A train driver's plea ( safety video )

[drivesafe]

This is a long watch but is of interest.

Drivers' Plea (http://www.railsmart.com.au/driversplea/)

[spudboy]

Good campaign. Thanks for posting.

[87County]

with family member who drives both LRs and freight trains, we sure are aware of this....

thanks

[lardy]

mate the way people aim their vehicles in Australia(well you really can say it's driving) you would expect that more people would be getting taken out.
I was driving home this evening and was ahead of this P-plater and she was determind to try and take me on a stretch that went into one lane even though she was behind me!
Reckon she might live a couple of years if she is lucky!!!
great informative video worth the watch cheers Andy.

[Chops]

Good video,,, I dont understand why they just cant play it, if even just a few times on the TV channels,,,, Kind of makes me wonder where our priorities lay,,,

I had what I consider to have been a close call a few months ago on a dirt road,,, didnt even realise there was a train track in the area,, in a world of my own I was, sightseeing,,, was almost the last thing I saw,,

Thanks for the post up DS,,

[hiline]

really makes you feel for the drivers.............

dont know how people can be so stupid :mad:

[Killer]

Thanks for the link Drivesafe, it certainly makes you think.

Cheers, Mick.

[JDNSW]

For some reason I only got audio - but I get the point!

I frequently get criticised by neighbours for stopping at the level crossings round here when there is clearly no train in sight. But the problem is, although I have to cross at least one of several crossings on one of two lines to go to town, I can go months between seeing trains on either line. One in particular, the one I cross most often, I think it is over a year since I saw a train on the line - yet there is enough traffic to keep the rails polished. I can see how this can lead to complacency, yet I can also see why the crossings only have stop signs - flashing lights would be a good idea but these seem to be very expensive, particularly where there is no power nearby.

On the Golden Highway there are two crossings between here and Dubbo (plus one to get onto the highway). Until about fifteen years ago the ones on the highway only had stop signs, and there were regular accidents, up to two or three a year, usually fatal. These were provided with flashing lights, and there have been no accidents since. But there are numerous other crossings with only stop signs. At one of these several years ago, a local (it was on his driveway!) was hit by a train while carrying hay. He was killed, and the ensuing fire destroyed two locomotives and a railway bridge, with the damage bill running into many millions.

The worst local crossing I can think of is on the road to Merrygoen - you can only see it from this side about fifty metres before the crossing, and the visibility along the line in either direction is less than a hundred metres (hilly country). With an uphill start, it is easy to see how a loaded vehicle could be hit here, even if they stopped at the stop sign. From the other side it is better, as it is a downhill start and the crossing can be seen from further away.

John

[87County]

For some reason I only got audio - but I get the point!

I frequently get criticised by neighbours for stopping at the level crossings round here when there is clearly no train in sight. But the problem is, although I have to cross at least one of several crossings on one of two lines to go to town, I can go months between seeing trains on either line. One in particular, the one I cross most often, I think it is over a year since I saw a train on the line - yet there is enough traffic to keep the rails polished. I can see how this can lead to complacency, yet I can also see why the crossings only have stop signs - flashing lights would be a good idea but these seem to be very expensive, particularly where there is no power nearby.

On the Golden Highway there are two crossings between here and Dubbo (plus one to get onto the highway). Until about fifteen years ago the ones on the highway only had stop signs, and there were regular accidents, up to two or three a year, usually fatal. These were provided with flashing lights, and there have been no accidents since. But there are numerous other crossings with only stop signs. At one of these several years ago, a local (it was on his driveway!) was hit by a train while carrying hay. He was killed, and the ensuing fire destroyed two locomotives and a railway bridge, with the damage bill running into many millions.

The worst local crossing I can think of is on the road to Merrygoen - you can only see it from this side about fifty metres before the crossing, and the visibility along the line in either direction is less than a hundred metres (hilly country). With an uphill start, it is easy to see how a loaded vehicle could be hit here, even if they stopped at the stop sign. From the other side it is better, as it is a downhill start and the crossing can be seen from further away.

John


surprisingly, perhaps, the line you are writing about is now carrying a proportion of the grain frieght from the northwest to Nowra and Berrima, via Dubbo and Cootamundra - it might seem like the long way around but it avoids the Murrurundi bank and Hawkesbury R grade, and also avoids having to fit in with Sydney's commuter rail network

[Redback]

Yep great campaign, having worked on the railways at the Port Kembla fixing yards and being in the emergency call out crew, I have seen what it's like at a crossing accident, (at the time only 18yrs old) not something I want to see again, ever!!!

