Bucyrus ...infallible crossing protection.
...infallible crossing protection.
A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
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...
tree68 Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection.
Well I don’t want to split hairs over a tiny number, so I just use the word infallible to indicate getting the problem to almost 100% solved, as opposed to where it stands now on average, being far from solved. You know what they say. “Perfect is the enemy of darned near perfect.”
Oddly, it seems like there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that problem cannot be solved. The report I linked in the first post is not at all pessimistic about solving the problem. They go bravely right into the heads of the gate-runners to see what makes them tick.
The full gates or barricaded median will stop nearly all intentional gate running. You might still have someone occasionally falling asleep from a sleep disorder, and crashing through the lower gates, but that will be very rare. Suicides are another possibility for breaching the lowered gates, but again, quite rare. The meat of the problem is people trying to beat the train because they don’t want to take a chance on a big delay. The barricaded gates will prevent almost all such attempts at gate running.
Even bridges don't completely solve the problem! Vehicles have managed to leave the roadway either on or just before the bridge and end up on the tracks. And where the road goes under the track, large trucks occasionally knock the railroad bridge off its bearings, or worse.
It doesn't matter how idiot-proof you think something is, sooner or later a more ingenious idiot is born.
John
Grade crossings on curves and where high-speed trains operate are what need to be looked at first for investment in highly protected grade crossings.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
There is no such thing as a 100% perfect system....unless humans did not exist...THEN you can talk about 100% perfect systems....
Because there would not be ANY human to muck it up...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Bucyrus tree68: Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked. Well I don’t want to split hairs over a tiny number, so I just use the word infallible to indicate getting the problem to almost 100% solved, as opposed to where it stands now on average, being far from solved. You know what they say. “Perfect is the enemy of darned near perfect.” Oddly, it seems like there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that problem cannot be solved. The report I linked in the first post is not at all pessimistic about solving the problem. They go bravely right into the heads of the gate-runners to see what makes them tick. The full gates or barricaded median will stop nearly all intentional gate running. You might still have someone occasionally falling asleep from a sleep disorder, and crashing through the lower gates, but that will be very rare. Suicides are another possibility for breaching the lowered gates, but again, quite rare. The meat of the problem is people trying to beat the train because they don’t want to take a chance on a big delay. The barricaded gates will prevent almost all such attempts at gate running.
tree68: Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
There have been reports from Chicago about people chaining open left hand quadrant gates in the middle of the night. Of course, median barricades would help with that.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
how about 3" thick steel plates coming out'n the road?
The only problem with that is some clown will run right into it then sue the city/municipality for damages. Not to mention the road being closed to all traffic while the 'accident' is being investigated..and the rest of us get to do more stuff to get around....
blownout cylinder how about 3" thick steel plates coming out'n the road? The only problem with that is some clown will run right into it then sue the city/municipality for damages. Not to mention the road being closed to all traffic while the 'accident' is being investigated..and the rest of us get to do more stuff to get around....
I've seen such concepts proposed, and even tested.
The problem is when some yo-yo manages to get himself caught between the barriers and gets smacked.
Bucyrus - As several have already stated, all an idiot-proof solution does is make the idiots more creative. I witnessed such a result on an industrial track here a few years ago.
A young buck in his compact four-wheel-drive pick-up decided he didn't want to wait for the train that was fouling a crossing, so he set off cross-country, only to discover that his ride wouldn't clear the rails. He got hung up, and I heard the old-head engineer comment on the air that he'd never seen anything like it before.
As I said, it was an industrial siding, and the only locomotive in action at the time was on the train that was fouling the crossing (I think they were doubling out), so said motorist was never in danger of getting hit by a train.
Had that been a two-track main, with trains at speed on the other track, the outcome could have been entirely different...
I have noticed that whenever someone suggests a solution and the response is, “Why that won’t work because there is always some idiot who will--------.” That reaction makes my point when I say there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that the problem cannot be solved.
No solution will be perfect. Consider how many millions more trainmen would have died had the railroads never adopted automatic couplers. Was that a pointless exercise because trainmen are still occasionally killed in coupling accidents? If a safety improvement can reduce the death count from 1000 per year down to 1 per year, does that mean the safety improvement was a failure because one person still got killed?
That's because you couch it in terms of absolute infallibility.
