Hi everybody.
Kris94, I believe it is very difficult for forum members posting in this thread to understand the point you are making or trying to make. In your opening post you advised that school bus drivers should proceed over railroad crossings without stopping providing the bus was empty having no school children on board. In that I believed that you were stating that if the driver of the bus wished to risk nothing else but his own life then you felt that was acceptable. (Please correct me and others if the foregoing assessment of what you are trying to convey you feel is incorrect)
However, if my foregoing analysis is correct, I would have to say you seem to be missing several important factors. It would not be the case of the bus driver just risking his own life. When two heavy vehicles collide various levels of disintegration take place and debris are thrown out in various directions. That then endangers others in the vicinity of the collision as well as the train crew and if it is a passenger train those paying passengers who would be travelling on it. The train could also derail causing damage, death and injury well away from the vicinity of the initial collision.
All the above factors have to be taken into account when doing site-specific risk assessment at individual rail crossings. However, a generic risk assessment which i referred to in my #27 posting in this thread gave the risk of collision should the vehicle stop prior to proceeding an accident rating of "highly unlikely". Against that the same generic risk assessment gave an accident rating of "possible" should the vehicle proceed over the rail crossing without stopping.
I am surprised Kris94 that you did not respond to that posting if you felt those assessments were wrong. Surely in your recent army training you received instruction on risk assessment as I would have felt it was the very basis of all army activity. I remember back in the 1980s when I started my training in industrial safety that we were addressed by the British Army transport Corps instructors with regard to how they assessed movement in hazardous and war situations by way of risk assessment. Along with that we were informed that all army personnel are trained to be able to carry out quick mental risk assessment as part of their military basic training.
I would refer forum members to the outstanding television series "band of brothers" and two editions one being "day of days" and the other being "Crossroads" where you see the officer do risk assessment before proceeding into action, the foregoing proving that even in the war torn 1940s risk assessment was comprehended and carried out even under fire.
Bill
Kris94, I believe it is very difficult for forum members posting in this thread to understand the point you are making or trying to make. In your opening post you advised that school bus drivers should proceed over railroad crossings without stopping providing the bus was empty having no school children on board. In that I believed that you were stating that if the driver of the bus wished to risk nothing else but his own life then you felt that was acceptable. (Please correct me and others if the foregoing assessment of what you are trying to convey you feel is incorrect)
However, if my foregoing analysis is correct, I would have to say you seem to be missing several important factors. It would not be the case of the bus driver just risking his own life. When two heavy vehicles collide various levels of disintegration take place and debris are thrown out in various directions. That then endangers others in the vicinity of the collision as well as the train crew and if it is a passenger train those paying passengers who would be travelling on it. The train could also derail causing damage, death and injury well away from the vicinity of the initial collision.
All the above factors have to be taken into account when doing site-specific risk assessment at individual rail crossings. However, a generic risk assessment which i referred to in my #27 posting in this thread gave the risk of collision should the vehicle stop prior to proceeding an accident rating of "highly unlikely". Against that the same generic risk assessment gave an accident rating of "possible" should the vehicle proceed over the rail crossing without stopping.
I am surprised Kris94 that you did not respond to that posting if you felt those assessments were wrong. Surely in your recent army training you received instruction on risk assessment as I would have felt it was the very basis of all army activity. I remember back in the 1980s when I started my training in industrial safety that we were addressed by the British Army transport Corps instructors with regard to how they assessed movement in hazardous and war situations by way of risk assessment. Along with that we were informed that all army personnel are trained to be able to carry out quick mental risk assessment as part of their military basic training.
I would refer forum members to the outstanding television series "band of brothers" and two editions one being "day of days" and the other being "Crossroads" where you see the officer do risk assessment before proceeding into action, the foregoing proving that even in the war torn 1940s risk assessment was comprehended and carried out even under fire.
Bill
Last edited: