Euclid tree68 So, the question is why the operator turned around on the crossing. I don't know what the answer is, but why should we expect a person in a wheel chair to realize he could die from making a U-turn on a sidewalk? I would think that wheel chair users are quite used to the pivot-turn ability and use it impulsively without hesitation. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot something and was going back to get it. What difference does it make? Like railing on stairways, we put guards on things where a hazard may be unrecognized.
tree68 So, the question is why the operator turned around on the crossing.
I don't know what the answer is, but why should we expect a person in a wheel chair to realize he could die from making a U-turn on a sidewalk? I would think that wheel chair users are quite used to the pivot-turn ability and use it impulsively without hesitation. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot something and was going back to get it. What difference does it make?
Like railing on stairways, we put guards on things where a hazard may be unrecognized.
Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see the problems of trying to turn the chair at that point in the side walk/roadway.
The guard that should have been in place - 'Sidewalk is Closed' use roadway.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid tree68 So, the question is why the operator turned around on the crossing. I don't know what the answer is, but why should we expect a person in a wheel chair to realize he could die from making a U-turn on a sidewalk? I would think that wheel chair users are quite used to the pivot-turn ability and use it impulsively without hesitation. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot something and was going back to get it. What difference does it make? Like railing on stairways, we put guards on things where a hazard may be unrecognized. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see the problems of trying to turn the chair at that point in the side walk/roadway. The guard that should have been in place - 'Sidewalk is Closed' use roadway.
A bizarre analogy. Euclid made a reasonable point. What's your problem with handicapped people?
Euclid... but why should we expect a person in a wheel chair to realize he could die from making a U-turn on a sidewalk?
Would you be as charitable if he had run his chair into a pothole and tipped it over, resulting in an injury?
He wasn't on a sidewalk - he was on a railroad crossing. There is a difference.
Knowing his experience level with both the crossing and the chair says a lot. If he had crossed there many times before, with that scooter, one would think he would know to go straight across and not try to turn within the guage.
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...
charlie hebdo BaltACD Euclid tree68 So, the question is why the operator turned around on the crossing. I don't know what the answer is, but why should we expect a person in a wheel chair to realize he could die from making a U-turn on a sidewalk? I would think that wheel chair users are quite used to the pivot-turn ability and use it impulsively without hesitation. Maybe he was turning around because he forgot something and was going back to get it. What difference does it make? Like railing on stairways, we put guards on things where a hazard may be unrecognized. Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see the problems of trying to turn the chair at that point in the side walk/roadway. The guard that should have been in place - 'Sidewalk is Closed' use roadway. A bizarre analogy. Euclid made a reasonable point. What's your problem with handicapped people?
And your problems with ADA requirements. Sidewalk was not passable for the scooter. There was no room on either side of the crossing protection for the scooter to pass. If ADA were complied with, there would be passage for those power scooters.
BaltACDAnd your problems with ADA requirements. Sidewalk was not passable for the scooter. There was no room on either side of the crossing protection for the scooter to pass. If ADA were complied with, there would be passage for those power scooters.
The crossing equipment on both sides of the crossing is a problem. On the north east side, however, there is a ramp back onto the sidwalk just past the equipment - the scooter user would have to go briefly into the street to reach it.
None of that changes the fact that there is absolutely nothing preventing a scooter, bicycle, or anything else, from crossing the rails at a 90 degree angle on the alignment of the sidewalks.
For that matter, there is a clear 20+ foot approach on three of the four sides. The fourth (NE side) is tighter, but there is still plenty of room to directly cross the tracks, then turn.
See for yourself: https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B007'49.4%22N+121%C2%B016'18.6%22W/@38.1304054,-121.2718372,3a,75y,182.6h,77.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5PnY9oQejxD0fOPeFIVwtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.13038!4d-121.27183?hl=en
tree68See for yourself: https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B007'49.4%22N+121%C2%B016'18.6%22W/@38.1304054,-121.2718372,3a,75y,182.6h,77.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5PnY9oQejxD0fOPeFIVwtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.13038!4d-121.27183?hl=en
My view is there is insufficient room on either side of the crossing protection equipment for the safe operation of the motorized wheel chair.
