Ok I shall do that. I will also challenge them on why when there's people in the bus it has to stop prior to but if it's empty and there's only the driver, then it can cross without stopping but I'm sure not many people know that. Plus on the mechanical defect that would've occurred regardless sounds contradicting as by the way you are saying it that had the bus not stopped it would've happened and had it stopped, it still would've happened. So wouldn't that be able to work in my favor. As for the legislation well that's something we have no control over as here in California and most of America they are very stubborn but when it comes to safety I'm hoping that they'll listen and at least consider it.
What's the Point?
- Thread starter Kris94
- Start date
- Status
Ok I shall do that. I will also challenge them on why when there's people in the bus it has to stop prior to but if it's empty and there's only the driver, then it can cross without stopping but I'm sure not many people know that. Plus on the mechanical defect that would've occurred regardless sounds contradicting as by the way you are saying it that had the bus not stopped it would've happened and had it stopped, it still would've happened. So wouldn't that be able to work in my favor. As for the legislation well that's something we have no control over as here in California and most of America they are very stubborn but when it comes to safety I'm hoping that they'll listen and at least consider it.
It is interesting that you mention the drivers opening up the door to listen, and speaking of anecdotal evidence... I was behind a school bus in Lawrence, MA that stopped at a long abandoned rail line where it crossed Amesbury Street and Canal Street. The tracks were severed on either side of the crossing and there was nothing but a dirt path and weeds, yet the driver put her flashers on, stopped, opened her door, then continued. I laughed to myself as this truly was a waste of time. Apparently, she was going through the motions at the crossing because there is also a sign marked exempt, which means the line does not require the driver to slow down for the crossing.
@Wholbor -
That's an interesting spot check. I wonder too how many people are too vain to wear glasses when they really need to. I know of many people that just wear those magnifying reading glasses instead of the real deal. It's these people that most likely failed the sight test because in their eyes, pun intended, they still think they see fine.
John
@Wholbor -
That's an interesting spot check. I wonder too how many people are too vain to wear glasses when they really need to. I know of many people that just wear those magnifying reading glasses instead of the real deal. It's these people that most likely failed the sight test because in their eyes, pun intended, they still think they see fine.
John
If this hypothetical bus tends to stall while straddling tracks, perhaps it better not leave the depot until it is thoroughly tested. Since crossing tracks after a stop is probably a relatively rare event considering how many times the same vehicle stops during a day of driving, this truck will be stalling rather often. I think the driver will be pretty frustrated pretty quickly.
I think I would rather have one too many stop and looks than to skip one because we all know there isn't a ......
Did some one mention an unscheduled train on what everyone thought was an abandoned track.
I've saw something similar, actually a bit "worse", once - a bus stopped on tracks that have been out of service since the mid-90s, the rails completely paved over, and most of the ties removed, but somehow the signage still remains. I would've thought that at the very least a vandal would have that hanging in his garage by this point. However, it is reassuring, even if it is temporarily annoying, to know that drivers are obeying traffic laws even in the most remote location.
Maybe I don't remember it correctly but here people were surprised when they saw a train slowly crossing the A2 dual carriageway on a disused level crossing with the barriers and flashers not working. The speed limit for cars there is 90 km/h which means that everybody drives at 110. It was lucky that no one hit the train.
Now the tracks have been removed except on the crossing itself.
In Liepāja city while building a new road they built a level crossing. Which would be all fine and dandy if it wouldn't be on a dismantled railway line with the new and only rails ending right after crossing the road
For example - where track and road geometry and surrounds make it hard to see if a train is approaching. Here there is this place - http://goo.gl/maps/I8F3s - steep downhill for the A2/E77 road which is slippery in winter and used by many lorries and international buses. Sort of a small forest. Train running speeds of 120 km/h. Planned increase to 160.
Or where there are frequent train movements and people hate the long waits so they jump the lights. Like here - http://goo.gl/maps/lQU3h - curve on the railway, buildings that make it hard to see. In summers there is a frequent EMU service to the seaside town of Jūrmala and with the completion of the new port terminal the line is going to be used almost at full capacity. The drivers hate this and drive around the half barriers.
