Why don't most crossings have a regular traffic light along with the railroad crossing signals?
enough
Maybe more drivers would stop and stay stopped at an activated
crossing instead of treating the signals like a mere stop sign.
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> Like seen in this video?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOaAioso0BQ&feature=related
>
> Maybe more drivers would stop and stay stopped at an activated
> crossing instead of treating the signals like a mere stop sign.
Never seen anything like that actually installed. I have heard it
suggested in the past, and the reason that was put forward against it
was that some drivers would mistake it for a normal road junction, and
turn onto the railway. Sounds daft, but it has happened more than
once, even without road style traffic lights.
Damon Hill
news:13d410d5-12af-4a53...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Don't bet on it. A certain population is more concerned with
saving time than saving their lives. Intelligence does not apply.
That said, a very long time ago I remember seeing crossing signals
with a single green light. These were surely eliminated because
the whole notion was obviously redundant. Adding anything to
suggest there is still time left to beat a train just encourages
the notion.
The most that can be done for the least intelligent is to make
it physically impossible to transit a crossing until the train
is past. This should especially be done with multiple-track
crossing, since it is nearly impossible for the impatient to
consider that just because the train they can see is now past them,
that there isn't another one coming. Sometimes even when the
oncoming train is both blowing its horn and is visible, too.
Stupidity can't be legislated away, but perhaps we can make
the consequences of their impulsiveness less inconvenient for
the rest of us.
--Damon
Damon Hill
news:3iiqj55tb67fac1g0...@4ax.com:
> Do we EVER draw the line trying to place idiots in swaddling clothes so
> that they can find even more ways to get themselves injured?
Eventually there must come a time and cost when nothing more
can be reasonably done. Since stupidity can come to even the
best of us under duress, I think it's very reasonable to try
and limit the amount of damage and suffering that the innocent
also suffer.
And maybe landing like a yard of bricks on the irresponsible
if he (or she--remember the mom who raced a train with her
four kids, only to be impaled at the next crossing by TWO
trains simultaneously?) survives. Like repeat drunk drivers,
a lot of offenders just don't "get it", before or after.
I don't much advocate fencing along most railroad lines, for
example. Just the high speed lines.
--Damon
Murphy
Maybe OK in rural where they may be a longer sightline
Tater Gumfries
> Like seen in this video?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOaAioso0BQ&feature=related
>
> Maybe more drivers would stop and stay stopped at an activated
> crossing instead of treating the signals like a mere stop sign.
Let them who can't deal with RR crossins go out there and get smashed.
Serve em right and clean up the gene pool.
Tater
Damon Hill
> Murphy <Mu...@outtathisworld.com> found these unused words:
>
>>Trains and automobiles should never cross paths in the cities.
>>Maybe OK in rural where they may be a longer sightline
>
> Good, get rid of the automobiles!
>
> Just in case you're confused, the trains [in most cases] were there FIRST
> and have Right Of Way.
Trains almost always have the right of way as a consequence of
physics.
--Damon
Miles Bader
> Trains and automobiles should never cross paths in the cities.
Certainly it's nicer to have completely separate right-of-way, but
there's nothing categorically wrong with having crossings in a city.
I've certainly seen many which work just fine.
In a city, a crossing could be _less_ dangerous because the trains are
usually short passenger trains, not crazy-long freight trains (and so
less likely to cause drivers to do idiotic things in their desperation
to beat the train and avoid a long wait), and the higher frequency of
trains will mean drivers are more likely to be accustomed to them, and
thus less likely to do something idiotic out of ignorance.
Of course, the more drivers there are, the higher the frequency of
idiotic behavior, but that's a general problem with cars, not anything
really to do with train crossings. They'll figure out a way to kill
themselves regardless.
-Miles
--
Freebooter, n. A conqueror in a small way of business, whose annexations lack
of the sanctifying merit of magnitude.
Miles Bader
> Perhaps in -=some=-- cities they are mostly passenger. In the western US,
> the towns grew up surrounding the main line and that's the way they are
> today. Even Las Vegas has major 'pauses' for long freights.
If the particular circumstances of a railroad make crossing a big
problem, then of course, it's good to get rid of them. Nonetheless,
there's nothing categorically wrong with rail/road crossings in cities;
you have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
[and of course there are cases where passenger rail can cause a problem
too -- you don't want an extremely busy 7-track passenger mainline
crossing a major highway without a bridge of some sort!]
-Miles
--
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
--Albert Einstein
Sancho Panza
<fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:275b0047-146a-4c57...@v13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
New Jersey Transit has several grade crossings linked with traffic lights.
They seem to work out well.
Miles Bader
> important, etc.
>
> Even where there are signals, traffic lights AND gates, they drive around!
No doubt even if there were giant steel gates, they'd ram their cars
against them repeatedly ....
-Miles
--
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)