Based on what I've seen at any number of intersections, there's plenty of drivers and pedestrians out there who consider traffic lights to be merely advisory.
Increasing the penalty, as some have suggested here, might reduce gate-running. But it won’t help in cases where drivers believe the signals and gates are only advisory. Just to clarify, advisory means that a driver is simply informed that a crossing exists, and then the driver is permitted to use his or her own discretion in deciding whether it is safe to cross.
That belief is not as far-fetched as it might at first seem. Grade crossings come out of a 150-year tradition where the warnings were advisory for much of that history. To some extent, they still are. Today, there is nothing about the full warning system of gates and flashers that clearly dispels the left over belief that the warning is advisory.
Ulrich The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop...look both ways..open the windows to listen...and then proceed. That's what school buses and some others are now required to do...might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid..there's just no way to avoid that. You can't precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph...
The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop...look both ways..open the windows to listen...and then proceed. That's what school buses and some others are now required to do...might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid..there's just no way to avoid that. You can't precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph...
Your claim seems to assume that the elimination of the crossing involves moving the tracks up or down. While that might be the cost effective solution in a dense urban environment, moving the road would usually be more cost effective solution.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Many drivers are motivated to try to beat the train by the avoidance of a delay. However, the report linked to my first post finds that some drivers are motivated to beat the train by the thrill of it.
I've seen that here...the guy was later arrested for auto theft and a pile of other charges....
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/
They still have fingers that can grab keys to someone elses car (permission or not)...I have seen that first.hand.
Dan
CNW 6000 ButchKnouse: How about a 30 day license suspension for anybody who goes through red crossing lights? And longer suspensions with each succeeding offense. How many folks are already ignoring the license suspension policies for things like unpaid tickets, DUI/OWI, etc? It's nigh unenforceable.
ButchKnouse: How about a 30 day license suspension for anybody who goes through red crossing lights? And longer suspensions with each succeeding offense.
How about a 30 day license suspension for anybody who goes through red crossing lights? And longer suspensions with each succeeding offense.
How many folks are already ignoring the license suspension policies for things like unpaid tickets, DUI/OWI, etc? It's nigh unenforceable.
Very true...though I'd also suspect the "I just don't care" mentality among some...which might be more the issue here.
This much is true. A lot of those are repeat offenders..thy are just too hard core to stop doing it anyway. That would be why they would need to keep them behind bars or summat. My neighbour, who is a cop, had said on numerous occasions that some of these guys who do this are really hard core alcoholics. They never stop because they really cannot help themselves...
ButchKnouse How about a 30 day license suspension for anybody who goes through red crossing lights? And longer suspensions with each succeeding offense.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Somebody never heard of the Volpe Center or its predecessors apparently.
Somebody also needs to remember the state PUC/ RR Commisions/ DOT's etc call the shots by state mandate. Those folks, not the railroads, tackle what stupid zones are remediated with what limited funding is out there.
FRA has developed some fairly elaborate measures for evaluating the effectiveness of grade crossing protective devices, and supplementary measures such as four-quad gates and medians, which they use in evaluating quiet zone proposals under their "train horn" rule, 49 CFR Part 222. They are described in the appendices to the rule, and the rulemaking preambles.
Just a note in passing about a personal perception referencing the North Carolina issue of grade crossings.
Over the last couple of years, there seem to have been a number of incidents in rural NC at 'passive' (?) crossings in which the NC DOT train service on their Piedmont Express, reported in the media, (although I have not seen any in recent memory). There for a while in the last couple of years collisions seemed to be a fairly regular occurrence in rural areas(?)
Section B in the following link may be of interest here:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec10.htm
FTL:"...Norfolk Southern Railway on-board video uses a proprietary locomotive-mounted system that captures, at four frames per second, real-time digital video and audio of track conditions as well as unusual events, such as incidents and trespasser activity, through the use of a camera and microphone installed on the locomotive. This system also superimposes the speed of the train at any given point, train direction (forward or reverse), as well as horn and brake activations. As part of the research effort, Norfolk Southern will be recording video and sound for at least two years. NCDOT will utilize the data collected to monitor and evaluate the performance of the enhanced warning devices previously installed on the Sealed Corridor and will make design revisions as deemed necessary..."