I was also involved in an accident fatality as a bus driver only 4 years after leaving the railways, still haunts me today.

Please stop look and listen!!!

Baz.

[drivesafe]

As John pointed out, it’s not always that clear cut as to whether the responsibility for an accident lays with the driver of a given vehicle or with the operators of the railway.

There are level crossings in clear open spaces that require additional protection, beyond just having signs.

A couple of years ago there were two accidents within weeks of each other at Cummura, 10 kms north of Moree, where the Mungindi line crosses the Newell Highway.

When running, there is only one very long wheat train a day in each direction and both cross the highway during darkness ( pitch black ), and both accidents occurred when vehicles ran into the middle of the train as it was crossing the highway.

One of the accidents occurred and the crew was unaware that a 4x4 had collided with their train, and the 4x4 hit directly between two wheat hoppers and was wedged there.

The 4x4 was dragged about 1/2 km before it was knocked from the train as the train went over a steel truss bridge.

The elderly driver was killed and his wife was seriously injured.

Technically, the 4x4 driver was at fault but the problem was actually the fault of the railways because even though the line is visible for a number of kilometres, the road swings around a very long and high speed horseshoe curve with the line crossing the highway at the center of the curve, so train at night is only visible for a few seconds before vehicles cross the level crossing.

The crossing now has flashing red lights at the rail line, flashing yellow lights some distance from the crossing and two street lights on either side of the crossing plus all freight wagons now have small reflector fitted along the side of them.

All a bit late.

[dobbo]

Can I get an OT number for watching that?

[jx2mad]

Around 25 years ago I came across the scene of a motor accident. Minor damage to both vehicles. However a young girl of 18 (driver of one car ) was apparently slightly injured with a cut on her chin from hitting the steering wheel. There was an off duty ambo checking her when I stopped. I asked if I was able to help and he said that she had stopped breathing and did I know cpr. I said I was trained first aider and we removed her from the car and proceeded to administer cpr. Sadly she had passed away and the paramedics arrived by helicopter and could not revive her. To this day when I think about it I can still smell and taste the regurgitated fluid as I was attempting to breathe for her. It was nauseating at the time with me being sick between breaths. It is something that will remain with me all my life. I had her blood on my face and cloths from the cut on her chin and I stood under the shower at home for 1/2 an hour trying to remove the smell from me. I hope no-one else has to do what I did. PLEASE TAKE CARE WHEN DRIVING Jim

[JDNSW]

As John pointed out, it’s not always that clear cut as to whether the responsibility for an accident lays with the driver of a given vehicle or with the operators of the railway.

There are level crossings in clear open spaces that require additional protection, beyond just having signs.

A couple of years ago there were two accidents within weeks of each other at Cummura, 10 kms north of Moree, where the Mungindi line crosses the Newell Highway.

When running, there is only one very long wheat train a day in each direction and both cross the highway during darkness ( pitch black ), and both accidents occurred when vehicles ran into the middle of the train as it was crossing the highway.

One of the accidents occurred and the crew was unaware that a 4x4 had collided with their train, and the 4x4 hit directly between two wheat hoppers and was wedged there.

The 4x4 was dragged about 1/2 km before it was knocked from the train as the train went over a steel truss bridge.

The elderly driver was killed and his wife was seriously injured.

Technically, the 4x4 driver was at fault but the problem was actually the fault of the railways because even though the line is visible for a number of kilometres, the road swings around a very long and high speed horseshoe curve with the line crossing the highway at the center of the curve, so train at night is only visible for a few seconds before vehicles cross the level crossing.

The crossing now has flashing red lights at the rail line, flashing yellow lights some distance from the crossing and two street lights on either side of the crossing plus all freight wagons now have small reflector fitted along the side of them.

All a bit late.

All or almost all of the accidents I mentioned on the Golden Highway before flashing lights were installed at the two crossings involved vehicles hitting the side of the train at night. Apart from warning signs and rumble strips one idea that was tried before flashing lights on one of the crossings, which is on a curve, was a large patch of reflecting paint on a sort of hoarding, which would silhouette the moving train. According to local gossip, the flashing lights were finally installed as the result of the wife of a local policeman hitting a train.

