traindriver98,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the forum. I agree that people trying to beat the train is a big part of the problem. They think they have the time to make it across. They worry that the delay will be longer than will actually be the case, and they don’t want to take a chance that it won’t.
But another key part of the problem is that studies have shown that many drivers believe that the crossing signals and gates are only meant to tell them that a train is approaching; and that they are permitted to use their own discretion as to whether or not it is safe to cross.
I am wondering how drivers get around the four-quadrant gates, as you mention. How often do drivers try to beat the train by running straight though before the gate is fully lowered, but misjudge and hit the gate?
Judging by the number of times I've seen signal maintainers near grade crossings with their truck and replacement parts, I would say that the gates get hit more often than we care to admit.
CSSHEGEWISCHJudging by the number of times I've seen signal maintainers near grade crossings with their truck and replacement parts, I would say that the gates get hit more often than we care to admit.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
traindriver98...Train crews no longer have to sound the horn at Private crossings, ...
We have a number of trail crossings on our line, as well as some private crossings.
We blow for all of them.
I've had hikers suddenly pop into sight at those crossings, and we've had a close call or two at otherwise little used vehicle crossings.
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...
Fifty years ago, the worlds largest Elevator Company ran tests to determine how long people would wait for an elevator without getting impatient. They found that 20 seconds after pressing the call button, they, on average, would again be pushing the button. After 30 seconds some people would actually head to the stairs rather than wait.
You can draw your own comparison between elevators and railroad crossings.
We handed out small 30 second "hour glasses" to our customers to judge elevator service in his building.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
I wonder how many train crashes result from drivers trying to beat the train by running under the lowering gate.
DMUinCT Fifty years ago, the worlds largest Elevator Company ran tests to determine how long people would wait for an elevator without getting impatient. They found that 20 seconds after pressing the call button, they, on average, would again be pushing the button. After 30 seconds some people would actually head to the stairs rather than wait. You can draw your own comparison between elevators and railroad crossings. We handed out small 30 second "hour glasses" to our customers to judge elevator service in his building.
LION has heard of that test, it was used in advertizing. As far as I recalled, that second button push was usually six seconds after the first. If I had to wait 20 seconds for an elevator I would really be climbing the wall! The meds help.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
This is one reason why many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train:
When the red lights start flashing, drivers must stop. Of course, they cannot possibly stop in time if they are traveling too fast to stop within their distance from the crossing when the lights start. Unlike a traffic light, which has a yellow light warning to give time for a driver to decelerate in preparation for stopping short of the red light, there is no advance warning that the inviolable red lights of a grade crossing are about to flash.
With grade crossing flashers on a fast highway; because of the long stopping distance; an approaching driver too close to stop short of the flashing lights upon their startup; could pass through the crossing several seconds after the red lights start flashing.
At 50-60 mph, a driver will probably require 6-8 seconds to stop. In a sense, there is warning built into the crossing activation due to the 20 seconds between activation and train arrival at the crossing. But, of course a driver cannot consider that 20 seconds as available warning time because it would take him or her right up to the point of collision, and that is cutting it too close. Furthermore, the gate lowers before that 20 seconds elapses, and the gate is the practical end point of vehicle passage. And still further; the law does not permit a driver to pass the red flashing lights, so none of the 20 seconds can be considered a warning for the start of the flashing red lights.
I believe that the authorities must certainly recognize that some amount of warning interval is necessary for the stopping requirement for the red flashing lights, and so they reason that the warning interval is the time between the start of the red flashing lights and the blockade of the gate. The authorities realize that the laws of physics require stopping distance, and they see no danger in accepting drivers violating the pre-gate phase of the red light activation because as long as the driver stops for the gate he or she will not get hit by a train.
However, this is a flawed concept because the driver is not in on the deal. The driver is being told by the authorities and the law that he or she must stop short of the red flashing lights. There are no excuses.
However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver. But expecting drivers to stop on a dime doesn’t make sense to drivers.
So without getting out the law book, any reasonable driver is going to simply conclude that he or she cannot possibly be expected to stop on a dime should the red lights suddenly activate. And therefore, to a driver, the red lights are just a warning that a train is coming rather than a command to stop. Simple common sense leads to that conclusion. What other conclusion could there be?
