schlimm You aren't understanding aversive conditioning. Having a fatal accident as a possibility doesn't work,because it is not a 100% certain contingency schedule. A ticket with a very large fine is. They even ticket pedestrians. That is the difference and why the approaches used here do not work well. Seems sensible to have an open mind and use approaches which are soundly based on operant conditioning and work well in other settings. BTW: There is a difference between obvious typos and misspellings , which even the former spell checker would not catch. But if that is fun for you, go for it.
You aren't understanding aversive conditioning. Having a fatal accident as a possibility doesn't work,because it is not a 100% certain contingency schedule. A ticket with a very large fine is. They even ticket pedestrians. That is the difference and why the approaches used here do not work well. Seems sensible to have an open mind and use approaches which are soundly based on operant conditioning and work well in other settings.
BTW: There is a difference between obvious typos and misspellings , which even the former spell checker would not catch. But if that is fun for you, go for it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding schlimm Yes, the human animal. Basic learning theory gives us the solution to the problem, A rat or even much more primitive species, even American drivers can be conditioned. You just have to make the consequences of doing the wrong thing aversive enough and certain to be inflicted during the learning period, with plenty of cues (warnings). Seems simple and cheap enough to implement here. Why not? Unless some folks prefer to have fatal grade crsooing accidents occur frequently. Of course there are some situations with some folks that nothing will prevent, but those are outliers, maybe <5% (suicides, drunk, drugs, mentally disturbed). Isn't that what we already have? What consequences could be more averse than possible death? And-plenty of cues? Like warning lights, bells, crossbuck signs, gates, arms, horns, ditch lights etc..? I understand that there is a need to improve safety at crossings. Why are we talking about making it harder for a train to hit a car? Shouldn't we talking about how to make car drivers better able to keep from putting themselves in harm's way?pssst.. I think you spelled crsooing wrong; just sayin'...
schlimm Yes, the human animal. Basic learning theory gives us the solution to the problem, A rat or even much more primitive species, even American drivers can be conditioned. You just have to make the consequences of doing the wrong thing aversive enough and certain to be inflicted during the learning period, with plenty of cues (warnings). Seems simple and cheap enough to implement here. Why not? Unless some folks prefer to have fatal grade crsooing accidents occur frequently. Of course there are some situations with some folks that nothing will prevent, but those are outliers, maybe <5% (suicides, drunk, drugs, mentally disturbed).
Yes, the human animal. Basic learning theory gives us the solution to the problem, A rat or even much more primitive species, even American drivers can be conditioned. You just have to make the consequences of doing the wrong thing aversive enough and certain to be inflicted during the learning period, with plenty of cues (warnings). Seems simple and cheap enough to implement here. Why not? Unless some folks prefer to have fatal grade crsooing accidents occur frequently. Of course there are some situations with some folks that nothing will prevent, but those are outliers, maybe <5% (suicides, drunk, drugs, mentally disturbed).
Isn't that what we already have? What consequences could be more averse than possible death? And-plenty of cues? Like warning lights, bells, crossbuck signs, gates, arms, horns, ditch lights etc..? I understand that there is a need to improve safety at crossings. Why are we talking about making it harder for a train to hit a car? Shouldn't we talking about how to make car drivers better able to keep from putting themselves in harm's way?pssst.. I think you spelled crsooing wrong; just sayin'...
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68Yellow = goose it, or you'll have to wait ...
See this all the time locally, along with the occasional collision.
The Dutch may have a solution. Watch the Meirlo-Hout webcam (Railcam.nl) carefully. The crossing has traffic light controlled intersections on both sides of it. When a train approaches, about 10 seconds before it gets close enough to activate the bells, flashers an gates, the traffic light on both sides stop all traffic at the intersections. That additional time seems to have an effect. Of course, with more than 100 trains a day passing the crossing, local drivers must be accustomed to stopping a little early. No special signs are evident. Also, I expect enforcement is strict. AFAIK there has been only one collision at the crossing in the three or so years I've been watching. Last August a pedestrian was hit when s/he walked past the gate into the path of a passenger train. It took more than 3 hours (at night) for police, fire, and RR responders to remove the remains and clean up the scene. All rail and road traffic was halted during that time.
tree68 schlimm Maybe the idea of a traffic signal (traffic light) that turns yellow and red in conjunction with the gates. Yellow to warn, then red, gates start to descend. Yellow = goose it, or you'll have to wait for a train...
schlimm Maybe the idea of a traffic signal (traffic light) that turns yellow and red in conjunction with the gates. Yellow to warn, then red, gates start to descend.