John

[BigJon]

My only point to make is that what happens at levels crossings (or anywhere else that vehicles collide) are not accidents.

They are crashes or collisions.

The term accident infers that no one was to blame. Clearly in all of these incidents someone is to blame and it is often very easy to apportion that blame.

I am aware of at least one Police Force changing the name of a Department from Major Accident Investigation to Major Crash Investigation for this very reason.

I for one don't trust level crossing lights and boom gates. I always slow down if required and have a good look each way to make sure there is no train coming, because it is one argument I will never win.

[drivesafe]

I for one don't trust level crossing lights and boom gates.

Hi BigJon, while there is always the possibility that the lights will not turn on to warn of an approaching train, they are actually operated by causing them to fail and it is far more likely that if they do fail and it will be with them flashing when no trail is about.

The way the crossing lights work is, putting it in simple terms, a failure caused by the approaching train creating a short across the two rails, which allows the system relays to switch off, completing the power circuit to operate the lights

[JDNSW]

My only point to make is that what happens at levels crossings (or anywhere else that vehicles collide) are not accidents.

They are crashes or collisions.

The term accident infers that no one was to blame. Clearly in all of these incidents someone is to blame and it is often very easy to apportion that blame.

I am aware of at least one Police Force changing the name of a Department from Major Accident Investigation to Major Crash Investigation for this very reason.

I for one don't trust level crossing lights and boom gates. I always slow down if required and have a good look each way to make sure there is no train coming, because it is one argument I will never win.

This change is typical of most attempts to change the English language. The word "accident" does not infer nobody is to blame.

"accident n. 1. An event that is without apparent cause or is unexpected 2. An unfortunate event, esp one causing physical harm or damage, brought about unintentionally. 3. Occurrance of things by chance; the working of fortune" There are other meanings irrelevant to this use. (ACOED, 4th ed)

The lack of blame could be inferred from meaning 3, but it is a bit of a stretch to say it is inferred from meanings 1 or 2. Certainly most accidents are unexpected (although there may be an apparent cause), and the meaning 2 usually is an exact fit. This sort of attempt to rewrite English merely highlights the lack of English teaching in Australia.

I would also take exception to your use of the term blame or cause. There is all too often an attempt to assign a single cause to an accident, whereas even a passing knowledge of rigorous accident investigation such as in aviation would show that almost all real life accidents have multiple contributing factors, none of which can be described as a single cause - although in some cases there is certainly a dominant factor, in motor accidents often the blood alcohol level. But in most cases there is no single major factor if the accident is properly investigated.

To clarify. Suppose the "cause" of one of these level crossing accidents is failure to stop at a stop sign. But then you have to ask, why the failure to stop? One common reason is that the stop sign is round a bend, and cannot be seen until you are very close - perhaps there was inadequate advance warning or some other factor such as fatigue or high blood alcohol. Experience has long shown that a stop sign on a highway with a 100kph speed limit is very unlikely to be observed by a large proportion of drivers. Now is your "cause" the failure to stop, the signage, the fatigue, the blood alcohol level? (and what are the factors behind the fatigue, the blood alcohol level, the poor signage?)

Blame is a word that should never be used in accident investigations. Many years ago the aviation industry decided that since the reason for accident investigations was to prevent future repetitions, then looking for blame was counterproductive to discovering what really happened. This premise has not of course always been followed, and the Mt Erebus investigation and subsequent Royal Commission is a shining example!

John

[rockyroad]

Trains cant brake or slow down in a hurry and swerving isnt an option.

I am by no means a train expert but I Know what happens when people take them on and lose.

Even though in most (if not all) cases the train driver is not at fault it doesnt make their suffering any easier.

Probably doesnt affect us responsible landrover drivers though, taking right of way is more of a toyota thing :p

[BigJon]

This change is typical of most attempts to change the English language. The word "accident" does not infer nobody is to blame.

"accident n. 1. An event that is without apparent cause or is unexpected 2. An unfortunate event, esp one causing physical harm or damage, brought about unintentionally. 3. Occurrance of things by chance; the working of fortune" There are other meanings irrelevant to this use. (ACOED, 4th ed)

The lack of blame could be inferred from meaning 3, but it is a bit of a stretch to say it is inferred from meanings 1 or 2. Certainly most accidents are unexpected (although there may be an apparent cause), and the meaning 2 usually is an exact fit. This sort of attempt to rewrite English merely highlights the lack of English teaching in Australia.