So the flaw in the concept is not that running the flashing red lights before the gate comes down is going to lead to a crash. That won’t happen. The flawed concept is that the system teaches drivers that they are to use their own discretion as to whether or not it is safe to pass the flashing lights. Of course, this is not what the system, the law, or the authorities intend for a driver to do.
Furthermore, the raised gate of the system tells a driver that it is completely safe to cross even though the red lights are flashing. The raised gate is like a clear signal telling the driver there is still time to make it across. The “clear signal” (the raised gate) tells the driver that there is no need to look for a train to judge its speed or proximity to the crossing, so the driver can just focus on getting across the tracks as quickly as possible.
So it is not just that drivers will naturally use part of the red flashing light phase to get through if they are too close to stop. They will go further and use more of the red flashing light phase to get through rather than wait for the train—even if they are close enough to stop.
So you can see that the whole system encourages drivers to violate the lights and gate in order to try to beat the train, so they don’t have to wait for it. It just leads drivers to that natural conclusion and behavior.
Bucyrus However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver.
However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver.
Traffic lights turning yellow are generally translated by the motoring public these days not as "prepare to stop," but rather "step on it so you don't get caught by the light."
In fact, it's not only "these days." Early traffic signal designs had the lights going from red to amber to green at the same time the other direction was going from green to amber to red. This created some interesting situations at "ground zero" as the motorists anticipating a green light ventured into the intersections at the same time the motorists that had the green were trying to beat the red.
I can't imagine RR crossings being any different, and probably worse, as motorists know that if they get caught by a traffic light, they'll probably be on their way in well less than a minute. With a train, they "know" they'll be there for a "substantial" amount of time.
While I understand your sentiment, I don't see the current scheme of things as broken. Adding a new phase to the crossing signal operation simply complicates the whole thing from a technical and driver understanding viewpoint, and with a few limited exceptions, will do little to change things.
People think a physical barrier across the road as "advisory"?
Some may, but I think your generalization is way too broad.
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
zugmann,
I’m not making a generalization. I said “many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train.” I did say that the signals and gates teach this, but not every driver accepts that teaching. And some drivers who run the lights and gates know that they are breaking the law, but just take the chance anyway.
But driver surveys have shown that many drivers do believe the warning system is advisory and not regulatory. And traffic authorities are looking for ways to eliminate this misunderstanding. I am just pointing out one way that the misunderstanding comes about. I wonder if traffic authorities have ever noticed it.
I did lump the gates in with the lights when I said they are perceived as advisory. I think that gates might be perceived as advisory in cases where drivers go around them when they are lowered. But I don’t believe that cases of drivers breaking through a lowered gate would result from the belief that the gate is advisory. That would be likely due to misjudging the ability to get under the gate in time. But leading to that point might be the perception that the lights are only advisory.
tree68 traindriver98...Train crews no longer have to sound the horn at Private crossings, ... We have a number of trail crossings on our line, as well as some private crossings. We blow for all of them. I've had hikers suddenly pop into sight at those crossings, and we've had a close call or two at otherwise little used vehicle crossings.
We've never been required to blow for most private crossings in my area. (There are a couple of exceptions for high-traffic private crossings that even have lights and gates, and the proper whistle posts.) I think the requirement depends on local laws in effect.
That dosen't mean I don't blow for a private crossing if I feel the need to. Most of ours are farm field access roads. If I see a vehicle heading towards the crossing, I'll blow the standard crossing warning. If I'm on double track meeting a train that obscures my view during times it could be expected that something could cross the tracks, I'll blow for the crossing.
Jeff
BucyrusI’m not making a generalization. I said “many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train.”
Perhaps not an over-generalization but definitely lacking specificity. How about some hard data to put the "many" into the proper context?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BroadwayLion Its simple enough. You want a quiet and safe crossing, you build an overpass. ROAR
Its simple enough. You want a quiet and safe crossing, you build an overpass.
