Level crossing collision

[Sylvia Else]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774083/ro-2017-005_final.pdf

It's easy to blame the driver of the road train, but by the time he has
a clear view of the crossing and its lights, he's getting close to the
point where he cannot stop.

Where there are curves on the approach to crossings such that this can
happen, there should be repeater lights.

Sylvia.

[Matthew Geier]

On Monday, 19 March 2018 11:48:23 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774083/ro-2017-005_final.pdf

>
>
> Where there are curves on the approach to crossings such that this can
> happen, there should be repeater lights.
>

I work on a railway that has a crossing with 'distants'. I don't think the motorists pay any attention what so ever and come around the curve and are surprised by the flashing red lights and the bell.

By observation, I think very few motorists actually know what a flashing red light means anyway. Many treat them like failed traffic lights that flash orange. Must be broken as it's flashing, ignore the oncoming train and cross anyway.

The best one recently, I was the 2nd tram car in a convoy. The first tram crosses the road and a motorist tries to drive off behind the first tram which I am following. I had a PC5 tram which is a little slow on the uptake to the gap widened. Lights and bells still flashing of course. Fortunately, my horn got their attention and they stopped before being foul of the line and I didn't have to make an emergency brake application.

Professional (truck drivers) should know better.

[news18]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:48:20 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774083/ro-2017-005_final.pdf
>
> It's easy to blame the driver of the road train, but by the time he has
> a clear view of the crossing and its lights, he's getting close to the
> point where he cannot stop.

Err, isn't this the moron approach; "The speed limit is Xkm/hr therefore
I should drive at Xkm/hr every where".

>
> Where there are curves on the approach to crossings such that this can
> happen, there should be repeater lights.

As the driver of a road train, he should drive approapriately and if that
meansd crawling around the curves until he has a clear sight that the
line is clear, then they should have done so.

[Sylvia Else]

On 19/03/2018 3:19 PM, Matthew Geier wrote:
> On Monday, 19 March 2018 11:48:23 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774083/ro-2017-005_final.pdf
>>
>>
>> Where there are curves on the approach to crossings such that this
>> can happen, there should be repeater lights.
>>
>
> I work on a railway that has a crossing with 'distants'. I don't
> think the motorists pay any attention what so ever and come around
> the curve and are surprised by the flashing red lights and the bell.
>
> By observation, I think very few motorists actually know what a
> flashing red light means anyway. Many treat them like failed traffic
> lights that flash orange. Must be broken as it's flashing, ignore the
> oncoming train and cross anyway.

I have often wondered why these crossings don't use ordinary traffic
lights, given that motorists are conditioned both to notice them and
obey them.

On another matter, using Google Maps, in Street View mode, I observed
that the warning signs on the approach are far from self-evident as to
their meaning, being rather abstract. Someone probably got an award for
them.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

I don't think it's that simple. A driver is primarily concentrating on
whether his intended path is blocked by an obstacle. Only when mental
reserves remain after that task is performed do secondary things like
traffic lights or other signs get taken into consideration. In my view,
it doesn't help that level-crossing style warning lights differ from
ordinary traffic lights, which, because of their familiarity, require
less cognitive effort to recognise. Even then, it will take longer for
people to recognise their significance if they're found in an unusual
context - for example, imagine what would happen if one installed
traffic lights on a motorway.

This particular trucker appears to have known that there was a level
crossing there, but a random driver, trucker or otherwise, might well
not. And as I've indicated elsewhere, the signage isn't exactly helpful.

Sylvia.

[news18]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:59:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

> As the driver of a road train, he should drive approapriately and if
>> that meansd crawling around the curves until he has a clear sight that
>> the line is clear, then they should have done so.
>>
>>
> I don't think it's that simple. A driver is primarily concentrating on
> whether his intended path is blocked by an obstacle. Only when mental
> reserves remain after that task is performed do secondary things like
> traffic lights or other signs get taken into consideration.

If that is your situation, then I'd give up driving, for every one else's
sake.

[Sylvia Else]

This is how all humans work. There's no point wishing things were
otherwise. Believing that they're otherwise is dangerous.

Sylvia.

[news18]

No it isn't. You'd have to suffer major impairment to be limited to
watching the road ahead all the time. A normally develpod person is very
capable of very fast focus shifting and detecting gross changes. If not,
then you'd slow down, which is what that road train driver should have
done and suppossedly "every" old person does.

Stop making excuses for the thoughtless in our society.
>
> Sylvia.