BaltACDMy view is there is insufficient room on either side of the crossing protection equipment for the safe operation of the motorized wheel chair.
On the sidewalk - absolutely. That's probably why they put the ramp in on the NE corner, past the crossing protection equipment.
The SW corner doesn't appear to have the same accomodation.
But that is a completely separate issue - there is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from crossing the rails at a 90 degree angle.
tree68there is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from crossing the rails at a 90 degree angle.
We don’t know what moves the victim in the recent incident made with his wheelchair that caused it to get stuck on the crossing. Casters are easily perturbed out of normal alignment during encounters with obstacles on the roadway. This is very likely at a grade crossing during a flangeway encounter because it can be caused by steering, by reversing direction, or just by the slight irregularities on the road surface next to the flangeway.
As casters cross perpendicular to a flangeway, irregularities in road surface can easily turn the casters 90-degrees to be parallel with the flangeway in a split second. If one or both casters then drop into the flangeway, it can be impossible to drive the chair out of that entrapment.
I would say that this is a much less obvious and much more dangerous hazard than the hazard of striking a pothole in the road. And the legal responsibility does not rest by default on the victim of the hazard just because it was possible for the victim to have avoided it. The responsibility also can fall on the person who created the hazard, and how obvious it should have been to them.
Here is an example of a fatality caused by a wheelchair being stuck in a crossing flangeway:
https://www.vicnews.com/news/b-c-rail-crossing-death-highlights-risks-for-people-in-wheelchairs-watchdog/
From the article:
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) says the May 2018 fatal railway crossing accident at Broadway Avenue in Chilliwack highlights “the persistent risks faced by persons using assistive devices.”
The TSB’s report released July 23 reiterates the need for improved safety at railway crossings for people using wheelchairs.
Note that the report by the TSB does not blame the victim for causing his death by reversing his wheelchair, even though there was nothing preventing him from not reversing.
Would wider flangeways with a slope to grade reduce the entrapment risk?
rdamonWould wider flangeways with a slope to grade reduce the entrapment risk?
EuclidWe don’t know what moves the victim in the recent incident made with his wheelchair that caused it to get stuck on the crossing.
Exactly.
EuclidAs casters cross perpendicular to a flangeway, irregularities in road surface can easily turn the casters 90-degrees to be parallel with the flangeway in a split second. If one or both casters then drop into the flangeway, it can be impossible to drive the chair out of that entrapment.
The video appears to show one of the drive wheels stuck in the flangeway. The drive wheels don't swivel. The operator had to have turned his chair in order to align the drive wheel with the flangeway.
The Google images show a fairly modern concrete panel crossing - the flangeway is already likely at near the minimum width.
The point of the pothole reference is that one would expect the operator of a vehicle to avoid it, not drive into it and expect to blame someone else for his mishap.
And plainly stated in the article on the Canadian incident was that the victim stopped, and then reversed direction. I would opine that had he proceeded directly across, it's likely he would not have gotten stuck.
Are flangeways an issue? That would certainly be the case, based on the amount of literature that exists on fixes.
But that does not relieve an individual of a responsibility to take the safe course. And that is my point.
tree68The point of the pothole reference is that one would expect the operator of a vehicle to avoid it, not drive into it and expect to blame someone else for his mishap.
Reviewing the video of the incident that spawned these 3 threads, it really does not appear that the scooter operator was particularly distressed by his "predicament".
I'm surprised to not see waving arms to call attention to his peril. And even if I had no legs at all, I believe I would prefer toppling myself out of the chair and dragging myself to safety with my arms, to getting hit by a train.....unless I wanted to get hit by a train.