Google Maps shows an underpass just down the road from the accident site. They could have avoided the crossing ALTOGETHER.
zugmannPeople think a physical barrier across the road as "advisory"?
tree68 Bucyrus However, if for instance, the lights began flashing yellow for ten seconds and then switched to red, and if the law were re-written to define the flashing yellow phase as a “prepare to stop” warning, then it would all make sense to the driver. Traffic lights turning yellow are generally translated by the motoring public these days not as "prepare to stop," but rather "step on it so you don't get caught by the light."
I am not necessarily advocating that the lights be modified with flashing yellow. I just offer it as an example of what is missing from the crossing protection system logic.
I understand your point about the yellow light encouraging some people to speed up. That does happen at traffic lights, and some people who speed up still don’t make it in time.
But my point is that the lack of any pre-warning with grade crossing signals makes it impossible to comply with their law depending on vehicle speed and the stopping distance available when the signals activate.
And if you removed the yellow light phase from traffic lights, people would not be able to comply with them or their law either. The same would be true if you removed the approach signals from railroading.
So, Bucyrus, you're advocating that an additional stage of warning be incorporated into at-grade crossing warning protections - not unlike an "approach" signal for cars?
Dan
schlimm BucyrusI’m not making a generalization. I said “many drivers consider the signals and gates to be only advisory to indicate an approaching train.” Perhaps not an over-generalization but definitely lacking specificity. How about some hard data to put the "many" into the proper context?
I don't think there is a study to quote some statistic from, but I have watched trains at at-grade crossings for a good number of years, and I woud characterize the number of drivers that apparently have no solid concept of what the flashing red lights and gates really mean, as "many"... or at least more than just "some", (I doubt that it is just a couple of idiots that have lots of different cars and trucks doing it all by themselves!).
I used to take photos and videos of cars "running the gates" at my former favourite train watching spot and still have many stored on my computer showing it happening.
I regret that one time I stopped the video camera too soon. Usually it is the 1st car in a line of cars that will play "beat the train", but one time I noticed that there were at least 6 or 7 cars stopped at the lowered gates on the other side of the tracks from where I was parked, so I stopped recording and shut the camera off. As I was putting it down, the last car in the line pulled into the opposing lane, passed the others, went around the fully lowered gates, crossed the tracks at an angle to get back to the right lanes and bypass the lowered gates on the my side of the tracks. The Engineer of the train was laying on the horn and I could see the Conductor ducking down. The Locomotive was in the at-grade crossing before the car's rear bumper passed the gates as it exited the at-grade crossing. The driver was looking straight at me as he crossed the tracks. I think he was more concerned with whether I was still running the camera than he was the train just a few feet from his car.
If the train had hit the car, I am pretty sure the car would have been thrown into my car and I might not be here writing this missive. That particular at-grade crossing was "overpassed" a couple of years ago so I cannot even get to that spot anymore, but I now park much further away from any at-grade crossing and if I have my camera with me, it is on a tripod and records until after the train has come and gone.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
All the more reason to have four-quadrant gated with median crossings at most that have traffic. Once upon a time, that was the norm for gated crossings.
CNW 6000 you're advocating that an additional stage of warning be incorporated into at-grade crossing warning protections - not unlike an "approach" signal for cars?
CNW 6000So, Bucyrus, you're advocating that an additional stage of warning be incorporated into at-grade crossing warning protections - not unlike an "approach" signal for cars?
Dan,
That’s right, but my point is not so much to advocate for adding the yellow light phase, but rather to point out that it is missing. And the issue of it being missing is not so much that it directly causes crashes. A driver running the flashers in the first 5-7 seconds, because he or she is going too fast to stop, is not going to directly cause a crash.
The larger issue is that this event tells the driver that the red flashing lights are equivalent to a yellow light at a traffic signal. And since the first 5-7 seconds are a “yellow light” in the mind of the driver, then so is the entire 20 seconds. After all, it is only after the 20 seconds that the interfering vehicle (the train) enters the crossing. If the gate comes down and there is a way around it, a driver can easily rationalize that the gate too is part of the 20 second “yellow light” warning.
The traffic authorities are interested in discovering why drivers do not comply with laws and traffic control devices. They question drivers about their understanding of laws and devices, and they make changes accordingly. Clearly some drivers are simply incorrigible. They know the rules and they break them. But not all the rule breakers do it intentionally.
