Tell you what? I was talking about crossing equipped with just flashers. That does not equate to crossings with gates.
You never got around to addressing the other part of my post regarding cameras and grade crossing types, BTW.
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
So tell me how.
But it did change the point I made. And you don't get to do that.
Well that may be the case that you were citing a crossing example that had flashers without gates, but I don’t think that changes the point I am making. If the sound of the horn heightens the driver’s perception of the risk of trying to beat the train, it will do so for gated or un-gated crossings. It will even do so for crossings without signals or gates. Drivers try to beat the train at all of those crossing types. They also try to beat the train at crossings with full gates and/or dividing medians.
Bucyrus But then zugmann pointed out that the horn signal often will persuade drivers to abandon a risk that they are in the process of taking for the purpose of beating a train. In other words, the driver has decided to make a dash to get across before a train gets to the crossing because it seems to the driver that there is time to make it. But when the driver hears the horn, the driver apparently feels enough added intimidation to decide that the gamble to beat the train is too risky, and therefore the driver decides to stop and yield.
But then zugmann pointed out that the horn signal often will persuade drivers to abandon a risk that they are in the process of taking for the purpose of beating a train. In other words, the driver has decided to make a dash to get across before a train gets to the crossing because it seems to the driver that there is time to make it. But when the driver hears the horn, the driver apparently feels enough added intimidation to decide that the gamble to beat the train is too risky, and therefore the driver decides to stop and yield.
I believe zugmann was talking about crossings equipped with just flashers. No gates.
Lets go back to the camera idea. Fine for crossings equipped with gates - but what about crossings with just crossbucks or flashers? Depending on state, the laws governing crossings with just flashers can be kind of screwey. And having cameras set up at certain crossings near industries wouldn't be a good idea. I know there were several crossings that we would have to switch cars over, and many times we would "flag" cars through instead of holding them up while we did our switching moves. Couldn't do that with a camera sitting there snapping photos.
Red light cameras are perceived to be an unjust rip-off to levy hefty fines for petty offenses, only for the purpose to shake down the public for revenue. The public blowback against these cameras is enough to get rid of them or prevent them from being installed.
But the grade crossing application is entirely different. Who can possibly argue that the offense is petty? It kills drivers and wrecks trains. If anything deserves a red light camera, it is a grade crossing. It is a perfect no-brainer to put cameras on crossings.
They have thought of every idea to prevent crossing crashes from barriers that automatically rise out of the roadway to giant air bags on the front of trains. I cannot think of anything more practical and cost effective than a crossing signal camera.
It comes down to this - a certain percentage of drivers are risk takers. The study I cited earlier comes right out and says so.
My scanner is on 24/7. Having it on sometimes gives me a jump on a potential fire response, and as chief, that can be handy. Not a day goes by that I don't hear a traffic stop involving someone who has "scoffs" - failure to appear for a previous traffic infraction (often more than one), or a suspended registration for failure to pay a fine, have insurance, or some other action (or inaction) that can lead to suspensions.
Cameras, education, you-name-it, are going to have little to no effect on these people. They either don't think the rules apply to them, or they are willing to take the risk. And for some, the risk is part of the game.
We can discuss this until the cows come home, but short of total grade separation, there's no way the running of crossings, or even stop lights, is going to change.
As an aside - local residents here often complain about the corrections officers from a nearby prison speeding as they leave work (who speeds going to work?). Occasionally the police will do some targeted enforcement. Invariably the people they catch are the local residents...
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...
Ames,IA has at least one railroad xing with camera inforcement. First vehicle caught was an Ames Police car.
There is a big debate in Des Moines and it's suburbs (as elsewhere in Iowa) about traffic light or speed enforcement cameras. One of the same arguments that S.V. said comes up. That the cameras (and resulting tickets) mostly catch unsuspecting visitors and may hinder people coming from out of town to visit the area for shopping, etc. Funny part is, the addresses from the people complaining in the editorial page are usually local to the metro area. (That and the fact that no one seems to complain about the local option sales tax imposed because of all the outsiders who come to shop.) It seems most opposition is local, and they don't like having to drive the speed limit.
I bet many of these people who seem to think that speed limits are "advisory" are the same people Bucyrus talks about as viewing railroad xing signals as "advisory."
Jeff
Semper Vaporo Isn't it kind of an oxymoronic situation to expect the cameras to pay for themselves from the Fines paid; if the cameras do their intended purpose then there will be no people paying the Fines! The red light and speeding cameras around here are primarily catching tourists and that gives our fair city a bad name and reduces the tourist dollars that come in.
Isn't it kind of an oxymoronic situation to expect the cameras to pay for themselves from the Fines paid; if the cameras do their intended purpose then there will be no people paying the Fines!
The red light and speeding cameras around here are primarily catching tourists and that gives our fair city a bad name and reduces the tourist dollars that come in.
Au contrare!
Red light and Speed Cameras are designed for just one thing - adding money to the coffers of the locality where they are installed. Using 'safety' as a front!