The guy in the video doesn't even seem to be cooperating with the person trying to save him, which seems rather odd.
I don't believe you will ever be able to design a flangeway impervious to people who want to make it look like they got stuck there.
rdamon Would wider flangeways with a slope to grade reduce the entrapment risk?
Adding to Overmod’s comments: The slope on the side of the flangeway furthest from the rail would not make much difference in the entrapment issue, but it might improve the life of the shallow flangeway rail seal device by reducing the impact of vehicle tires striking it after crossing the rail.
But as you flatten that slope, it lets the tire drop deeper into the flangeway, and thus strike harder on the side of the rail head, which is a vertical wall. I would speculate that the sweet spot would be to slope the side of the flangeway furthest from the rail to lean outward about 30 degrees from vertical.
To mitigate the actual entrapment issue, making the flangeway shallower is the most useful change. So overall, an ideal flangeway would be 3-4” wide and 1.5” deep. The depth would be just enough to clear the flange tip. So this would be a major reduction of flangeway depth, which normally can be equal to the full height of the rail. I don’t not think a 4” wide X 1.5” deep flangeway would be able to trap any wheel chair wheels.
And this could be the difference between road and sidewalk panels. I would see no need to close the gap for vehicle traffic areas.
Euclid So overall, an ideal flangeway would be 3-4” wide and 1.5” deep. The depth would be just enough to clear the flange tip.
Are you talking about something like this?: (original image is public domain)
Convicted One Euclid So overall, an ideal flangeway would be 3-4” wide and 1.5” deep. The depth would be just enough to clear the flange tip. Are you talking about something like this?: (original image is public domain)
It would be similar to that, but this is what I am referring to, using your diagram for reference:
The flangeway floor would be higher, to about half way up the side wall of the rail head. So the flangeway would just deep enough to accommodate the flange. And if there were occasional, slight interference, the rail seal elastomeric material would yield to the flange without any issues. One could say it would be prudent to give the flange tip say ½” of clearance, but the key to the success of this shallow flangeway rail seal is to have the flangeway as shallow as possible.
Regarding the side of the flangeway furthest from the flange, there are several issues involved. The angle that you show looks like about 30 degrees up from horizontal. The closer to horizontal that angle is, the softer the bump would be as vehicles wheels moving from left to right drop down into the flangeway and then are elevated back up to level with the crossing surface.
However, as that angle becomes closer to horizontal, a vehicle tire will drop deeper into the flangeway, and the deeper it drops in, the greater is the return to roadway surface level.
Likewise this effect also applies to the vehicle tire moving right to left. The deeper it drops into the flangeway, the harder will be the bump impact against the side of the rail head. And that bump cannot be eased by the same angle or ramp effect applied to the flangeway on the side opposite the rail.
So the vehicle wheel striking the rail will become more uncomfortable as the flangeway wall opposite of the rail is sloped back from vertical. Also, because the flangeway is so shallow, sloping back of that wall from vertical will not much improve the ability to operate the wheelchair in attempt to climb a caster out of the flangeway.
Also, the shallow flangeway rail seal product has several “tunnels” running lengthwise through it for the purpose of conserving material and making the structure more pliable to flange pressure as ice and snow builds and is packed by the flanges.
Well, I know that it's not readily apparent from my original sketch because I reduced the size of the image when posting, but please reference the following in conjunction with the amended sketch at the bottom.
The dimension I have circled in red is 1 7/8 inches, so the depth of the flangeway left remaining by my insert is very nearly 1 3/4 inches.
I think there is a problem because the vertical ridge along the railhead (emphasized by the two red arrows) exceeds the 3/4 inch maximum specified in the ADA standards (door thresholds and floor leveling)
So, unless you are creative, I believe the exposed 1 3/4 inch offset that you need for your flange, is not going to be permitted by the ADA.
Plus, as a bicyclist I woud absolutely HATE that "spoke buster" profile.