The best reference to this kind of study is this:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
I have mentioned it before. It goes miles deep into these matters. There are other references to the problem that has been identified by the authorities in which a significant number of drivers do not realize that the flashers and gates are regulatory. In other words, they don’t realize that you must stop for the flashing red lights no matter what.
Instead, these drivers believe that the warning system is advisory. In other words, they believe the lights and gates; and particularly just lights without gates, are only there to tell drivers that a train is approaching. And beyond that, they believe that drivers are allowed to use their own judgment as to whether or not it is safe to cross. When you add this misunderstanding to the fact that drivers don’t want to risk being held up by a train, it is no wonder that there are close calls.
I can see several distinctly clear and logical reasons why drivers would believe the warning system is advisory rather than regulatory. One of the reasons is the traffic control logic defect that I am describing here. Some of the other reasons come right out of the grade crossing tradition of over 150 years. I am not sure how many of these reasons have been identified by the regulatory authorities. I might write to them about this one to see what they say.
Bucyrus Instead, these drivers believe that the warning system is advisory. In other words, they believe the lights and gates; and particularly just lights without gates, are only there to tell drivers that a train is approaching. And beyond that, they believe that drivers are allowed to use their own judgment as to whether or not it is safe to cross. When you add this misunderstanding to the fact that drivers don’t want to risk being held up by a train, it is no wonder that there are close calls. I can see several distinctly clear and logical reasons why drivers would believe the warning system is advisory rather than regulatory. One of the reasons is the traffic control logic defect that I am describing here.
I can see several distinctly clear and logical reasons why drivers would believe the warning system is advisory rather than regulatory. One of the reasons is the traffic control logic defect that I am describing here.
What if standard traffic lights were installed in parallel with the traditional flashers? Sure, drivers will still run the yellow part of the cycle, but you don't see many people running red lights.
There's a crossing near me in Northborough, MA that has traffic signals working in parallel with standard lights and half-gates. It's not a quiet zone and train speed is 10 mph, but it's a busy road. These lights flash yellow when no train is approaching, then turn red to block traffic in conjunction with the regular flashers and gates.
Google Street View link
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices allows traffic signals to protect railroad crossings on industrial and other low-speed applications but bans them for mainline use. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with using them in parallel with the standard equipment, though.
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003/part8/part8d.htm#section8D07
Thoughts?
An interesting conclusion in the study is that there is a correlation between traffic violators and crossing runners, even to the extent that the thrill of the stunt may be a motivation.
Nothing short of an impregnable barrier is going to stop those people.
That 62% of the respondents interpret flashing lights without lowered gates as they would an amber traffic light is significant, but not necessarily a completely bad thing, unless they are at a crossing with no gates. The question is what action they take. According to the report, about half would try to get across if they could not see a train.
Only 20% of that half (6% of the survey) would do so if they could see a train.
If a train is in sight, or the gates are coming down, the percentage of people seeing the lights as an amber traffic signal drops to 8%. This tells me that in general people understand the timing of the crossing warning.
Curiously, about 6% of the respondents also reported that they found taking risks exciting.
Short of completely replacing current crossing signals with traffic lights, I don't see an advantage in adding an amber "pre-warning" to the mix. As mentioned, doing so would simply create a drag strip situation, possibly resulting in more problems than already exist.
Education and enforcement are about the only solution, other than grade separation.
Even taking the measures dictated by a quiet zone may not be economically feasible, especially on lesser used lines like the one in my area. A given crossing along this line may only see four or five movements over 24 hours.
I am not necessarily convinced that adding a yellow phase to grade crossings would solve the problem. It might not produce any improvement. I would not conclude that it would make it worse. The problem it would be trying to correct would be drivers perceiving the entire 20 seconds as a warning “yellow light.”
So adding another 10 seconds of an actual yellow light warning might just create a 30 second “yellow light” in the minds of the drivers that it is trying to reach. It seems apparent that drivers tend to assess the train danger in deciding how to react to the warning system, whereas, with highway traffic lights, they just take the traffic for what it is and follow the commands of the lights.