I would also take exception to your use of the term blame or cause. There is all too often an attempt to assign a single cause to an accident, whereas even a passing knowledge of rigorous accident investigation such as in aviation would show that almost all real life accidents have multiple contributing factors, none of which can be described as a single cause - although in some cases there is certainly a dominant factor, in motor accidents often the blood alcohol level. But in most cases there is no single major factor if the accident is properly investigated.

To clarify. Suppose the "cause" of one of these level crossing accidents is failure to stop at a stop sign. But then you have to ask, why the failure to stop? One common reason is that the stop sign is round a bend, and cannot be seen until you are very close - perhaps there was inadequate advance warning or some other factor such as fatigue or high blood alcohol. Experience has long shown that a stop sign on a highway with a 100kph speed limit is very unlikely to be observed by a large proportion of drivers. Now is your "cause" the failure to stop, the signage, the fatigue, the blood alcohol level? (and what are the factors behind the fatigue, the blood alcohol level, the poor signage?)

Blame is a word that should never be used in accident investigations. Many years ago the aviation industry decided that since the reason for accident investigations was to prevent future repetitions, then looking for blame was counterproductive to discovering what really happened. This premise has not of course always been followed, and the Mt Erebus investigation and subsequent Royal Commission is a shining example!

John

Where I used the word "blame", insert the word "fault".

I would say definition 1 is clearly saying it is no ones fault. As is definition 3. As far as definition 2 is concerned, I am not saying any actions were to intentionally cause a collision, but it was still someones actions that caused it.

If the level crossing is adequately signposted and the level crossing warning systems are in place and operational, who is the instigator of a collision?

I think you will find that it is the car driver. Probably not intentionally (one would hope), but they are still the cause, the one at fault, the one to blame.

I don't use the word blame ina witch hunt style, merely as a way to describe cause and effect.

For example, a car driver ignores the level crossing warnings and drives onto the tracks (cause) and the train hits the car (effect).

As noted, trains don't often swerve to avoid a collision.

As for people that queue over level crossings (examples shown on the video), how stupid can people be? You would have to be of extremely low intelligence to do so, in my opinion. Surely it doesn't take great smarts to forsee a possible result arising from such an action?

[JDNSW]

Where I used the word "blame", insert the word "fault".

I would say definition 1 is clearly saying it is no ones fault. As is definition 3. As far as definition 2 is concerned, I am not saying any actions were to intentionally cause a collision, but it was still someones actions that caused it.

If the level crossing is adequately signposted and the level crossing warning systems are in place and operational, who is the instigator of a collision?

I think you will find that it is the car driver. Probably not intentionally (one would hope), but they are still the cause, the one at fault, the one to blame.

I don't use the word blame ina witch hunt style, merely as a way to describe cause and effect.

For example, a car driver ignores the level crossing warnings and drives onto the tracks (cause) and the train hits the car (effect).

As noted, trains don't often swerve to avoid a collision.

As for people that queue over level crossings (examples shown on the video), how stupid can people be? You would have to be of extremely low intelligence to do so, in my opinion. Surely it doesn't take great smarts to forsee a possible result arising from such an action?

As I said, and I repeat it - very rarely does an accident have a single factor. Certainly queueing across a level crossing is the height of stupidity, but you have to ask - is there a way that traffic lights or road conditions could have been arranged that makes this impossible? Could there have been a signalling system that would signal the train driver that the crossing is blocked? Perhaps more to the point - if there is a level crossing which often invites queueing across it, is not the root cause of the accident the fact that there is still a level crossing at that location?

This reminds me of when I moved to Melbourne in 1971. After getting a street directory I looked through it to try and learn a little about the geography of Melbourne. When doing this, I was astounded at the number of level crossings. At that time Sydney had greatly reduced the number of them, and there was only about two left that were on either a main line or a main road (and none on both), and they went soon after. Melbourne still has many level crossings on main roads and main lines, sometimes on both, although some have gone. I understand Victoria leads the country in level crossing accidents, perhaps at least in part because they have a lot more country trains than does the next most populous state, NSW, and a lot of level crossings. And their country trains are fast.