Normally, cameras are installed by a provider company, a company that gets a share of the proceeds collected. The provider company wants to make money - they don't give a whit about safety, they are looking for a return on investment of their equipment.
Locally, speed cameras are restricted to school zones and construction areas - laudable. Recent audit of those caught by the school zone cameras - highest frequency - School Buses - both loaded and empty.
With regard to the construction zones, locally, they use 'roving camera cars' to monitor the zones on a sporadic unscheduled schedule - my personal observations the camera cars are in place when there is no construction taking place - not when construction personnel are on the job and thereby in danger.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In a past thread discussing the need for horn blowing, I concluded that horn blowing only contributed safety in the case of a driver approaching the crossing while not being attentive to the approaching train. Not being attentive would be caused by distraction, impairment by drugs or alcohol, sleeping, or having a medical emergency. An inattentive driver might be oblivious to an approaching train, so here is where the locomotive horn is critically essential. It could get the driver’s attention and prevent a collision.
However if a driver had decided to try to beat the train, I concluded that the horn signal would accomplish nothing. If the driver intends to beat the train, the driver obviously has to know the train is approaching, so what good would it do to blow the horn?
In the case of a quiet zone, with the horn signal absent, this ability of the horn signal to stop drivers from taking a risk is also absent. So to make up for the lack of a horn signal, quiet zones are built to prevent risk taking by making it physically impossible to go around the gate. The theory is that the drivers will not intentionally break through the gate just to beat the train because beating the train is not worth the risk of damaging the vehicle—plus the risk of getting hit or getting a ticket.
So I gather that the quiet crossing theory holds that making the gates insurmountable eliminates the risk-taking motive for violating the crossing. But does it entirely? This gets to why I wondered how often drivers try to beat the train by running straight through before the gate is fully lowered, but misjudge and hit the gate. Full width gates and/or divided medians will not prevent this type of risk-taking cause. So eliminating the train horn leaves this type of risk-taking cause more likely to happen because the train horn will not be able to convince a driver to not attempt to beat the gate.
Furthermore, many of the crashes within the inattentive-cause category of crashes could be prevented by the train horn. A sleeping driver who is about to run through the gate and into the side of the locomotive might be woken up in time by the horn.
Therefore overall, I do not see how a quiet zone can possibly be enhanced to compensate for the loss of safety due to the removal of the train horn. I conclude that quiet zone crossings have to be statistically less safe than non-quiet zone crossings.
However, my general understanding is that the official position is that quiet zone crossings are no less safe than non-quiet zone crossings. I think that is incorrect.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
tree68I 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... 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. 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.
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...
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.
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.
Regarding your points above:
In my reference to denying the problem, I was referring only to denial of the one cause factor of drivers taking risk to avoid a train delay. This factor I alone, I believe is what makes grade crossings like magnets for trouble compared to highway crossings. I don't see much if any official acknowledgement of that factor. Solving that problem would go a long ways toward eliminating crossing crashes, but I am not sure how it could be solved. It has set in since railroading began, and is now etched in public consciousness.
I would not say that cameras should be a blanket approach, but rather, priortized according to need.
The cost of the cameras would be offset by more than just the fines. Reducing crashes would save a lot more money than the revenue from fines.
You have to give drivers a 7-second pass after signal activation to allow them to respond; depending on the road speed limit. It is the laws of physics. The pass is there now, but not identified as such. But if a camera issued a ticket for a driver failing to override the laws of physics, a lawyer would get it dismissed. And a camera would split hairs and issue a citation for violating the flashing lights for just the tiniest fraction of a second. A cop wouldn't do that.
Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB: “The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
Here is a carefully worded description of the crash event as told by the NTSB:
“The NTSB said 20 seconds before the collision, bells and lights activated on the crossing. 13 seconds before the crash happened, the gates started to descend. Then, 12 seconds prior, the front of the truck crossed in front of the train.”
Truck driver was moving at less than road speed with occupied flatbed trailer and had 7 seconds (not 7/10ths) but 7 full seconds to see and respond to the warnings. With moving vehicles - 7 seconds is a relative eternity. If the allegation is that the sun hid the train, the correlary to that allegation is that it did not, therefore, hid the warning lights that were disregarded.
Since the flatbed was occpied, do the laws that require stopping at a crossing that normally apply to busses and HAZMAT carriers - no matter if the warnings are activated or not, apply to the truck drivers actions?
If the truck driver did stop, was he expecting to hear something he could not see because of the sun? NTSB indicated the horn was first sounded 15 seconds before impact, yet the driver entered the crossing 12 seconds before impact.
The driver, while not being a Pinball Wizard, still demonstrated the actions of being deaf, dumb and blind of the Pinball Wizard.
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:
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.
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.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one. Most of us here in Tucson do the same thing.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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?
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
zugmannPeople think a physical barrier across the road as "advisory"?
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.
ROAR
Google Maps shows an underpass just down the road from the accident site. They could have avoided the crossing ALTOGETHER.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.