If one can keep the rate of death or injury down then fine.
blownout cylinder That's because you couch it in terms of absolute infallibility. If one can keep the rate of death or injury down then fine.
Infallible was only a term I used as shorthand to describe solving the problem as much as could be expected. When I mentioned infallible crossing protection, I was referring to solving the problem by improving crossing protection; as opposed to solving it by grade separation and eliminating crossings. That was my response to those who insist the only way to solve the problem is to eliminate crossings.
So let me back up and say we could reduce grade crossing crashes by 99.9999% of the number of crashes on average today by the best crossing protection system currently available. How's that?
If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done.
- Peter Ustinov
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
But this is true, there is no perfect solution for this problem other that eliminate all at grade crossings.
No matter what device you install, there will always be at least one person who tries to defeat it.
Yes, you could invest in more advance technology, but the cost would be staggering, your own numbers show that.
While I abhor the idea of any death, it is inevitable.
You are creating a false argument by pointing out that there is a predictable response to your statement.
Fact, even with the "advanced" protection in Europe, touted by a few on this forum, people still managed to get killed there.
Barricades would, as Larry pointed out, at some point trap someone.
Anyone who has driven more than a year has at some point crossed railroad tracks, and even the most dim witted and dumb of us realize, after the first time they try and beat a train, and win, even then they still realize that losing means death.
No way can you really argue that, it only takes one close scrape to convince even the dumbest of us that if they get hit, it's over.
They get it, from the tips of their toes to the top of their pointy heads, loosing means dying.
Yet the same people, rational and reasonable in most circumstances, still try and beat the train.
I don't buy into any of the phyco- babble, urge motivated , teen mentality, mumbo jumbo....people are just willing to gamble, period.
These same people will drive on the highway/freeway to and from work for months without every driving aggressively or dangerously, and then one day the mood hits and they try and be a Nascar driver and wipe out themselves and someone else to boot.
No real explainable reason other than they just felt like it.
Same at grade crossings, they may be the perfect driver at every intersection they come to, polity waving others through ahead of themselves, and then on the next block down, jump a gate and plow into a train.
No reason beyond a moment's flash of dumbness.
To clue the casual reader in, the gates and protection devices at most public road/railroad grade crossing are chosen by the state, county or local DOT, based on auto traffic count, and political consideration.
The DOT pays for roughly 25% of the initial cost of product and installation, the railroad picks up the other %75, plus any repair cost and replacement when damaged, for the life of the installation...and it has little if any say in what devices are installed, or not installed.
Most DOT/PUCs are immune from civil suits, so take a wild guess who gets sued when someone gets hit?
The railroad of course, they all have deep pockets.
Regardless of the fact the railroad didn't want the crossing, and in fact is almost always sued by the DOT/PUC to gain the "right" to cross the tracks, they foot the bill for the crossing, any upgrade, the warning devices, the maintenance of those devices, and ends up paying the civil suits when someone manages to get tagged.
For some reason, folks seem to think the" government" spends money on grade crossing protections, when in fact, it only spends the railroads money on protection, which in reality is your money, gathered by paying higher transportation cost.
You read statements like, "If "they" can spend 10 billion on an aircraft carrier, "they" should be able to spend 10 million on upgrade crossing protection"...
Yup, "they" do spend billions on carriers, roads, bridges, airports, monuments, all of that, because that's what the laws say they can do with the money you authorized them to spend, and thats what you authorized them to spend it on.
The DOTS install only what the law allows or instructs them to install, period.
You don't like what is presently there, then change the lawmakers and change the laws, instead of arguing the finer points of a physiological study, mood swings, or the verbal minutia of some dim, dismal report filed by a office weenie who has no clue how a crossing gate works.
All these "pie in the sky" solutions are meaningless unless you start at the basic root of the problem, funding, design, function and legal requirement.
If the law said to install concrete barriers that raise from the road bed and two armed guards that pop out of the electrical shed to guard the crossing, then that's what will be installed....if the law only requires gates, bells, flashing lights, guess what, you get gates, bells and flashing lights....period.
There is no real reason or real need, beyond the personal interest, to try and "understand" why people run grade crossings, race trains and park their Jeeps on the tracks playing "Ghost Train", even if you managed to figure it out, it would make no difference...all you have to understand is that they do, and will do these things no matter what.