Yellow = goose it, or you'll have to wait for a train...
schlimmMaybe the idea of a traffic signal (traffic light) that turns yellow and red in conjunction with the gates. Yellow to warn, then red, gates start to descend.
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...
People block intersections with traffic lights all the time. So they stop on the tracks when the light is green, the light turns red, and they still sit on the tracks and get hit by the train.
I don't think it would have made a bit of difference in this wreck.
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
Maybe the idea of a traffic signal (traffic light) that turns yellow and red in conjunction with the gates. Yellow to warn, then red, gates start to descend.
I've been thinking along these lines. Since most drivers seem to condition their minds to react to common events like traffic lights, then turn off their thinking, if you put up standard-looking red/yellow/green traffic lights, they will more readily respond to them. Railroad crossings are uncommon experiences, and when drivers do cross them, most of the time there is no train.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Remember - we are dealing with the human animal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6syBu8KjcIQ
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmann My sign idea. Know those light-up signs (example: [NO TURN ON RED] ) that only come on under certain circumstance? Maybe we need one of those on the crossing that lights up [GET OFF THE TRACKS!] when the crossing activated.
My sign idea.
Know those light-up signs (example: [NO TURN ON RED] ) that only come on under certain circumstance?
Maybe we need one of those on the crossing that lights up [GET OFF THE TRACKS!] when the crossing activated.
Maybe the idea of a traffic signal (traffic light) that turns yellow and red in conjunction with the gates. Yellow to warn, then red, gates start to descend. I have seem those at level crossings in Germany where the road is more than a rural, farmer's crossing. They seem to work well enough. Plenty of warning, the police have remote cameras in place and the fine for running it is very, very steep: 240-700 Euros (up to $800)and license suspension up to 3 months, which makes folks take it seriously since you are always ticketed.
schlimm Murphy Siding Shouldn't you have used a ';' instead of a ';' after the word own? In a word, "No." A semi-colon would preceed a clause, not a mere phrase. https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html "A semicolon is most commonly used to link (in a single sentence) two independent clauses that are closely related in thought.".
Murphy Siding Shouldn't you have used a ';' instead of a ';' after the word own?
In a word, "No." A semi-colon would preceed a clause, not a mere phrase. https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html
"A semicolon is most commonly used to link (in a single sentence) two independent clauses that are closely related in thought.".
I think a small $500 fine under "Do not stop on tracks" would work in the same way it curbed littering.
blue streak 1 An interesting twist. Evidently Consumers reports has found problems with the gear shifter for 10 years. Looking at the unit makes one wonder as well. Look at the picture on the link and see how long it takes to understand how it works.
An interesting twist. Evidently Consumers reports has found problems with the gear shifter for 10 years. Looking at the unit makes one wonder as well. Look at the picture on the link and see how long it takes to understand how it works.
Interesting and it would be sad indeed if that's what lead to the accident. On the other hand, if it was to be proven to bethe cause of the accident, I can imagine MBZ paying out a significant chunk of money.
I had thought "PRNDL" was pretty much a mandated standard, but perhaps the folks involved with setting the rules for what can or cannot go on a car where too busy worrying about tailight's being ever so slightly the wrong shade of red... One of my pet peaves is what seems to be the Japanese standard of putting the headlight control on a steering column stalk, as opposed to the dashboard on the left hand side of the steeing wheel.