John

[BigJon]

As I said, and I repeat it - very rarely does an accident have a single factor. Certainly queueing across a level crossing is the height of stupidity, but you have to ask - is there a way that traffic lights or road conditions could have been arranged that makes this impossible? John


Entering a blocked intersection is ILLEGAL. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

A level crossing is an intersection.

A driver should never enter any intersection that they can't leave.

Clearly the driver is at fault.

Saying the intersection is at fault is a copout. If people followed the road rules and drove with any common sense whatsoever there would be virtually no crashes of any kind at all (allowing some for mechanical failure).

Obviously a major problem is the "driving" standard in Australia, but that is A: a topic for another conversation and B: not likely to change for the better in your lifetime, or mine.

[Redback]

I'm really disappointed about some of the answers here, it's not rocket science ALL crossings are marked, whether it be with flashing lights or a reflective X, so you slow down, look AND LISTEN:twisted:

All these excuses are bull****, wake up:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted::tw isted::twisted:

Oh I'm sorry I didn't see it:eek::eek: OR hear it:eek:

Baz:spudnikwhat:

[JDNSW]

Entering a blocked intersection is ILLEGAL. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

A level crossing is an intersection.

A driver should never enter any intersection that they can't leave.

Clearly the driver is at fault.

Saying the intersection is at fault is a copout. If people followed the road rules and drove with any common sense whatsoever there would be virtually no crashes of any kind at all (allowing some for mechanical failure).

Obviously a major problem is the "driving" standard in Australia, but that is A: a topic for another conversation and B: not likely to change for the better in your lifetime, or mine.

You have not read, or at least understood, what I wrote. I totally agree with you about queueing through intersections, it is illegal, and anybody who queues across a level crossing is just plain stupid, apart from breaking the law.

I said nothing about an intersection being at fault. I did not in fact say anything about fault.

I did say that experience from other areas as well as traffic accidents shows that all accidents are caused by multiple factors. To ignore fifty or more years of accident investigation and simply say that every accident has a single "fault" is not going to reduce accidents. You even yourself partly admit this by saying the problem is driving standards - thus introducing a factor other than the individual driver's behaviour. In the local example I gave, accidents at main road level crossings were totally eliminated, not by drivers behaving better, but by fitting flashing lights. While driver behaviour might have been a major factor in these accidents, the results clearly show that crossing design was not only just as important, but something that could be applied to all vehicles using the crossing.

It is all very well to say that all that is required is to follow the rules and a bit of common sense, but I suppose the problem here is firstly, that common sense is unfortunately not all that common, in driving or anything else, and secondly, that the rules do not always make sense - just to take a simple example (moving away from level crossings), there are two villages I regularly drive through on main highways. Both are almost identical setups, similar number of houses, intersections, public facilities etc, both on a straight road. One has a speed limit of 80, the other 50. I have never seen a pedestrian or heard of an accident in either village. Or another example - in NSW, a learner is limited to 80, even on long trips on main highways with only two lanes, but in Victoria is allowed to travel at the speed limit; without any apparent problems.

While I share your views on driving standards to some extent (both the need for improvement and the chances of it happening) in my view, the problem is mainly one of attitude to driving rather than actual skills. It should also be noted that road accidents and fatalities, on a per kilometre basis have been declining ever since the end of the war, despite much heavier traffic.

In my view this is largely due to improved roads (note for example the vast difference in accident rates on freeways compared to other roads despite the much higher traffic levels and speeds) and two major changes - seat belts and driver's attitude to drinking, largely as a result of random breath tests. Vehicle safety features, according to, for example, Monash research, are much less important - for example, some cars with a full list of safety features have worse records than Landrover Defenders, probably because of the drivers they attract (think WRX).

John

[BigJon]

I read and understood John.

I replied to part of what you wrote, hence the quote being only a part of your total post.

I think you might be reading too much into my response. I am certainly in agreement with you on many of your points, hence why I only had a part of your post that I responded to.

I am not going to change my opinion regarding the use of the word accident.

I am not going to change my opinion that many crashes / collisions of any sort are due to driver error. Be that error caused by a lack of skills or a lack of concentration (which refers to skills anyway).