Trying to understand why people run through crossing gates and try and beat trains is like trying to understand why dogs chase cars....they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one, but they chase them any way...simply because that's what they do!
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus zugmann: A few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you will be talking about real money. Yes it does add up. But I am only comparing the widely favored grade separation approach to the approach of infallible crossing protection. The former is $3 ¾- trillion, whereas the latter is $ ½- trillion. If both do the job, why not choose the cheapest?
A few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you will be talking about real money.
Yes it does add up. But I am only comparing the widely favored grade separation approach to the approach of infallible crossing protection. The former is $3 ¾- trillion, whereas the latter is $ ½- trillion. If both do the job, why not choose the cheapest?
The better/ more economical result for society is not always the cheapest solution, but the more cost-effective one = lowest net cost, all things considered over the service life of the subject, etc. But you probabaly knew that already anyway . . .
That said, of the entire population of grade crossings, there's probably a good number that economically warrant replacement by bridges of one type or another; another large group for which the benefit of crossing signals and gates would outweigh their costs (all aspects properly considered); another bunch that should be closed; and finally, a group that don't justify anything more than simple crossbucks.
- Paul North.
Paul,
Thanks for that perspective. My numbers in the cost estimate are just a wild extrapolation. But I don't find any cost data for an average overpass if there is any such thing. I would imagine that total cost comparisions for overpasses, crossing improvements, etc. is an extremely complex computation. But I would assume that an average overpass is many times the cost of the maximum crossing protection upgrade.
edblysard But this is true, there is no perfect solution for this problem other that eliminate all at grade crossings. No matter what device you install, there will always be at least one person who tries to defeat it. Yes, you could invest in more advance technology, but the cost would be staggering, your own numbers show that. While I abhor the idea of any death, it is inevitable. You are creating a false argument by pointing out that there is a predictable response to your statement. Fact, even with the "advanced" protection in Europe, touted by a few on this forum, people still managed to get killed there. Barricades would, as Larry pointed out, at some point trap someone. Anyone who has driven more than a year has at some point crossed railroad tracks, and even the most dim witted and dumb of us realize, after the first time they try and beat a train, and win, even then they still realize that losing means death. No way can you really argue that, it only takes one close scrape to convince even the dumbest of us that if they get hit, it's over. They get it, from the tips of their toes to the top of their pointy heads, loosing means dying. Yet the same people, rational and reasonable in most circumstances, still try and beat the train. I don't buy into any of the phyco- babble, urge motivated , teen mentality, mumbo jumbo....people are just willing to gamble, period. These same people will drive on the highway/freeway to and from work for months without every driving aggressively or dangerously, and then one day the mood hits and they try and be a Nascar driver and wipe out themselves and someone else to boot. No real explainable reason other than they just felt like it. Same at grade crossings, they may be the perfect driver at every intersection they come to, polity waving others through ahead of themselves, and then on the next block down, jump a gate and plow into a train. No reason beyond a moment's flash of dumbness. To clue the casual reader in, the gates and protection devices at most public road/railroad grade crossing are chosen by the state, county or local DOT, based on auto traffic count, and political consideration. The DOT pays for roughly 25% of the initial cost of product and installation, the railroad picks up the other %75, plus any repair cost and replacement when damaged, for the life of the installation...and it has little if any say in what devices are installed, or not installed. Most DOT/PUCs are immune from civil suits, so take a wild guess who gets sued when someone gets hit? The railroad of course, they all have deep pockets. Regardless of the fact the railroad didn't want the crossing, and in fact is almost always sued by the DOT/PUC to gain the "right" to cross the tracks, they foot the bill for the crossing, any upgrade, the warning devices, the maintenance of those devices, and ends up paying the civil suits when someone manages to get tagged. For some reason, folks seem to think the" government" spends money on grade crossing protections, when in fact, it only spends the railroads money on protection, which in reality is your money, gathered by paying higher transportation cost. You read statements like, "If "they" can spend 10 billion on an aircraft carrier, "they" should be able to spend 10 million on upgrade crossing protection"... Yup, "they" do spend billions on carriers, roads, bridges, airports, monuments, all of that, because that's what the laws say they can do with the money you authorized them to spend, and thats what you authorized them to spend it on. The DOTS install only what the law allows or instructs them to install, period. You don't like what is presently there, then change the lawmakers and change the laws, instead of arguing the finer points of a physiological study, mood swings, or the verbal minutia of some dim, dismal report filed by a office weenie who has no clue how a crossing gate works. All these "pie in the sky" solutions are meaningless unless you start at the basic root of the problem, funding, design, function and legal requirement. If the law said to install concrete barriers that raise from the road bed and two armed guards that pop out of the electrical shed to guard the crossing, then that's what will be installed....if the law only requires gates, bells, flashing lights, guess what, you get gates, bells and flashing lights....period. There is no real reason or real need, beyond the personal interest, to try and "understand" why people run grade crossings, race trains and park their Jeeps on the tracks playing "Ghost Train", even if you managed to figure it out, it would make no difference...all you have to understand is that they do, and will do these things no matter what. Trying to understand why people run through crossing gates and try and beat trains is like trying to understand why dogs chase cars....they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one, but they chase them any way...simply because that's what they do!