Now the tracks have been removed except on the crossing itself.
In Liepāja city while building a new road they built a level crossing. Which would be all fine and dandy if it wouldn't be on a dismantled railway line with the new and only rails ending right after crossing the road
No, I was thinking about the most dangerous crossings. There must be some more dangerous than others.
For example - where track and road geometry and surrounds make it hard to see if a train is approaching. Here there is this place - http://goo.gl/maps/I8F3s - steep downhill for the A2/E77 road which is slippery in winter and used by many lorries and international buses. Sort of a small forest. Train running speeds of 120 km/h. Planned increase to 160.
Or where there are frequent train movements and people hate the long waits so they jump the lights. Like here - http://goo.gl/maps/lQU3h - curve on the railway, buildings that make it hard to see. In summers there is a frequent EMU service to the seaside town of Jūrmala and with the completion of the new port terminal the line is going to be used almost at full capacity. The drivers hate this and drive around the half barriers.
Hi everybody.
Perhaps it is time we got a little rational thinking into this debate. Anyone that has ever driven a heavy vehicle such as a truck or bus will know that is virtually impossible to “stall” a large diesel engine through driver error. Even with a manual stick shift gearbox you can push the gearlever into one of the lower gears, drop the clutch and even with the engine at tickover the vehicle will just lurch forward and keep going at tick over speed without even having anyone’s foot on the accelerator. With an automatic gearbox vehicle it just stays where it is when placed in drive if the accelerator is not pressed.
Therefore, the only way a heavy vehicle is going to “stall” at a railroad crossing is through mechanical failure which will be limited to total failure of either engine or transmission which is highly unlikely. A risk assessment classes highly unlikely or inconsequential risk in terms of an incident occurring as being less than one in 1 million.
Realistically the only way that accidents can happen at rail crossings is through driver failure in terms of visual and/or audible senses. That brings us back to the opening posters question of should a bus (or any other vehicle come to that) stop or just slow down on approaching an un-signalled rail crossing. If the vehicle comes to a complete stop then the driver has unlimited time to look both ways, listen and then proceed following unconstrained and considered judgement. In the foregoing circumstances a risk assessment would again class the likelihood of an incident occurring as highly unlikely.
However, if the vehicle does not stop then the driver has only a limited time to look both ways and judge the safety of the situation even if he is travelling at only 2-3 mph. Along with that the driver would undoubtedly have no audible safety reference whatsoever in this situation due to the noise from his/her vehicle engine as it would be well above tick over being in a low gear. The foregoing would raise a risk assessment classification of an incident occurring in that given situation to “possible” which is one in ten thousand, which I think everyone will agree is a far greater risk than the one in 1 million given should the driver come to a complete stop.
Bill
Perhaps it is time we got a little rational thinking into this debate. Anyone that has ever driven a heavy vehicle such as a truck or bus will know that is virtually impossible to “stall” a large diesel engine through driver error. Even with a manual stick shift gearbox you can push the gearlever into one of the lower gears, drop the clutch and even with the engine at tickover the vehicle will just lurch forward and keep going at tick over speed without even having anyone’s foot on the accelerator. With an automatic gearbox vehicle it just stays where it is when placed in drive if the accelerator is not pressed.
Therefore, the only way a heavy vehicle is going to “stall” at a railroad crossing is through mechanical failure which will be limited to total failure of either engine or transmission which is highly unlikely. A risk assessment classes highly unlikely or inconsequential risk in terms of an incident occurring as being less than one in 1 million.
Realistically the only way that accidents can happen at rail crossings is through driver failure in terms of visual and/or audible senses. That brings us back to the opening posters question of should a bus (or any other vehicle come to that) stop or just slow down on approaching an un-signalled rail crossing. If the vehicle comes to a complete stop then the driver has unlimited time to look both ways, listen and then proceed following unconstrained and considered judgement. In the foregoing circumstances a risk assessment would again class the likelihood of an incident occurring as highly unlikely.