One must also remember that those scooters don't have much ground clearance, unless they are built for rough terrain. In the Lodi incident, I would opine that this wide opening would have been almost as much trouble as the narrower flangeway.
Keeping as narrow a flangeway as possible would be the best option. Some form of trolley flange filler could be used where necessary.
EuclidAlso, because the flangeway is so shallow, sloping back of that wall from vertical will not much improve the ability to operate the wheelchair in attempt to climb a caster out of the flangeway.
The issue, as noted, is that bicycles are still going to bust up engaging that irremediable flange face. Aside from flangeway fillers, the only real 'solution' is that mentioned in my old ROTC manual of railway operations: using a locomotive to form the 'flangeway' in asphalt to conform to its own dimensions, and relying on any other equipment with slightly larger flanges to press the material just that little more out. Such an opening is smaller than even power-chair casters can lock into, and even on a hot day I doubt the weight on a power scooter will sink the casters irremediably into the resulting groove. Of course that was in 1974 to 1980...
(As an aside, 'plastic' flangeway fillers were a known and documented thing in those manuals...)
I don't believe that it is possible to design a total solution that will eliminate the last 1/000th of one percent risk.
I'm sure that my choice of words will not set well with some people, but I believe that "acceptable loss" ...or "acceptable risk" is going to be necessarily a part of the equation, unless you want to build grade separated pedestrian crossings at every location.
Build to best reasonable standard you can attain, supplement that with education, and hope for the best.
The following chair - among others is advertised in the AARP magazine
While, I my view, this may be perfectly adequate for indoor and smooth paved outdoor surfaces - it is patently dangerous when facing a railroad crossing. Front wheels are WAY too small in both diameter and width and the rear wheels are a little on the narrow width when considering flange openings at road/side walk crossings.
Convicted Onepeople who want to make it look like they got stuck there.
Are you saying the guy in the video was faking?
"The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that public buildings provide harrier-free access to mobility impaired individuals and may apply to grade crossings in areas where such individuals are likely to require access. The Architectura.l and Transportation Compliance Board has proposed standards, not yet officially adopted, setting Out minimum requirements for new construction of public sidewalks over railroad tracks. Among other things, the standards specify that the public sidewalk surface must be level and flush with the rail top at the outer edge and between the rails, with a horizontal gap on the inner edge of each rail (necessary to allow passage of rail-vehicle wheel flanges) not exceeding 2.5 in. (64 mm). Figure 15c shows the design of an accessible crossing surface at the Opryland theme park in Nashville, Tennessee, which includes an insert in the flangeway of sufficient length to accommodate wheelchairs and motorized carts. The passage area is clearly marked for safe use. More than one-third of the respondents to this synthesis questionnaire reported that ADA requirements are not considered in the construction and maintenance of grade crossings. The MTJTCD and the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook say little about the design or signing for bicycle paths or for motorcycles crossing railroad tracks. The Handbook states that surface materials and the flangeway width and depth should be evaluated for safety, noting that the more the crossing deviates from the ideal 90-degree crossing, the greater the potential is for a cycle wheel to be trapped in the flangeway. If the crossing angle is less than 45 degrees, consideration should be given to widening the hikeway to allow sufficient width to cross the tracks at a safer angle. The bicyclist should be warned with suitable markings and signs that the trail is approaching a grade crossing. While motorcyclists use the regular roadway, there are similar concerns for skidding and tire width." TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1998
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_250.pdf
Jumps right out at you that in 1998 nobody had a clue about Hoveround zero-turn power-chair entrapment issues. Be interesting to run this and the other incidents past those people and see how their opinions would change!
Open this link to the patent on SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987
Below the abstract are 8 illustrations. Open the one nearest the left side of the page. That is image 1 of 8. The other images show various separate details, but image 1 shows everything assembled with all detail shown. The image can be blown up to very large size if necessary.