[john...@nospam.com.au]

In <fh9ioq...@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> writes:
>On 19/03/2018 3:19 PM, Matthew Geier wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 March 2018 11:48:23 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774083/ro-2017-005_final.pdf
>

>I have often wondered why these crossings don't use ordinary traffic
>lights, given that motorists are conditioned both to notice them and
>obey them.
>

The explanation is silos. Rail crossing signs are the responsibility of rail
authorities, and possibly predate motor traffic. Road signs are the
responsibility of road authorities and, except for mile posts which can be read
at horse riding speed, probably post date motor traffic.

>On another matter, using Google Maps, in Street View mode, I observed
>that the warning signs on the approach are far from self-evident as to
>their meaning, being rather abstract. Someone probably got an award for
>them.

It may be that road authorities place their full quota of less able
employees in their road sign design departments, then fail to clear vegetation
which grows in front of their signs after erection.

An alternative explanation is that there are no employees in the road sign
design department and it is all done by Artificial Intelligence.

[Matthew Geier]

On Monday, 19 March 2018 21:46:52 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I have often wondered why these crossings don't use ordinary traffic
> lights, given that motorists are conditioned both to notice them and
> obey them.

The road design rules don't allow it.

And there is a subtle difference in meaning. Emergency services vehicles are allowed to 'run' red lights if responding to an incident with the provision 'that it is safe to do so'. This does NOT apply to flashing red lights at a railway crossing. They are 'absolute' stop signals.

A number of years ago an ambulance in the hunter forgot that and ended up 500m down the line wrapped around the front of an 81 class hauling a coal train. It was never reported what happened to the person the ambulance was responding to.



I personally think most level crossing lights should be replaced with standard GYR traffic signals and there would be far better compliance from motorists, but the people who set the design rules don't agree with me.

[news18]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 02:19:03 -0700, Matthew Geier wrote:

> number of years ago an ambulance in the hunter forgot that and ended up
> 500m down the line wrapped around the front of an 81 class hauling a
> coal train.

It had good brakes.

[Sylvia Else]

On 20/03/2018 8:19 PM, Matthew Geier wrote:
> On Monday, 19 March 2018 21:46:52 UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> I have often wondered why these crossings don't use ordinary
>> traffic lights, given that motorists are conditioned both to notice
>> them and obey them.
>
> The road design rules don't allow it.
>
> And there is a subtle difference in meaning. Emergency services
> vehicles are allowed to 'run' red lights if responding to an incident
> with the provision 'that it is safe to do so'. This does NOT apply to
> flashing red lights at a railway crossing. They are 'absolute' stop
> signals.
>

I don't believe that's correct. The Road Rules (NSW) don't identify
specific rules that the emergency services can ignore, but simply say
that the rules generally don't apply to emergency vehicles if the driver
is taking reasonable care and it is reasonable for them not to apply.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s306.html

> A number of years ago an ambulance in the hunter forgot that and
> ended up 500m down the line wrapped around the front of an 81 class
> hauling a coal train. It was never reported what happened to the
> person the ambulance was responding to.

Well, it would be hard for the driver to argue that he/she was taking
reasonable care if they managed to collide with an 81 class.

>
>
>
> I personally think most level crossing lights should be replaced with
> standard GYR traffic signals and there would be far better compliance
> from motorists, but the people who set the design rules don't agree
> with me.
>

Inertia, silo mentality, ego, take your pick.

Sylvia.

[rgt...@yahoo.com.au]

> I personally think most level crossing lights should be replaced with standard GYR traffic signals and there would be far better compliance from motorists, but the people who set the design rules don't agree with me.

I don't know about that, there are plenty of instances where motorists go through red lights (think metering signals on freeway ramps or to complete right turns). It is just that you don't normally hear about it because the consequences aren't as bad.

Not that I would deliberately travel through a red light at a set of traffic lights, however I would be far more alert to flashing lights at a railway level crossing as the consequences are likely to be far greater (eg almost certain death). Also, the fact that railway level crossing lights flash rather than present as a static red light is likely to be more attention grabbing in my opinion, particularly in a rural situation where traffic lights would not be expected.

Ross

[news18]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:36:40 -0700, rgth17 wrote:

> particularly in a rural situation
> where traffic lights would not be expected.

I struggle to think of any such situation. Usually, the surrounding infra
structre gives it away on the horizon, or you have to travel "beside' the
lne for some distance.

[Matthew Geier]

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 18:36:41 UTC+11, rgt...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> > I personally think most level crossing lights should be replaced with standard GYR traffic signals and there would be far better compliance from motorists, but the people who set the design rules don't agree with me.
>
>

> Also, the fact that railway level crossing lights flash rather than present as a static red light is likely to be more attention grabbing in my opinion, particularly in a rural situation where traffic lights would not be expected.
>

My observation is based on a level crossing I drive trams over. Unlike a railway, we stop before the crossing and wait for the crossing to cycle and the traffic to stop, so I watch how the cars respond to the flashing lights.