My main motivation for bringing this up is how it applies to quiet zones. This is because quiet zones purport to measure and quantify risk and how safety features affect that risk. There are worksheets for this, but I have not yet studied them. But in any case, quiet zone analysis has to account for the risk involved with drivers trying to beat the train, and balance that risk with the removal of the train horn. So I am thinking about that.
A quiet zone seems to assume that insurmountable gates eliminate the need for the horn. I wonder if they have thought that completely through.
schlimm Extra warning time at a properly constructed four-quadrant gated crossing with a concrete median barrier should eliminate almost all accidents. You aren't suggesting most crossing accidents are caused by vehicles breaking through the lowered gates, are you?
Extra warning time at a properly constructed four-quadrant gated crossing with a concrete median barrier should eliminate almost all accidents. You aren't suggesting most crossing accidents are caused by vehicles breaking through the lowered gates, are you?
I don’t think a longer warning would help. The cause of collisions is often due to an attempt to beat the train. That is not due to the shortness of the warning, but rather, it is due to a failure to heed the warning.
Traffic experts have found that if a warning is longer than necessary, drivers take that into account and apply it to the next activated crossing then encounter. They take a higher risk, believing that the warnings are more than ample. So, ironically, longer warnings increase the rate of collisions.
Well Mr. Bucyrus, we've heard why you don't believe many ideas would work. So let's get down to business. What do you think has to be done to prevent grade crossing collisions?
zugmannWell Mr. Bucyrus, we've heard why you don't believe many ideas would work. So let's get down to business. What do you think has to be done to prevent grade crossing collisions?
One option to enforce crossing law is photo enforcement. I don’t see why that would not prevent all intentional gate and light running. I am sure that the fine for that would be astronomical. A seat belt fine can be over $150. So with the certainty of a fine of say $300-500, I cannot imagine anybody thinking that avoiding the risk of a train delay is worth the money. They would have to set the cameras to allow a 7 second grace period at the onset of activation in order to allow for stopping distance, as I have talked about earlier.
A big part of the problem that I see with the status quo is the driver motivation to avoid a train delay. I sense that the industry and safety groups are somewhat defensive about that factor, and thus in denial about it.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one. Most of us here in Tucson do the same thing.
Well, there is the matter of cost. Many communities are financially on their knees.
Are red light camera programs expensive? A red light camera costs about $50,000. Installation and sensors cost about $5,000. A single red light camera can be used at several locations once the sites are equipped to work with the camera, allowing communities to move cameras between sites without drivers knowing which ones are active at any given time. Startup costs can be offset by fines paid by violators, savings from crashes prevented, and by freeing police to focus on other enforcement efforts.
From http://www.siliconimaging.com/red_light_cameras.htm
Granted, they're talking about red light cameras, as opposed to RR crossings, but I suspect they are substantially the same.
I don't think that the industry is in denial about it. The FRA acknowledges the problem:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_86.shtml
And lists 1300 crossing incidents nationwide so far this year. On 250,000 crossings. The FRA says there are 300-400 annual fatalities. One site was apparently going for the shock factor by saying there are upwards of 2400 fatilities per year...
Back to the cameras. A city near me has two highway crossings, with possibly as many as eight trains, but more like two to four, across those crossings. Using five as a possible average, that means there are something over 1800 potential opportunities for a motorist to run a crossing. If someone ran the crossing every single time a train was approaching, a fine of just $28 would cover the cost of a single camera.
But we know that won't be the case. In many instances, there are no cars at the crossing, due to the late hour some of the trains come through town.
There are 23 crossings in my county. We'll assume they're all signalled. It would cost $10,000+ just to equip those crossings to use a camera, plus enough cameras so motorists would believe there might actually be a camera at a given crossing.
All for 4-6 trains per day. And I can't remember a single crossing incident here in a good many years.
Installing said cameras would be tough sell here.
I'm sure there are places where numerous collisions have occured, and where camera enforcement would be appropriate, just as there are places where red light cameras are appropriate.
But a blanket approach (say, 200,000 crossings at a total cost in the millions just to support the cameras) isn't going to help.
Besides, you're worried about that period of time that people interpret the lights as "amber," yet you're willing to give them a pass for seven seconds... That's one third of the total warning time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.