Ed,
I am not sure why dogs chase cars, but I do believe that we can learn why people run grade crossings. In some cases, as you say, it might be just a spontaneous and arbitrary loss of reason or sanity. That could happen, but I do not believe it is the underlying explanation for all crossing violations. There has been over a century of probing the question of why people don’t yield to trains. They have found that people run crossings intentionally and unintentionally. Unintentionally, they are asleep, drunk, or distracted. Intentionally, they want to beat the train, want a thrill, or want to commit suicide. I think it is reasonable to conclude that, of those three reasons, wanting to beat the train is the most common motivation by far. And yes, I agree that in attempting to beat a train, they are engaging in a gamble.
Signs, flashing lights, and bells help get people’s attention, and that helps with the unintentional crossing violation. Gates stop traffic, and that helps with the intentional crossing violation.
I realize crossings cost a lot of money, and I don’t expect some mass conversion of all grade crossings to the highest state of the art. If it sounds that way, it is probably only because I am laying out an alternative to the mass replacement of crossings with grade separation because that approach was advocated earlier in the thread. But, any case, I am not agitating for a human right of universal crossing protection. And I am certainly not criticizing the railroads for not solving the problem. I realize that the solution must originate with the laws. My basic point is that there is an imperfect, but much improved solution to the problem of gate runners. And it is not a pie-in-the-sky solution. What it boils down to is that gates are the most effective approach to solving the problem, but only if drivers cannot go around them.
I have no idea what credentials are possessed by the authors of the report I linked to the first post. But North Carolina DOT took the report seriously, and they make a very convincing case why. The report sounds extensively researched. The study spent a lot of money gathering real data on the cause and prevention of crossing violations. The report sounds highly credible to me. It is by far the most useful and practical report I have ever seen on the topic. It does, by the way, set the objective for a perfect solution, at least as a benchmark goal.
But I agree that from a practical standpoint, there is no perfect solution. Even the fully gated crossing is not the perfect solution. The NC report does seek to find out what is in the minds of gate-runners by interviewing and profiling them, but the report also stipulates that obtaining this insight is not the entire remedy. The report makes it clear that the proper action must be taken in regard to the driver habits and motivations to develop an actual solution. But the report believes that learning driver motivations is a prerequisite to developing the solution to the problem. It makes sense to me.
Regarding the really good, but not perfect solution, the report says this:
“For twenty weeks, baseline data were collected at the Sugar Creek Road crossing. Median barriers were then installed, followed by 4-quadrant gates, and then finally, 4-quadrant gates with median barriers. Using each of these barrier enhancements, the number of gate running incidents was significantly reduced. For example, median barriers reduced violations by 77%, 4 quadrant gates reduced violations by 86% and 4-quadrant gates with median barriers reduced violations by 98%. Similar results were obtained at a second (Orr Road) crossing in Charlotte.”
PDN: Nice to read a thoughtful, rational response to this question without the usual name-calling and hidden motives.
Bucyrus: Your last quotation (in blue) puts the question into a realistic perspective. If accidents can be greatly reduced at crossings that warrant enhanced protection, then clearly that should become an objective to work towards, over time, with prioritization, with improved funding. To do nothing b/c it is impossible to be 100% effective is not a rational response to a problem.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus wrote: “For twenty weeks, baseline data were collected at the Sugar Creek Road crossing. Median barriers were then installed, followed by 4-quadrant gates, and then finally, 4-quadrant gates with median barriers. Using each of these barrier enhancements, the number of gate running incidents was significantly reduced. For example, median barriers reduced violations by 77%, 4 quadrant gates reduced violations by 86% and 4-quadrant gates with median barriers reduced violations by 98%. Similar results were obtained at a second (Orr Road) crossing in Charlotte.”