- Erik
Murphy SidingShouldn't you have used a ';' instead of a ';' after the word own?
schlimm Murphy Siding Euclid Well there are ones who will read both signs, but not if one of the signs is non-existant. What I disagree with is this: Because some will disregard a sign, that proves that everybody will disregard the sign. Therefore, it follows that no sign is worthwhile. Using your same backwards logic, if one sign doesn't get read, you need to have two, or three, or four, or five... How 'bout this concept: Make the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for learning the rules and following them? And if reading the Driver's Operating Manuel and passing the test isn't enough, give them tow, or three, or four, or five..... Your logic stinks, no matter how many times you reword it. Is your "" a snarky, rude comment on Euclid's post or on your own, especially your spelling problems?
Murphy Siding Euclid Well there are ones who will read both signs, but not if one of the signs is non-existant. What I disagree with is this: Because some will disregard a sign, that proves that everybody will disregard the sign. Therefore, it follows that no sign is worthwhile. Using your same backwards logic, if one sign doesn't get read, you need to have two, or three, or four, or five... How 'bout this concept: Make the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for learning the rules and following them? And if reading the Driver's Operating Manuel and passing the test isn't enough, give them tow, or three, or four, or five..... Your logic stinks, no matter how many times you reword it.
Euclid Well there are ones who will read both signs, but not if one of the signs is non-existant. What I disagree with is this: Because some will disregard a sign, that proves that everybody will disregard the sign. Therefore, it follows that no sign is worthwhile.
Well there are ones who will read both signs, but not if one of the signs is non-existant.
What I disagree with is this: Because some will disregard a sign, that proves that everybody will disregard the sign. Therefore, it follows that no sign is worthwhile.
Using your same backwards logic, if one sign doesn't get read, you need to have two, or three, or four, or five... How 'bout this concept: Make the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for learning the rules and following them? And if reading the Driver's Operating Manuel and passing the test isn't enough, give them tow, or three, or four, or five..... Your logic stinks, no matter how many times you reword it.
Is your "" a snarky, rude comment on Euclid's post or on your own, especially your spelling problems?
Very interesting information Blue Streak. Hopefully, the car's event recorder survived the crash. If it did, it can provide valuable information.
Norm
Note from preliminary repors the car driver got out of car ( did she put it in park ? ) then got back in and went forward instead of backing up. Questions for investigators will be how often did she drive this car and how many trips to understand the shifter. Especially backing up ?
This poster does not like it at all. The many differences that are present in many rental cars has caused more than one stop to figure a system out. Especially if no owners manual present. Since this was an used car did an owner's manual come with car ?
Comments ?
https://autos.yahoo.com/news/unfamiliarity-gear-shift-lever-cause-tragedy-160000386.html
Murphy Siding Using your same backwards logic, if one sign doesn't get read, you need to have two, or three, or four, or five... How 'bout this concept: Make the driver of a motor vehicle responsible for learning the rules and following them? And if reading the Driver's Operating Manuel and passing the test isn't enough, give them tow, or three, or four, or five..... Your logic stinks, no matter how many times you reword it.
23 17 46 11
Yes, but, our logic is illogical to him.
EuclidBecause some will disregard a sign, that proves that everybody will disregard the sign. Therefore, it follows that no sign is worthwhile.
Nope. All it takes is one person to not heed the sign(s), for whatever reason, for an incident such as this to occur.
The crossing in question had lights, bells, gates, and IIRC a sign saying "do not block crossing."
While an advisory on the gates themselves might have made some difference, we'll never know that. It's possible that the driver's view of such an advisory might have been obscured by her vehicle, rendering it useless in this situation.
We don't know how much experience the driver had with railroad crossings, which could be a factor as well.
I think we're all agreed that the general public thinks of the gates as immovable objects, and I don't think there's anyone here that would disagree with the concept of an advisory being place on the gates, as has already been suggested. Done in quantity, the cost would be minimal.
But it's not a black and white issue. There are plenty of shades of gray.
Signs do work. Too many signs results in overload and an ignoring of those signs.
Euclid They don't all violate the message. Some do, but not all. If you don't give them the message nobody will heed it.
They don't all violate the message. Some do, but not all. If you don't give them the message nobody will heed it.
EuclidThis is why the message about the gates being breakable for escape should be instilled in the minds of drivers.
Yet they do.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.