Metro North, 6 dead

[BaltACD]

See how well signs are complied with in NS territory....

http://gizmodo.com/5955244/watch-this-bridge-destroying-dozens-of-trucks-and-buses

[Euclid]

 

BroadwayLion

This particular intersection/Crossing is somewhat different.

Except for an accident on the Taconic State Parkway with traffic diverted to Commerse Street, Commerce is nothing more than a little country lane with little to no traffic on it.

My point is not that the entire problem is with the Valhalla crossing.  I understand that it was an unusual event for it to be crowded.  Being little used, that crossing could very well be closed.  I expect that it will be closed due to how the crash has highlighted it.

My point is that the Valhalla crash has demonstrated what happens when a line of tightly spaced traffic inches across a grade crossing, particularly a gated crossing.  And I assume that this happens regularly at dozens, if not hundreds, of grade crossings in urban areas every day.  I think this is a major danger, and the existing system is incapable of dealing with it.

The obvious perfect solution is to close those crossings, except for the fact that it is economically impossible unless maybe undertaking it with a 100-year-plan.  So I look at the problem and see if there is something that can be improved to at least reduce the danger.  I see an obvious problem with a sign that gives an important message which is not clearly connected to the proper action to take.  And that is an important shortcoming because the proper action runs contrary to human nature when people are clawing their way through heavy traffic.

Will people fail to read the sign?  Sure.  Will they fail to understand it?  Sure.  But is it not way better than providing a sign that commands a reaction to a contingency that is beyond a driver’s control unless he/she understands the underlying, unstated cause of that contingency?

But there is even bigger a problem:

My sign only requires traffic to do what the law requires without needing to carry a law book.  But it still leaves an insurmountable problem.  The problem is that the proper effect of heeding the law will slow down traffic because it fundamentally reduces road capacity.  I calculated in a prior post, an average example of reducing traffic flow by 500%.  

 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

 

 

BroadwayLion

This particular intersection/Crossing is somewhat different.

Except for an accident on the Taconic State Parkway with traffic diverted to Commerse Street, Commerce is nothing more than a little country lane with little to no traffic on it.

 

My point is not that the entire problem is with the Valhalla crossing.  I understand that it was an unusual event for it to be crowded.  Being little used, that crossing could very well be closed.  I expect that it will be closed due to how the crash has highlighted it.

My point is that the Valhalla crash has demonstrated what happens when a line of tightly spaced traffic inches across a grade crossing, particularly a gated crossing.  And I assume that this happens regularly at dozens, if not hundreds, of grade crossings in urban areas every day.  I think this is a major danger, and the existing system is incapable of dealing with it.

The obvious perfect solution is to close those crossings, except for the fact that it is economically impossible unless maybe undertaking it with a 100-year-plan.  So I look at the problem and see if there is something that can be improved to at least reduce the danger.  I see an obvious problem with a sign that gives an important message which is not clearly connected to the proper action to take.  And that is an important shortcoming because the proper action runs contrary to human nature when people are clawing their way through heavy traffic.

Will people fail to read the sign?  Sure.  Will they fail to understand it?  Sure.  But is it not way better than providing a sign that commands a reaction to a contingency that is beyond a driver’s control unless he/she understands the underlying, unstated cause of that contingency?

But there is even bigger a problem:

My sign only requires traffic to do what the law requires without needing to carry a law book.  But it still leaves an insurmountable problem.  The problem is that the proper effect of heeding the law will slow down traffic because it fundamentally reduces road capacity.  I calculated in a prior post, an average example of reducing traffic flow by 500%.  

 

 

And the point others have been trying to convince you of is that people have to learn not to stop on the tracks. That alone would solve the problem.

[Euclid]

Norm,

I understand what you are saying, but with all due respect, I think it is a lazy and rather spiteful conclusion.    

[Euclid]

There is a lot of official concern about drivers getting trapped on the crossing by the descending gates.  People here have mentioned that the gates are designed to easily break away, so the gates should not prevent a driver from escaping the crossing. 

First of all, there is no way a driver is going to realize that, so a response of hesitation to bust out through the gate is understandable.  If these breakable gates are intended to be broken through in an emergency, why doesn’t Operation Lifesaver inform drivers of this?