Those are darn good figures...and just from this I would support this type of approach.
As well as bridge/underpass on some busier routes....
I'd be interested in hearing how the 2% that did manage to disregard the four-quadrant-with-median-barrier set up did so. I'd opine that they are at the core of the problem.
Yesterday a woman went around the gates and got broadsided by a light rail train at a grade level crossing that did not exist until they built the light rail line several years ago.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/18/3325904/woman-hurt-in-car-light-rail-collision.html
Like I said before: Step one - stop building NEW grade level crossings.
They went up and over several roads, even building a couple of elevated stations, but they also created several new grade level crossings. Two of the roads they went up and over still have grade level crossings for the NS track that parallels the Light rail for part of the route.
tree68 I'd be interested in hearing how the 2% that did manage to disregard the four-quadrant-with-median-barrier set up did so. I'd opine that they are at the core of the problem.
I'd think they would have pulled what a certain bonehead did here recently..went around to the right..around the things....
Yes, the 2% figure definitely represents the unsolved portion of the problem. To me, it represents the portion of the problem that remains an obstacle to the “perfect” solution. However, it may be confusing as to exactly how to interpret the statistic. One might interpret it to mean that, out of every 100 drivers approaching the activated crossing prior to the arrival of the train, two of those drivers will not comply with the law.
However, in reading it carefully, I conclude that the baseline for the statistic is a crossing (Sugar Creek Road) with conventional gates and flashers where the gates can be circumvented. So, say that crossing has two drivers out of 100 who go around the lowered gates. Then when you add fully blocking gates, the number of violators is reduced by 98%. So that would mean that the number of violators would be only 4/100ths of one violator. So the 2% figure is 2% of what was already vastly improved because the statistic is based on adding the insurmountable gates to a crossing that already had conventional lights and gates.
So the statistics represent a protection enhancement to a hazard that is already substantially protected. And just the added enhancement alone made a 98% improvement.
Have you ever watched "Insane or Inspired" on SciFi channel, or "Dumbest Stuff on Wheels" on the Speed channel?
There are some very stupid people out there. A guy who sits on an airbag and fires it for fun is unlikely to be intimidated by a wooden gate or flashing lights.
Bucyrus Paul, Thanks for that perspective. My numbers in the cost estimate are just a wild extrapolation. But I don't find any cost data for an average overpass if there is any such thing. I would imagine that total cost comparisions for overpasses, crossing improvements, etc. is an extremely complex computation. But I would assume that an average overpass is many times the cost of the maximum crossing protection upgrade.
All cost estimates for such improvements are extremely 'site-specific' (dependent). For a general discussion such as this, some recent figures that I've seen are along the following lines for a rural or suburban crossing of a busy 2-track main line (40 trains per day) with a parallel dirt access or maintenance road (for an overall opening, clearance, or work area of 55 to 60 ft.):
Signals, gates, and high-grade crossing surface (only within 10 ft. of the tracks or so); $250,000 to $300,000 per crossing.
Road overpass (2 lanes each 12' wide, plus 8' shoulders, break-down lanes, walkways, etc. = 40 ft. wide overall); $5 million.
I like the improvement the four quadrant, center barrier does over a standard flashing light, and the normal two crossing arms crossing.
Assuming it really does that 98% improvement.....that's very significant to the point I'd call it contained. In a perfect world, no...but we all know perfect is not possible.
The crossing at the Netherlands live cam site...seems to get very good respect.
Quentin
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply any or all suggested solution are a pie in the sky version, nor did I say that doing nothing is the best idea, so Schlimn can get a grip.....
What I did mean to imply is that, even if the root cause of why people try to "beat the train" is ever truly discovered, it won't make that much statistical difference, changing human behavior is next to impossible.
They will still try!
And I also fully agree, closing all grade crossings is unrealistic, and un- desirable.
But, I also agree with Linda Morgan, when she commented, in a speech about the FRA"s grade crossing closure program, "The safest grade crossing is the one that's not there", referring to the program's success with eliminating grade crossings that are/were dangerous, have little current or future transportation relevance, or failed to meet the FRA standard.
