What's the Point?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kris94

Banned
Why do buses need to stop at railroad crossings? What happens when they stall on the crossings and an accident occurs? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaYUuXTXkC8 California law says that if no one is inside the bus except the driver then it doesn't have to stop. So what's the point? I think it's unnecessary and it holds up traffic.
 
Last edited:
You're right. All level crossings should include a ramp for buses to jump a train like Evel Kneivel. Why waste time for safety? It's not like safe practices and awareness of your surroundings has ever prevented an accident.
 
So how are cars less prone to being hit by a train? Are train-car collisions less likely? Don't they have any fatalities?
In my country we've had just two bus-train collisions in the past 20 years. Both accidents were in 2001. One was an empty bus, the other couldn't stop in time - 2 dead, 1 seriously injured. But the majority of collisions is cars, lorries, even some heavy machinery. Most are fatal.
Why don't you Americans just put a regular STOP sign on all the dangerous crossings or build bridges there?
 
viesturs said:
So how are cars less prone to being hit by a train? Are train-car collisions less likely? Don't they have any fatalities?
In my country we've had just two bus-train collisions in the past 20 years. Both accidents were in 2001. One was an empty bus, the other couldn't stop in time - 2 dead, 1 seriously injured. But the majority of collisions is cars, lorries, even some heavy machinery. Most are fatal.
Why don't you Americans just put a regular STOP sign on all the dangerous crossings or build bridges there?
Click to expand...

We do.:D.Some people have there head up their..:p.....and they die.:eek:..just don't take me with you.:'(
 
I believe this law came about in the 1970s or early 1980s after a school bus load of children were seriously injured and killed when a bus stopped on a crossing in Illinois.

The problem today, I think, is the drivers go through the motions of stopping rather than stopping and looking first before crossing. If the drivers were forced to purposely look both ways prior to crossing then the law would make sense. Like a lot of things, this has become part of the routine and has outlived its original purpose.

John
 
It seems to me that it's similar with traffic lights - people just concentrate on the lights and might get hit or have an accident because they didn't concentrate on what is actually happening and moving around them. A friend of mine almost got hit by a taxi because she knew that it was green light and cars were forbidden to turn into the street she was crossing so she didn't look for any cars. But the taxi driver for some reason did turn and without looking for pedestrians.
I seem to recall an experiment that proved that, at least on fairly low density streets, intersections without any signs of any kinds (no white lines, no traffic lights, no zebras) are very safe, not to mention cheap. That's because everybody concentrates on what is actually moving and where. Pedestrians look for cars, drivers look for pedestrians and other cars, not at signs, lines or lights.
Theoretically a railway intersection with just the sign "railway crossing" and no lights would make the drivers slow down and actually look if train is coming and not relying on the lights which may be faulty. This though definitely wouldn't work in places with many tracks and on high speed lines or places with low visibility.

PS. But the drivers have to be educated that a train approaching is dangerous. Otherwise they would just ignore everything.
 
Last edited:
So we don't have more accidents like the one near Salinas, Calif.

I thought you were pro-safety :confused:
 
Buses are to stop before the crossing and not on them, or this is the result (same crash as above post):

UTL01.jpg
 
Hi everybody
JCitron said:
I believe this law came about in the 1970s or early 1980s after a school bus load of children were seriously injured and killed when a bus stopped on a crossing in Illinois.

The problem today, I think, is the drivers go through the motions of stopping rather than stopping and looking first before crossing. If the drivers were forced to purposely look both ways prior to crossing then the law would make sense. Like a lot of things, this has become part of the routine and has outlived its original purpose.

John
Click to expand...

You are probably right there John in stating that drivers very often just go through the motions in driving circumstances that occur regularly. They will often stop at a junction, railway crossing or in Britain on approach to a roundabout and just go through the motions of looking without really concentrating because they do it so often. There is a saying which reads "familiarity breeds contempt" never a truer statement was made.

However, a different reason for driver errors is now coming forward following several UK police forces carrying out random eyesight tests. As an example the Avon and Somerset police carried out random eyesight tests on shoppers in the local town of Taunton two weeks ago. It was a purely voluntary exercise by those drivers being tested in which you had to read a car number plate at 20 meters distance which is the minimum standard allowed for driving in Britain. Of those who volunteered 36% failed the test.

Other police forces have found similar figures in their areas which has brought forward demands for drivers to be required to undertake eyesight tests by registered opticians on a regular basis and I believe the government is to make a statement in Parliament on the matter in the next few weeks. Of those tested it is people in their middle age (40 to 50) who seem not to realise that their eyesight is deteriorating that were the most common in failing the tests.

I think once the government makes a statement there will be a very vigorous debate on this subject in the UK

Bill
 
Last edited:
How about we make all vehicles stop at all crossings? Or allow buses to cross the tracks without stopping? Every accident is avoidable. It's just the drivers need to stop racing trains and use better judgement.
 