FTL:"...In addition, NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk Southern are currently in the process of initiating a joint research project with FRA to develop and validate a predictive trespasser model utilizing the data collected on both the Sealed Corridor and Norfolk Southern's system as a whole. In addition to model calibration, the data will be used to determine the effectiveness of potential preventative measures designed to minimize pedestrian-train interactions.."
This FRA linked site offers a brief Q&A selection that may also answer sonme questions here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1744.shtml
Hey...Red lights at intersections are only mere suggestions...
Why not?
So summarizing - the perception is that an operating grade crossing signal is just a 'suggestion' ?!?
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome onboard the Trains.com Forum with discussions ranging from grade crossings to economies. We are currently third in line for take-off and are expected to be unlocked for approximately seven minutes time. We ask that you please fasten your seatbelts at this time and secure all feelings underneath your seat or in the overhead compartments. We also ask that your seats and table trays are in the upright position for take-off. Please turn off all personal electronic devices, including laptops and cell phones. Smoking is prohibited for the duration of the discussion . Thank you for choosing Trains.com. Enjoy your discussion.
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 interesting concept. It appeared in the last thread that the question of the cost and who pays for crossing improvements is an important issue.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In recent threads, there have been discussions about the solution to the problem of grade crossing crashes. One of the most common suggestions is the elimination of all grade crossings. Often, it is suggested that the railroads were in place before roads that cross them, so the responsibility for crossings should not be placed on the railroads. I believe this may be an oversimplification of the crossing rights issue, but maybe others here can shed some light on that point.
Rather than applying a blanket solution such as closing all crossings, protecting crossings has always been done on a prioritization in protecting first, the crossings that are most likely to have crashes. There are many passive (non-signalized) crossings in existence. On one hand, it does not pay to signalize them because the low traffic count does not justify the cost of signalization.
However, even though the probability of a train/vehicle encounter is relatively less at these crossings with low vehicle counts, it may be the case that the train/vehicle encounters that do occur are more likely to result in a crash than the more routine encounters at busier signalized crossings.
This is because the passive crossings are based on lower levels of traffic of both vehicles and trains. Therefore, a lower train count coupled with the perceived lower sense of authority at a crossing without signals causes drivers to be less wary than they would be at busier signalized crossings.
Here is a very interesting analysis of the perceptions of drivers that affect their behavior at grade crossings, and how this information can be used in eliminating grade crossing crashes:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
This report was prepared for the North Caroline Department of Rail Transportation. I have never seen a report that goes this deeply into the beliefs and perceptions of drivers, and how that influences the practice of gate-running.
The report references North Carolina’s Sealed Corridor project, and correlating philosophy of thinking outside the box to develop solutions to enhance the existing warning devices at crossings.
Compared to a baseline of crossing protection consisting of gates and flashing lights, it was found that adding four-quadrant gates with median barriers reduced crashes by 98% of the baseline number of crashes.
To gather data for the mindset of drivers, the study set up cameras at a crossing and collected incidents of gate running. Then they compared the background of those drivers to the background of a random sample of drivers. They also had the random sample of drivers fill out a questionnaire on their habits and perceptions about grade crossings.
They had also intended to probe deeper into the gate runners by having them fill out a questionnaire in exchange for the state waiving prosecution. Interestingly, none of the gate runners accepted that offer, so none of them filled out the questionnaire. That says something, but I am not quite sure what. The report does not say whether these gate runners refusing the deal were actually charged with the offense.
The report notes that many drivers have a different understanding of what crossing signals mean, as opposed to what they actually do mean. Many drivers believe that crossing signals and gates are not regulatory, but only regard them to be advisory. In other words, these drivers believe that the activated warning system is only there to tell drivers that a train is coming, and that it is okay for drivers to use their own discretion in deciding whether it is safe to cross. An example would be a driver deciding it was safe to go around the lowered gates if the train appeared to be moving so slowly that there would be time to get across safely.
Particularly interesting is the information discussing the way that reoccurring railroad activity at certain crossings habituates driver behavior at those crossings. For example, drivers adjust their wariness and compliance lower in response to the frequent occurrence of false alarms of signal activations resulting from switching operations that never cross the crossing. The study recommends eliminating these types of contingencies from railroad operations near and over crossings as a way of improving crossing compliance by drivers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.