What I find them saying is this:

"If your car stalls or is trapped on the tracks, get everyone out right away, even if you don't see a train coming. Move quickly away from the tracks. If a train is coming, move in its direction as you move away from the tracks. If you run the same direction the train is going, you could be injured by flying debris when the train hits your car. When you're at a safe distance from the crossing, call the railroad emergency number if posted at the crossing, or 9-1-1. The railroad emergency number should be called first if it is available so dispatchers can take action."

----------------------------------------------- 

Really?  In stop and go traffic inching along; with no train approaching; and your car happens to get trapped on the track, you are supposed to get out right away and flee for safety while leaving your car on the track? 

A driver gets momentarily stalled on the tracks in heavy traffic because the car ahead stops.  He expects the driver ahead to move in a matter of seconds.  But he is supposed to put his car in park, leaving it on the tracks, and get out and find a phone.      

[ACY Tom]

Euclid: 

I won't argue about the opinions of Operation Lifesaver.  But way back on page 3 (Feb. 8, 3:27 PM), didn't I suggest that lettering be placed on the INSIDE surface of the gate arm saying "Breakable Gate Arm" or "Gate Will Break" or some similar wording?  A major part of this problem is that the driver who gets trapped between the gates seems to be unaware that escape is possible. 

Tom

[Euclid]

ACY

Euclid: 

I won't argue about the opinions of Operation Lifesaver.  But way back on page 3 (Feb. 8, 3:27 PM), didn't I suggest that lettering be placed on the INSIDE surface of the gate arm saying "Breakable Gate Arm" or "Gate Will Break" or some similar wording?  A major part of this problem is that the driver who gets trapped between the gates seems to be unaware that escape is possible. 

Tom

I think that is an excellent idea.  I talked to Operation Lifesaver today and had a very meaningful discussion.  I suggested these two safety enhancements:

1)    Add a sign or message directly on the gates saying that the gates are designed to break so a driver can break their vehicle free if it is trapped by the gates.

 

2)    Replace the DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign with the one I came up with that says STOP AND WAIT HERE IF VEHICLES ARE ON CROSSING

The person I spoke to said they were very good ideas, and he will take them forward within Operation Lifesaver and the FRA for a thorough review.

One possibility regarding a hesitation to inform drivers about the gates being breakable is that it might encourage truckers to run the gates simply by breaking through them.   

 

[CJtrainguy]

Crossing gates in Sweden have been fitted with signs on the inside of the gate, reading "Drive through the gate — don't stop on the track" over the last year, as a result of motorists getting caught between the gates and ending up getting hit by  a train.

Official announcement (in Swedish) with a picture of gate with new sign on inside.

This is not just an American problem…

[MidlandMike]

Drive thru gates to escape, would be good in cases where traffic in front has cleared, but if forward traffic has not cleared, the car is still trapped.  There will always be a potential problem, if a vehicle procedes into the crossing, when there is not adaquate space for it beyond the far side of the tracks.

[Euclid]

I think that informing the driver that driving through the gate is an option would be worthwhile.  This would include escaping by backing up through the gate to escape.  Perhaps the driver in the Valhalla crash would have backed out from under the gate if she had realized that it was a recommended option in such a case. 

Part of the problem is that a gate coming down on a vehicle is more than just an inconvenience.  It can be a distraction or cause a driver to panic.  It can also cause a driver to hesitate.  I recall a video posted here of a flatbed truck getting trapped with the gate lowered between his tractor and trailer.  You could see that his first impulse was to back off of the crossing because only the front of the tractor fouled the track. 

He started back, and then turned around and saw the gate, and he stopped as though he did not want to bust through the gate.  Then he went forward, but could not get the trailer in the clear in time to avoid getting hit.

So I have presented these issues to OL, and will be very interested to hear what they say.         

[tree68]

Euclid

Perhaps the driver in the Valhalla crash would have backed out from under the gate if she had realized that it was a recommended option in such a case. 

And perhaps she would have not done so for fear of scratching her luxury SUV.  We already know she got out to look at what happened.

Granted, that sounds mean, but oftimes people are more worried about stuff like a scratch on their new car than the fact that they are about to get hit by a train.  I mean, how often do people get hit by trains?  It couldn't possibly happen to me... 

All the signs in the world aren't going to change a bad decision.

[Euclid]

Indeed she might have hesitated to back up because of a worry about damage to her vehicle.  If the lack of knowledge of a breakable gate did not play a role in that crash, I am sure it has played a role in others.  I only offer it as an example of where the information about the breakable gate could have played a role in saving lives. 