Kris94 said:
How about we make all vehicles stop at all crossings? Or allow buses to cross the tracks without stopping? Every accident is avoidable. It's just the drivers need to stop racing trains and use better judgement.
Click to expand...

Something I learned in a Law class, or was it government: You can't make a law if it is unenforceable. Every accident is avoidable if everyone involved had a clear head at all times. Sadly, humans are idiots, and Better Judgment is a luxury nowadays that not everyone desires to use. RE viesturs: What you talk of is Grade-Separation. If you are willing to pony up the cash for 2000ft long approaches and the bridge itself, plus perpetual maintenance, for all of the crossings across our 150,000 mile network, go right ahead. And RE Kris94 on your original point: If you think it has merit, take it to your local and other pertinent legislatures. That is what democracy is for; it doesn't work if you just sit here and complain about it.
 
kws4000 said:
Something I learned in a Law class, or was it government: You can't make a law if it is unenforceable. Every accident is avoidable if everyone involved had a clear head at all times. Sadly, humans are idiots, and Better Judgment is a luxury nowadays that not everyone desires to use. RE viesturs: What you talk of is Grade-Separation. If you are willing to pony up the cash for 2000ft long approaches and the bridge itself, plus perpetual maintenance, for all of the crossings across our 150,000 mile network, go right ahead. And RE Kris94 on your original point: If you think it has merit, take it to your local and other pertinent legislatures. That is what democracy is for; it doesn't work if you just sit here and complain about it.
Click to expand...

Problem is it won't do any good unless it has overwhelming support. Our people just shrug a lot of stuff off. That's the problem. I'm just a average citizen so they could care less about what I have to say. Now someone of high social or economic status could resonate with them. Corporations would be able to get anything out of them after all the Gov't is a subordinate to the Corporations and influenced by them when it's supposed to be the other way around.
 
Kris94 said:
How about we make all vehicles stop at all crossings? Or allow buses to cross the tracks without stopping? Every accident is avoidable. It's just the drivers need to stop racing trains and use better judgement.
Click to expand...
Ok what if a bus was hit by a train and one of your loved ones was on board and was killed. The first thing I would think would be, "Damn if the bus had stopped and looked both ways before crossing none of this would have happened" The issue of this won't sink in until you have had this happen to you. Trust me.
 
For a vehicle as large as a bus, or large truck since some of them are required to stop with company policy or laws depending on their cargo, you not only have to worry about the safety of the bus passengers, but the train crew and passengers there, if applicable, as well. The Bourbonnais, IL derailment immediately comes to mind which resulted in 11 deaths on an Amtrak train because an overworked truck driver tried to hot rod it over a malfunctioning crossing.
 
JackieG said:
Ok what if a bus was hit by a train and one of your loved ones was on board and was killed. The first thing I would think would be, "Damn if the bus had stopped and looked both ways before crossing none of this would have happened" The issue of this won't sink in until you have had this happen to you. Trust me.
Click to expand...

And what if the bus stopped and stalled on the tracks and not everyone was able to get off and they got killed? Then they'll be like "if only the bus hadn't stopped." It goes both ways. Trust me.
 
The bus doesn't stop ON the tracks. It stops before the crossing, the driver pops the door open, listens for a train, and if he hears nothing then he proceeds on his way. If he tries to shift into gear too quickly, or whatever, while stopped he'll be stalled behind the white line and not with his bus laid out across 4 tracks.
 
It doesn't have to stop on the tracks to stall. There's cars that broke down and stalled on the tracks. Go back to the first post. It shows a video of an AC Transit bus that stalled on the tracks. Whilst we don't know if it was because that it stopped on the tracks we'll never know. I've personally seen it happen. I was waiting for a train to pass and a bus had stopped before the crossing and then broke down as it went over the tracks. There was a train in the siding but the crew saw it and helped them out and the bus was pulled to safety and the went on their way.
 
Last edited:
Anecdotal evidence from "I saw this happen..." or "My Uncle Jim's best friend who is and engineer saw..." make for poor legislation. Dig up some actual stats on how many times a bus stalled on a rail crossing because it made a safety stop and then you MIGHT have a case. That's if, and only if, you can prove that the stopping directly led to the stalling and it was not a mechanical defect that would have occurred regardless of the stopping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Conductors bell (for driveable trams & buses)
Replies
0
Views
279
Lataxe
L
J
Cattle Drive with Underpass in Rural Northwestern America
Replies
2
Views
487
JonMyrlennBailey
J
J
Why do A.I. drivers stop in the middle of a path? (IT issue)
Replies
0
Views
279
janathan
J
H
Please Stop, I Already Got The Point
Replies
8
Views
1K
ministerfarrigut
M
A
Availability Of (Somewhat) Realistic Crash Physics
Replies
2
Views
536
pware
P
Back
Top