I do agree that poor road / intersection design can be a contributing factor (I use that defence in regards to my one vehicular collision that I have been involved with, aged 19).
Having said that, if you drive to the conditions you should be able to make allowances for the poor road conditions and avoid a collision anyway (in my case I was young and relatively inexperienced, although that particular intersection has been redesigned since my crash, which is a good indication that poor intersection design was at least a partial factor. It didn't do me any good when it came to paying insurance excesses though!).

As far as my comment regarding driving standards, I think that I am not adding an extra dimension for % fault. Driving standards is a way to say drivers, I would think. IE: Poor driving standards = poor drivers.

While you might not have said that the intersection was "at fault", clearly your suggestion that a differently designed intersection might alleviate the problem means that is exactly what you think.

You also mention that collisions rarely have a single factor. That may be so, but surely if you removed one of the factors, the collision may well have not occured. And if a factor that can be easily removed is the lack of driver skills, surely wanting drivers to have more skills is an idea with merit?

I rather suspect we are arguing semantics. Getting dictionary definitions of words doesn't change what happens on the roads. I would still say that to the general public, the word accident means it was unforseeable and no ones fault.

I am certainly not arguing against the message given by the film clip. I agree 100% that level crossings can be an issue for "drivers". Obviously the makers of the film think so too, hence they are trying to educate the drivers.

[V8Ian]

You have not read, or at least understood, what I wrote. I totally agree with you about queueing through intersections, it is illegal, and anybody who queues across a level crossing is just plain stupid, apart from breaking the law.

I said nothing about an intersection being at fault. I did not in fact say anything about fault.

I did say that experience from other areas as well as traffic accidents shows that all accidents are caused by multiple factors. To ignore fifty or more years of accident investigation and simply say that every accident has a single "fault" is not going to reduce accidents. You even yourself partly admit this by saying the problem is driving standards - thus introducing a factor other than the individual driver's behaviour. In the local example I gave, accidents at main road level crossings were totally eliminated, not by drivers behaving better, but by fitting flashing lights. While driver behaviour might have been a major factor in these accidents, the results clearly show that crossing design was not only just as important, but something that could be applied to all vehicles using the crossing.

It is all very well to say that all that is required is to follow the rules and a bit of common sense, but I suppose the problem here is firstly, that common sense is unfortunately not all that common, in driving or anything else, and secondly, that the rules do not always make sense - just to take a simple example (moving away from level crossings), there are two villages I regularly drive through on main highways. Both are almost identical setups, similar number of houses, intersections, public facilities etc, both on a straight road. One has a speed limit of 80, the other 50. I have never seen a pedestrian or heard of an accident in either village. Or another example - in NSW, a learner is limited to 80, even on long trips on main highways with only two lanes, but in Victoria is allowed to travel at the speed limit; without any apparent problems.

While I share your views on driving standards to some extent (both the need for improvement and the chances of it happening) in my view, the problem is mainly one of attitude to driving rather than actual skills. It should also be noted that road accidents and fatalities, on a per kilometre basis have been declining ever since the end of the war, despite much heavier traffic.

In my view this is largely due to improved roads (note for example the vast difference in accident rates on freeways compared to other roads despite the much higher traffic levels and speeds) and two major changes - seat belts and driver's attitude to drinking, largely as a result of random breath tests. Vehicle safety features, according to, for example, Monash research, are much less important - for example, some cars with a full list of safety features have worse records than Landrover Defenders, probably because of the drivers they attract (think WRX).

John
I have been claiming for a long time, the greatest boon to road safety would be attitudal. Otherwise decent folk seem to become self-centred, arrogent and aggresive behind the anonymity of a motor vehicle. Listen to the comments of drivers from one city claiming that drivers from another city are the worst in the country. In truth, they have not adapted to a different driving style, good or bad.

Some years ago, I was surprised at the proximity of a goods train, as I crossed a flashing light equipped but un-gated main-line level crossing. The crossing had poor vision, but was adequetely marked. I did not notice the lights flashing, and looked in the rear view mirror to

a) see if they were flashing and
b) see how much time separated the train from the road vehicles after the lights started flashing.
To my amazement, the train crossed the busy road, with out the lights operating. I contacted the police, who contacted the rail authority, who contacted me a few days later, saying there was, nor had there been any fault with the lights. I wonder were they lying, trying to hide the fallibility of the system and if I had been killed in collision with with the train, without doubt it would have been reported that I had ignored the lights. Every time I hear of level crossing collision I wonder if the lights failed, I cannot imagine any sane person blatently ignoring such a warning.
On a lighter note, I had to pull up over 100 tonne of fuel truck at a crossing west of Newman, on a downhill grade. The ore trains over there are the biggest trains in the world, and can take quite some time to pass. I decided to check my tyres and answer the call of nature whilst waiting. As no train had passed I was casually strolling back to the cab when I realized the warning lights were not flashing, so I walked to the track and looked along the cutting, only to see a track maintenance machine running back and forth, out of sight from the roadway.:angel:

