution to this problem would be to add yellow flashing lights at some distance out from the crossing. If that distance were say 1,500 feet, an approaching driver on a collision course with a train would see a visual warning begin when that driver is 1,500 feet from the signal instead of 3,000 feet from it. I do not know what that advance warning distance should be. Maybe 2,000 feet would be better than 1,500 feet. But if you get too far out with the advance warning, a driver might pass it just before it activates, and be largely deprived of its benefit.
These distant flashing lights should activate with the flashing lights at the crossing when those crossing lights begin flashing yellow. There should also be some signage in conjunction with these distant advance lights that explains how the crossing signal works.
Not actually the Countersuit will have merit for one thing. UP maintains the RR Crossing Signals they Maintain the Timing Intervals for the crossing Gates. UP has a History of Failing to do so BIG TIME. Here in IL in Lexington IL they Disabled a set of Crossing Gates entirely and KILLED 2 Teenagers that never got a warning about another Amtrak train that was coming and hit their car BROADSIDE and threw them and the car oiver 100 feet away from the crossing. Then UP tried to Cover up the incindent by having a Signal Maintainer Pull teh Shunts he had been order to put into the Crossing gates to make it appear the Gates Worked. How the Lawyers found out the Local Gas Station caught the Incident on Their Secruity Cameras and turned the tape over to the Famileis Lawyers. UP ended up with Egg on face when that thing hit the News Media.
This is on the Line that UP and Amtrak is going to run 110 MPH on in IL. Why were the Gates and Signals Disabled because one of the bars refused to Go up with the others. IIRC UP settled out of Court for over 10 Million Per Family in that one.
edbenton Hate to say it but that Countersuit is going to Hammer Union Pacific to a Wall for not having a proper Warning time and Improper Markings on the roads for Warnings.
Hate to say it but that Countersuit is going to Hammer Union Pacific to a Wall for not having a proper Warning time and Improper Markings on the roads for Warnings.
The UP might take a hit for not providing a time predictive signal activation, but the markings on the road and the speed limit are the Nevada highway dept's responsibility. The CP/SP/UP line has been in that area for over 140 years and on that specific alignment for at least 100 years and thus would predate the highway.
I would also question the wisdom behind the suit with regards to lack of crossing time predictors. It sounds really close to acknowledging that the driver was routinely violating the law with respect to the crossing. Considering the driver's record, the countersuit sounds like an act of desperation.
- Erik
This is coming from someone that did have a CDL for YEars. I am approaching a RR crossing get to less than 300 feet and then the gates start to come down. I do not SLOW DOWN I STAND ON THE THROTTLE. There is no way IN HELL I CAN STOP so I hope and Pray I cna get at least my cab across the tracks that way I will survive before the train hits if I can see it. I will take my freaking chances in court and Hammer the State and the RR for NOT GIVING ME THE TIME TO STOP SAFELY IN A COURT OF LAW.
tree68 A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second. Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet. I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions. In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered. My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash. From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.
A vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is covering 102.67 feet per second. Per this site, reaction time at 70 MPH will mean travelling 154 feet, with actual braking accounting for 234 feet, a total of 388 feet, well under your hypothetical 500 feet. I believe those numbers assume an automobile and "normal" road conditions.
In addition, the site suggests that the gates generally take between 5 and 10 seconds before being fully lowered. My own experience with local crossings indicates that the gates don't begin to lower until several seconds after the lights begin to flash.
From all of that, we can conclude that if one were 500 feet from a crossing when the lights activated, travelling at 70 MPH, a driver should either be able to safely stop his automobile, or even clear the crossing before the gates were down if he maintained his speed.
I need to clarify something about my example above. I should have stipulated that it applied to a truck such as the one involved in the crash. However, it is not an example based on the exact circumstances of the crash. My example deals with what happens when such a truck approaches the crossing at 70 mph and the signals activate when it is 500 feet away. In this example, there is no collision.
The point of my example is to highlight a defect in the crossing setup. However, this defect will not lead to a crash, but rather, it places the driver into dilemma, which might cause the truck to skid and jackknife. The issue is a crossing protection system presenting a driver with a “red board” right in the face at 70 mph with the additional prospect of the gates lowering before the driver can get across.
Regarding my 500 ft. stopping distance assumption:
You are also right that the average stopping distance is 388 feet, but that is for cars. The average stopping speed for trucks is 465 feet. The category “truck” is broad, so I don’t know what how the stopping distance is affected by the range from large trucks to small trucks. But I thought it fair to pick a round number of 500 feet, considering that this was a big truck, and it was pulling two trailers in tandem. The actual stopping distance for such a truck is fairly likely to be higher than the average, and it might be much higher. The driver skidded 320 feet and still has some speed left over.
It may well be that the driver can get across before the gates are far enough down to foul the vehicle. But a driver does not know that ahead of time. The UMTCD says there must be at least a 3-second delay between the activation of the flashing lights and the start of the descent of the gates. So an informed driver would know that he or she has at least three seconds for that to occur.
But three seconds is not enough for the 70 mph road. At the 500-foot example I have outlined, the driver would crash through the gates if he or she kept moving at 70 mph, or if he or she attempted to stop, but found that 500 feet was not enough room to stop. Therefore, because the three-second delay is not enough, the owner of the crossing should have set the equipment to provide a longer delay. However, there is no way for a driver to know what that actual delay is. So a driver can only assume a three-second delay and hope for more.
Therefore, I don’t think a driver is likely to know how much time he or she has between the activation of the red lights and the decent of the gate. Any conclusion as to this interval must be an assumption unless you just might happen to be privy to the technical information for that particular crossing.
However, in the final analysis, the questions of the stopping distance and the timing of the gate descent are beside the point because the driver cannot know the answer to those questions. That is the point. That is what produces a dilemma for the driver. So it is not an issue of getting hit by the train in this example. The issue is requiring a driver to perform a panic stop in what is fundamentally a life or death situation in the mind of a driver assessing what the signals mean. From a driver’s point of view, he or she is confronted with amounts to a traffic light changing from green to red, with no yellow in between.
According to your assumption about the gate timing, and your stopping distance, you concluded that a driver should be able to stop in time, and then you apply this to all drivers. From that, you conclude that there is no issue. But I asked what you would do if you were the driver, and you did not answer my question. You have to put yourself into the position of a driver to understand my example. You cannot just passively project your knowledge of what you think drivers should do onto drivers confronting this situation.
So I ask again. What would you do if you were driving that truck at 70 mph approaching that crossing and the lights activated when you were 500 feet away?
So far, nobody has answered that question. I can’t even answer it for myself if I were the driver. The inability of anyone here to answer the question makes my point.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.