Edit topic

Updated your discussion topic below.

Subject
Enter a subject for your topic. Maximum 150 characters.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.         <o:p></o:p> 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:  <o:p></o:p> <a href="http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf">http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf</a>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 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.  <o:p></o:p> 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.  <o:p></o:p> 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.  <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> 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.      <o:p></o:p> 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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
E-mail Subscribe
Check the box below if you want to receive e-mail notifications when replies are made to this thread.

Receive notifications