However, if the vehicle does not stop then the driver has only a limited time to look both ways and judge the safety of the situation even if he is travelling at only 2-3 mph. Along with that the driver would undoubtedly have no audible safety reference whatsoever in this situation due to the noise from his/her vehicle engine as it would be well above tick over being in a low gear. The foregoing would raise a risk assessment classification of an incident occurring in that given situation to “possible” which is one in ten thousand, which I think everyone will agree is a far greater risk than the one in 1 million given should the driver come to a complete stop.
Bill
Last edited:
Here is where the tracks used to cross. They've been gone since 1984, thereabouts. The vandals have finally gotten the signage, according to this Bing image.
http://binged.it/1b3ViJa
John
The only significant accident I have been involved in was caused by exactly this. I was driving a truck and admit that I was still in the junction when the lights went green for the other traffic. The lady just shot forward and banged into me. My argument was "Suppose I had not been a truck, but a line of schoolchildren?" The case was decided in my favour. Mick Berg. PS Can anyone suggest why my return key is not working on this forum? Thanks.
To summarize: despite what you hear, even though stories exist about seat belts actually killing people, it is much smarter to wear one than not to wear one.
Me too.
Hi Mick,
Very interesting case and resolution. She apparently wasn't paying attention either.
If you have upgraded to IE11, you need to add auran.com to the compatibility list. Go to tools then Compatibility view.
Once you do that, you'll be all set.
John
Hi Everybody.
Exactly why people take often inexplicable actions which lead to accidents is often the subject of the in depth investigations which always accompanies serious incidents. The preliminary investigation findings into such accidents often just state as example "the driver crossed a red light due to lack of concentration and this action led to the collision"
However, finding out why that driver crossed the red light or rail crossing etc is of the utmost importance if similar serious accidents are to be avoided. Very often under interview people responsible for serious accidents will reveal having severe personal problems prior to the accident. The foregoing can be financial, problems with wives and partners, employment problems or any number of things which can affect a person's concentration when driving or even operating machinery at work.
Medical problems can also be a big contributing factor in incidents. As I advised in earlier posting in this thread, random police testing here in the UK have revealed that 30% of drivers are using their vehicles with visual acuity well below the legal limits which obviously could contribute to a large proportion of road accidents. Drug taking both prescription and casual along with alcohol can also obviously affect a person's vision and reaction time when faced with an emergency or indeed can even create the emergency. Finally let's not forget the originator of so many accidents these days, the mobile phone.
However, it is very often a combination of any number of the above problems which leads to someone making that "Daft" decision while driving which leads to the serious injury or death of that driver or worse still someone else. Finding out what was going on in the mind and body of someone who has caused a serious accident is often the only way to prevent similar accidents happening in the future. It is always a long arduous process which often means gaining court access to medical, financial and personal records of people before the full in-depth reasons why a serious accident occurred is revealed.
Bill
Exactly why people take often inexplicable actions which lead to accidents is often the subject of the in depth investigations which always accompanies serious incidents. The preliminary investigation findings into such accidents often just state as example "the driver crossed a red light due to lack of concentration and this action led to the collision"
However, finding out why that driver crossed the red light or rail crossing etc is of the utmost importance if similar serious accidents are to be avoided. Very often under interview people responsible for serious accidents will reveal having severe personal problems prior to the accident. The foregoing can be financial, problems with wives and partners, employment problems or any number of things which can affect a person's concentration when driving or even operating machinery at work.
Medical problems can also be a big contributing factor in incidents. As I advised in earlier posting in this thread, random police testing here in the UK have revealed that 30% of drivers are using their vehicles with visual acuity well below the legal limits which obviously could contribute to a large proportion of road accidents. Drug taking both prescription and casual along with alcohol can also obviously affect a person's vision and reaction time when faced with an emergency or indeed can even create the emergency. Finally let's not forget the originator of so many accidents these days, the mobile phone.