I live in a county with lots, and I mean lots of crossings, many at main line tracks.
Over 3000...that's a lot!
Take a look at the Hardy Toll road in north Harris County, and note the double track main line right between the south and north bound lanes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=harris+county+tx&hl=en&ll=29.893601,-95.368195&spn=0.006623,0.015106&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.87208,61.875&t=h&hnear=Harris,+Texas&z=16
The tracks are UPs main to Dallas and points north, it was a single main before, but also note that this toll road is a recent project, last 15 to 20 years.
.
Also note that all major streets that crossed the tracks at grade have become either overpasses or underpasses, and that all minor streets simply terminate at the feeder or access road and lead the driver to a major crossing.
Before this project, trains crept along through here; there were places where 6 or 7 crossings in a mile were the normal.
The project was a co-operative effort between the county, and the railroad, built with city/ county bonds and federal transportation funds.
The project has paid for itself in tolls several times over.
Granted, not all toll roads are successful, some are political projects, never intended to do anything but benefit a small group, some are flat useless, but look closely at this project, and realize that from the day it was finished until today, only one train vs. automobile accident has occurred on the stretch inside Harris county, at of all places, UP's Lloyd yard in Spring, a trainmaster fouled the lead with his company truck, and got wacked.
Now UP and BNSF trains zip through there at up to 50 mph.
When UP took over the SP and Houston train traffic melted down, UP could, and did, park trains on alternating sides here, used the crossovers to move traffic, and didn't block one crossing, not one, while trains sat parked for days on end.
Automobile traffic at cross streets flows really well, much better than it did before, minor cross streets don't back up.
If you start at the junction of IH Loop 610 and the Hardy Toll road, and scroll north, (up) just count the number of crossing that used to be there...go all the way to Spring Texas, where the toll road merges into IH 45 North...if a bunch of red neck oil patch folks can do this....and make it not only work, but turn a profit....it begs the question why not elsewhere?
The report linked to the first post deals with the pursuit of a sealed corridor. And while it recognizes that a sealed corridor cannot include today’s grade crossings, it pursues the question of whether crossings can be made inviolable so they can be included in a sealed corridor. So the report is unusual in its deep exploration of the driver attitudes and beliefs that are commonly associated with crashes.
It makes sense to learn as much about the crossing violator profile as possible. If you are going to build a mousetrap, you need to learn what mice think. One thing they think is that cheese tastes good. Another thing they believe is that the presence of a mousetrap is irrelevant to the safety of mice. If mice quickly learned that mousetraps were deadly, mousetraps would not work.
Here is an example of this type of intelligence gathering on drivers, and the fine-tuning of crossing protection in reaction to that insight:
Surveys have shown that most drivers do not realize that the grade crossing crossbuck means yield. Most drivers simply believe that a crossbuck only marks the location of a grade crossing. As a result of this finding, authorities are adding YIELD signs to all “passive” (non-signalized) crossings. Logically, there is absolutely no need for the yield signs because the crossbuck means yield by its legal definition. But most drivers do not know that, so authorities have concluded that passive crossings are largely unprotected in a practical sense.
So what we will have, in effect, are crossings protected by two “yield” signs. One drivers will understand, and one they won’t.
However, I would say that the authorities have drawn the wrong conclusion in this case. Drivers may not know that a crossbuck means yield, but they do know that a crossbuck means trains cross. And most people realize that trains don’t stop for vehicle traffic. So they understand what is required even if they don’t know that the crossbuck literally means yield. So I would conclude that the authorities have decided to install a whole bunch of new yield signs to address a distinction without a difference.
How do you build grade level crossing protection to prevent this?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/21/3332903/raw-video-south-charlotte-light.html
Watch the video from the LRV. The car is not on the wrong side of the road, the video is from the rear view camera on the trailing end of the LRV.
Phoebe Vet Like I said before: Step one - stop building NEW grade level crossings. They went up and over several roads, even building a couple of elevated stations, but they also created several new grade level crossings. Two of the roads they went up and over still have grade level crossings for the NS track that parallels the Light rail for part of the route.
But if they couldn't create a couple new crossings, do you think that the light rail would have ever gotten built?
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
Zug:
Yes. They went up and over several other streets.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/21/3332903/raw-video-south-charlotte-light.html#storylink=misearch
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.