I've watched many drivers slow for the flashing lights see that the road is not blocked and speed up and cross the railway anyway.

Also, many drivers look perplexed at the crossing. (Observation of facial expressions of drivers of the near side vehicles).

I recently, when operating in convoy I had someone move forward after the first tram had crossed but before I had crossed. They got a long blast of my horn and stopped clear of the line, but they were fully prepared to ignore the still flashing red lights (and bells) because they thought the road was now clear.

When traffic lights flash, that indicates a fault in the controller and the junction reverts to standard road rules. I suspect many motorists see the flashing railway lights and lumped that into the 'failed traffic' light 'container' and totally fail to notice it's a flashing red and not a flashing amber.

Train drivers never get to see all this up close as generally the crossing is triggered at a distance and the train thunders through at line speed. Our crossing is triggered 15m before the road and we have to wait for the cycle to run its course before proceeding.

Some days I wonder if the crossing will time out and reset before the traffic finally heeds the flashing lights and stops.

[rgt...@yahoo.com.au]

In Melbourne (Parkville) we have a level crossing between a tram line and a road that is controlled by traffic lights (Elliott Avenue). A year or so ago there was a well documented collision between a truck and a tram at this crossing.

I'm not saying that flashing lights would have fixed the problem, but what I am saying is that traffic lights are not a magic fix.

Ross

[Matthew Geier]

I watched more motorist yesterday who obviously had no idea what a pair of flashing red lights around a big X labelled 'railway crossing' means.
Again our stop - wait - proceed method of operation meant no near misses, but it's obvious there is poor understanding by many motorists what the signal means.

Earlier in the week, I was talking to someone who works in the north coast control room at Broadmeadow for NR. He commented they get several reports a DAY from train crews saying people have ignored the lights and drive across too close to the trains for the comfort of the crew. These reports even come with crossing with barriers - several times a week people drive AROUND the lowered barrier!
The crews are aware of this behaviour and rarely do they get into a position to have to emergency brake and turn it into an officially reportable incident. It's the vigilance and skill of the train crew that is preventing this from being worse. (Who then probably get written up for late running caused by the cautious approach to level crossings).



Sounds to me it's time the NSW traffic police started issuing infringement notices based on the CCTV that many of these crossings now have. The threat of a horrible death by being mangled by the front of a railway locomotive isn't enough to stop people.

[john...@nospam.com.au]

In <ecb5744e-a589-41d1...@googlegroups.com>, Matthew Geier <mat...@sleeper.apana.org.au> writes:
>
>
>I watched more motorist yesterday who obviously had no idea what a pair of =

>flashing red lights around a big X labelled 'railway crossing' means.

>Again our stop - wait - proceed method of operation meant no near misses, b=
>ut it's obvious there is poor understanding by many motorists what the sign=
>al means.
>
>Earlier in the week, I was talking to someone who works in the north coast =
>control room at Broadmeadow for NR. He commented they get several reports a=
> DAY from train crews saying people have ignored the lights and drive acros=
>s too close to the trains for the comfort of the crew. These reports even c=
>ome with crossing with barriers - several times a week people drive AROUND =
>the lowered barrier!
>The crews are aware of this behaviour and rarely do they get into a positio=
>n to have to emergency brake and turn it into an officially reportable inci=
>dent. It's the vigilance and skill of the train crew that is preventing thi=
>s from being worse. (Who then probably get written up for late running caus=

>ed by the cautious approach to level crossings).
>
>
>

>Sounds to me it's time the NSW traffic police started issuing infringement =
>notices based on the CCTV that many of these crossings now have. The threat=
> of a horrible death by being mangled by the front of a railway locomotive =

>isn't enough to stop people.
>

Before prescribing solutions, tell us how common is the situation of the boom
gate trigger being sited before a light signal which can stop the train,
seemingly forever, before it reaches the boom gate. This can create disrespect
for boom gates.

What about fake news stories on facebook of level crossing crashes, showing
pictures of mangled bodies?

[Marcus Potter]

The boom gate trigger needs to be before the signal for safety reasons, you can't give the train a proceed aspect when the line ahead is potentially obstructed by road traffic.

[john...@nospam.com.au]

>The boom gate trigger needs to be before the signal for safety reasons, you can't give the train a proceed aspect when the line ahead is potentially obstructed by road traffic.

Yes, but occaisonally the gate is triggered then the signal stops the train,
seemingly forever, when it is not in sight of the boom gate. No wonder people
disrespect boom gates.

Coordinating the signal and the gate should not be a difficult job.

[Marcus Potter]

Agreed.