Incidentally, the lowered gate played a significant role in the Midland, TX float accident.  Although, I am not sure what action would have overcome the problem.  He had the gate down behind the cab, and he hesitated to pull forward because he worried that the gate might hurt the passengers.  He might have hesitated to back up because he did not want to break the gate.  I am sure there are plenty of instances where drivers hesitate simply because they don’t want to damage the gate. 

I absolutely disagree that all the signs in the world will not prevent a bad decision.  Bad decisions are prevented all the time by signs, warnings, guards, signals, etc.    

[BaltACD]

Panic is still Panic.  One's thought processes are greatly dimished in times of Panic.  What is one of the definitions of a leader - 'The person that keeps his head under control when all those around him are losing their.'

Panic kills. 

[Euclid]

BaltACD

Panic is still Panic.  One's thought processes are greatly dimished in times of Panic.  What is one of the definitions of a leader - 'The person that keeps his head under control when all those around him are losing their.'

Panic kills. 

Yes, absolutely.  As I mentioned in a post above:

“Part of the problem is that a gate coming down on a vehicle is more than just an inconvenience. It can be a distraction or cause a driver to panic.”

The obvious danger on a crossing is getting trapped on the track.  A secondary problem is getting trapped on the crossing, but clear of the track.  In this situation, a gate can come down on the vehicle, or just trap the vehicle between the gate in the track.  Neither scenario is life threatening because the car will be clear of the track.

However, having the gate come down onto a vehicle; or trapping the vehicle very near the track can cause panic.  The panic might cause a driver to impulsively make a wrong move that results in the car being struck by the train.  I think that this is a key point about the effect of getting struck or trapped by the gates, while clear of the track. 

This is why the message about the gates being breakable for escape should be instilled in the minds of drivers.

 

[tree68]

Euclid

This is why the message about the gates being breakable for escape should be instilled in the minds of drivers.

The message is instilled in drivers that they shouldn't enter the crossing if the lights are flashing, in driver's training and other sources.

Yet they do.

[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.

[Murphy Siding]

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.

 

Logically, the ones that don't read the first sign are the same group that won't read the second sign.

[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. 

[tree68]

Euclid

Because 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.

 

 

[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.

[Norm48327]

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.

 

 

Yes, but, our logic is illogical to him.

[edblysard]

But the reverse logic would work the same, in that if a driver was willing to ignore or simply was distracted enough to ignore a warning sign or device, the odds would be they will ignore all of them, no matter how many there are.

Most drivers on a commute home are driving a familiar route, and most know the speed limits, pot holes, shortcuts and such.

Telling a cop who pulled you over for speeding you were ignorant of the speed limits never works, simply because ignorance of the law and the rules is no excuse.

Granted, if the lady ended up on the crossing as I had imagined, then no number of signs would have made much of a difference, and as Larry pointed out, it only takes one person out of the herd to cause a problem.

 

[Euclid]

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.

 

Well, backing up a bit, I am not talking about two signs that warn of the same hazard.  In the beginning I said this:

“This is why the message about the gates being breakable for escape should be instilled in the minds of drivers.”

Yesterday, I suggested it to Operation Lifesaver.  They understood it with no problem and said it was an excellent idea.  Their response was as clear as a bell.  They agreed that drivers would be safer if they realized that the gates can be easily broken if necessary to escape.

They did say that some gates may not be readily breakable, but they would check on that point.

We also discussed their recommendation for driver action should they stall on the crossing. 

 

[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.

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 

 

[Norm48327]

Very interesting information Blue Streak. Hopefully, the car's event recorder survived the crash. If it did, it can provide valuable information.

[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]

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?

 

 Neither.  Pay attention here:  The  is in reference to the folks who don't read the signs- no matter how many there may or may not be.  It's an easy concept to grasp.  You just have to open your mind to the idea of reading the whole post and paying attention to the context.

      As far as the spelling....   You got me on that one!  Since the spellcheck went away I've been trying my hardest to make sure my spelling- and my grammar- are up to your standards.  Forgive me.  I'll try hardder.  

Shouldn't you have used a ';'  instead of a ';' after the word own? 

[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.".

[erikem]

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.

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

[wanswheel]

Punctuation is what a sign about danger needs. Do Not Stop On Tracks!