However, it is very often a combination of any number of the above problems which leads to someone making that "Daft" decision while driving which leads to the serious injury or death of that driver or worse still someone else. Finding out what was going on in the mind and body of someone who has caused a serious accident is often the only way to prevent similar accidents happening in the future. It is always a long arduous process which often means gaining court access to medical, financial and personal records of people before the full in-depth reasons why a serious accident occurred is revealed.
Bill
Well said, Bill.
Our National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) www.ntsb.gov does such investigations into all kinds of transport-related accidents. They have their completed reports online if you are ever interested in reading them.
What is interesting, just after I read your post, yesterday, I also saw an article in the BBC, UK new section regarding mobile phones. The safety experts in Newcastle University are saying that even hands free mobiles are a safety issue and should be banned from use. The problem is people focus on the call rather than what's around them.
Then of course there are the retorts, including the mention of people texting!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24989296
John
cascaderailroad
New member
The law is, "The Law" ... If you want to be a "regular lawbreaker", go right ahead and speed around down crossing gates, and blast through RR crossings, and someone will watch and take videos of the aftermath, and post it on YouTube or LiveLeak ... everyone likes a good gory video !
When the bus stops at the RR xing hold line the driver must open the front door. Opening the front door while the bus is in motion will cause an emergency application of the brakes, while the door is opened the bus cannot be moved, thus causing a positive stop, not a pause and go, or "California Stop."
John
John
Is it really impossible to drive the bus with the front door open? Ours are less than 10 years old, meet all the EU-regulations and still do drive like that all the time in summers.
@cascaderailroad But accidents on level crossings still do happen even if no one breaks the law - two years ago an incident occurred on the Moscow mainline. At 6.15 on a dark Tuesday morning a lorry full of logs broke down on a level crossing. The driver immediately turned on all the lights of the lorry, put on a high visibility vest and went to signal any incoming trains to stop. He managed to stop one commuter train and asked the driver to tell any other trains to stop. Then, noticing another train incoming, he went to try to stop it, but it didn't respond and so - six minutes after the first train was stopped - the other train hit the lorry.
A video of the crash site
A later experiment proved that it was possible to see the lorry and stop the train in time even without any other warnings. And it seems that the call from the first driver didn't get to the 2nd driver in time.
Now I know that some pre-level crossing warning signals are being installed on the line, but I'm not sure how they work. Some motion sensors? Or nothing fancy - just indicates that barriers are down?
What needs to be done to stop such crashes? Better communication within the railway company, some emergency phone on the level crossing?
@cascaderailroad But accidents on level crossings still do happen even if no one breaks the law - two years ago an incident occurred on the Moscow mainline. At 6.15 on a dark Tuesday morning a lorry full of logs broke down on a level crossing. The driver immediately turned on all the lights of the lorry, put on a high visibility vest and went to signal any incoming trains to stop. He managed to stop one commuter train and asked the driver to tell any other trains to stop. Then, noticing another train incoming, he went to try to stop it, but it didn't respond and so - six minutes after the first train was stopped - the other train hit the lorry.
A video of the crash site
A later experiment proved that it was possible to see the lorry and stop the train in time even without any other warnings. And it seems that the call from the first driver didn't get to the 2nd driver in time.
Now I know that some pre-level crossing warning signals are being installed on the line, but I'm not sure how they work. Some motion sensors? Or nothing fancy - just indicates that barriers are down?
What needs to be done to stop such crashes? Better communication within the railway company, some emergency phone on the level crossing?
Last edited:
Thanks John. Let's see if it works.Hi Mick,
Very interesting case and resolution. She apparently wasn't paying attention either.
If you have upgraded to IE11, you need to add auran.com to the compatibility list. Go to tools then Compatibility view.
Once you do that, you'll be all set.
John
It does!!
Cheers,
Mick.