The main point is that it is not the width of the flangeway that is the safety issue for small wheels. It is the depth that is the issue. Much current practice is a flangeway that is the full height of the rail, such as maybe 8-10 inches. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange.
It seems to me that casters of wheel chairs could be forced to climb out of this flangeway. Because the flangeway is so shallow, it does not need a lot of width to allow the caster to turn on its swivel.
With a 6” caster wheel dropping into a 1” deep flangeway, the caster would probably be able to pivot say 45 degrees before it encountered any interference with the flangeway sides.
Also, wheel chair wheels could probably be design optimized to ideally interact with these new shallow flangeways.
Altogether, I believe this new shallow flangeway coupled with improved wheel chair wheels completely solves the wheelchair problem for grade crossings.
What is does not solve completely is the ability to catch and track a bicycle wheel off its course and cause the bicycle to tip over sideways.
It also does not prevent pedestrians from stepping on a rail.
charlie hebdoAre you saying the guy in the video was faking?
What was actually at the core of my thought process was, the only thing I can imagine that would be more embarrasing than killing ones self, would be to try, and fail. So, I believe that some people actually go an extra step to make their planned departure appear accidental.
I don't propose to know that was this individual's plan. But I know if I was in his predicament and was not intent upon ending it all, I'd be doing considerably more to try and capture someone's attention (a motorist, perhaps) than it appears he was doing in the video. Flailing arms....even go so far as to topple myself out of the seat and drag myself with my arms to a distance.
And it didn't appear to me that the guy was doing any of that. So, absent tangible evidence to the contrary, my answer to your question would be "can't rule that out"
And, how that keys into the conversation, I do not believe it is possible to design a "same grade" solution to this problem that would prevent a determined person from succeeding.
I suppose you could put tires on all chairs that are sufficiently sized to prevent this problem, but then you are going to create other problems such as clearances in grocery store aisles, and such.
Convicted OneI suppose you could put tires on all chairs that are sufficiently sized to prevent this problem, but then you are going to create other problems such as clearances in grocery store aisles, and such.
Widening both caster wheels on the other hand involves no external clearance issues at all; they are internal to the horizontal 'envelope' of the machine. The AARP 'chair' pictured a few posts up would need more substantial redesign for safe structural integrity, but that is laughably far from a true zero-turn 'mobility' scooter...
Widening both caster wheels on the other hand involves no external clearance issues at all; they are internal to the horizontal 'envelope' of the machine. The AARP 'chair' pictured a few posts up would need more substantial redesign for safe structural integrity, but that thing is laughably far from a true zero-turn 'mobility' scooter...
Euclid Open this link to the patent on SHALLOW FLANGEWAY RAIL SEAL. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120000987 Below the abstract are 8 illustrations. Open the one nearest the left side of the page. That is image 1 of 8. The other images show various separate details, but image 1 shows everything assembled with all detail shown. The image can be blown up to very large size if necessary. The main point is that it is not the width of the flangeway that is the safety issue for small wheels. It is the depth that is the issue. Much current practice is a flangeway that is the full height of the rail, such as maybe 8-10 inches. This patent reduces that maximum flangeway depth to about 1 inch. The width appears to be about 2.5” maximum. And there is some angular and fillet radius easing of the flangeway wall opposite the flange. It seems to me that casters of wheel chairs could be forced to climb out of this flangeway. Because the flangeway is so shallow, it does not need a lot of width to allow the caster to turn on its swivel. With a 6” caster wheel dropping into a 1” deep flangeway, the caster would probably be able to pivot say 45 degrees before it encountered any interference with the flangeway sides. Also, wheel chair wheels could probably be design optimized to ideally interact with these new shallow flangeways. Altogether, I believe this new shallow flangeway coupled with improved wheel chair wheels completely solves the wheelchair problem for grade crossings. What is does not solve completely is the ability to catch and track a bicycle wheel off its course and cause the bicycle to tip over sideways. It also does not prevent pedestrians from stepping on a rail.
Seems pretty good.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.