Currently, either embedded coil systems (detects vehicles based on electromagnetics) or new systems using ultrasonics mounted on opposite sides of the road. VERY good reliability, no interference from weather whatsoever (at least, not on a level to cause disruption to traffic). And crossings in the US have an emergency number to call mounted on the crossing sign, if there is any sort of problem call that number and in theory all is hunky-dory. Cell phones are so prevalent, it is just not worth it adding a new box phone for every crossing.
IMHO, it appears that the truck driver in question followed the right principle, but here in the US, someone would see that as violation of some union safety regulation or something else, and would likely be another problem in and of itself.
Hi everybody.
Apologies for not responding to post in this thread, but until I looked this evening I did not even realise the thread was still alive.
viesturs, I agree with you, I do not know how you would stop this type of vehicle breakdown on crossings happening. As I stated in an earlier posting in Britain risk assessments rate this as "highly unlikely" which means that the chances of it happening would be less than 1 million to 1. However, that is Britain and having watched some of the youtube videos of Russian truck accidents due to the way they are driven and the very poor maintenance of the vehicles I would imagine any risk assessment done their would be very much higher. Again in the UK all rail crossings have emergency phones in case of an incident/breakdown and providing the train is more than a mile and a half away then contact can be made and the consist brought to a halt even with HST's. As you stated it is drivers weaving between the lowered half barriers that cause accidents in Britain. However, these drivers are not very often around to answer any court charges that could have been laid.
John, the penalties for using mobile phones while driving have just been increased in the UK with it being for vocational drivers (heavy goods and bus drivers) up to £1000 penalty and the removal of the vocational side of the drivers license. For car drivers it is a fixed penalty of £100 and three penalty points on the drivers license. That said police forces are increasingly using the "careless driving" legislation which can mean the removal of the offending drivers license and a much higher penalty. As you state the media have been giving extensive publicity to the University report that even hands-free mobile phones highly distract the driver to the extent that it is worse than driving beyond the alcohol levels laid down and therefore they too should be banned while driving.
I have to say that I am very much in favour of much tougher action than even the new penalties on drivers using mobile phones to the extent I believe that there should be a possibility of a custodial sentence for any driver found to have been using a mobile phone when an accident occurred. As was stated in the interview everybody should switch them off and lock them in the boot before driving off, then you cannot be tempted to answer or make a call while you are driving.
Hard but very necessary
Bill
Apologies for not responding to post in this thread, but until I looked this evening I did not even realise the thread was still alive.
viesturs, I agree with you, I do not know how you would stop this type of vehicle breakdown on crossings happening. As I stated in an earlier posting in Britain risk assessments rate this as "highly unlikely" which means that the chances of it happening would be less than 1 million to 1. However, that is Britain and having watched some of the youtube videos of Russian truck accidents due to the way they are driven and the very poor maintenance of the vehicles I would imagine any risk assessment done their would be very much higher. Again in the UK all rail crossings have emergency phones in case of an incident/breakdown and providing the train is more than a mile and a half away then contact can be made and the consist brought to a halt even with HST's. As you stated it is drivers weaving between the lowered half barriers that cause accidents in Britain. However, these drivers are not very often around to answer any court charges that could have been laid.
John, the penalties for using mobile phones while driving have just been increased in the UK with it being for vocational drivers (heavy goods and bus drivers) up to £1000 penalty and the removal of the vocational side of the drivers license. For car drivers it is a fixed penalty of £100 and three penalty points on the drivers license. That said police forces are increasingly using the "careless driving" legislation which can mean the removal of the offending drivers license and a much higher penalty. As you state the media have been giving extensive publicity to the University report that even hands-free mobile phones highly distract the driver to the extent that it is worse than driving beyond the alcohol levels laid down and therefore they too should be banned while driving.
I have to say that I am very much in favour of much tougher action than even the new penalties on drivers using mobile phones to the extent I believe that there should be a possibility of a custodial sentence for any driver found to have been using a mobile phone when an accident occurred. As was stated in the interview everybody should switch them off and lock them in the boot before driving off, then you cannot be tempted to answer or make a call while you are driving.
Hard but very necessary
Bill
Last edited:
- Status