[Pierre]

Ian, you illustrate the point that the vid makes - take maximum care. The downhill stop for the flashing light indicates that you have appreciated the situation - that the lights were triggered by track maintenace was immaterial. Cheers to you.

Pete

[JDNSW]

I read and understood John.
..........

I rather suspect we are arguing semantics. Getting dictionary definitions of words doesn't change what happens on the roads. I would still say that to the general public, the word accident means it was unforseeable and no ones fault.

I am certainly not arguing against the message given by the film clip. I agree 100% that level crossings can be an issue for "drivers". Obviously the makers of the film think so too, hence they are trying to educate the drivers.

I do not think we are just arguing semantics. You are maintaining that accidents are caused by a single "fault." I maintain that most if not all are caused by multiple factors, and that seeking to find a single fault for accidents is not the best way to stop them happening. This has long been accepted in aviation and industrial accident investigation, and there is no good reason why it should not be used in the investigation of road accidents; I would be surprised if it were not, although since, unlike aviation accidents, it is not usual to publish detailed investigations, it is difficult to know for sure. I suggest you may find the following of interest Human error model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree we are arguing semantics about the word "accident", but I think you are wrong. Modern dictionary definitions are not imposed "from on high", they are, to the best of the editors' ability, what the word is actually used to mean at the time of compilation. The dictionary I used is Australian, and the latest edition. This strongly suggests that the dictionary meaning is more likely to be what the "general public" thinks the word means than what you do (or anyone else who has not seriously worked on word meanings for that matter).

Like you, I do not in the slightest argue against the message of the video - although a variety of factors are involved in an accident, the one that the driver can most directly alter is his own behaviour. Most of the other contributing factors will be beyond his direct control.

John

[BigJon]

I don't know why you seem to think that I am saying collisions are caused by a single fault. In fact, I don't use the term accident at all, because I believe that word to be misleading when it comes to motor vehicle crashes, whether they involve trains, trucks, cars, pedestrians or immoveable objects. That was the entire premise of my original post!

I clearly stated (but you didn't quote for some reason) that there can be several contributing factors. I even went so far as to give an example from my personal experience. You seem to have blinkers on when reading my posts, and I am not sure why.

I will say that in the instance of vehicles entering a blocked level crossing, then there is a single factor causing a collision, with the proviso that the driver entering the level crossing could see that the exit was blocked (and I think that would be the case most of the time).

In that case, the single cause of a collision is the driver that entered the level crossing. If they weren't there, no collision would result. That is unarguable.

When it comes to accident investigation, I have read plenty of aviation related investigation reports. I know that they would very rarely pinpoint one factor causing any incident. My point is that if you remove any one of the contributing factors, then incidents could be avoided.

[JDNSW]

[/COLOR]n;1130704]I don't know why you seem to think that I am saying collisions are caused by a single fault. In fact, I don't use the term accident at all, because I believe that word to be misleading when it comes to motor vehicle crashes, whether they involve trains, trucks, cars, pedestrians or immoveable objects. That was the entire premise of my original post!

I clearly stated (but you didn't quote for some reason) that there can be several contributing factors. I even went so far as to give an example from my personal experience. You seem to have blinkers on when reading my posts, and I am not sure why.

I will say that in the instance of vehicles entering a blocked level crossing, then there is a single factor causing a collision, with the proviso that the driver entering the level crossing could see that the exit was blocked (and I think that would be the case most of the time).

In that case, the single cause of a collision is the driver that entered the level crossing. If they weren't there, no collision would result. That is unarguable.

When it comes to accident investigation, I have read plenty of aviation related investigation reports. I know that they would very rarely pinpoint one factor causing any incident. My point is that if you remove any one of the contributing factors, then incidents could be avoided.

Because you keep talking about fault - this is not the same as a factor! Talk about semantics!

It is just as unarguable, for example, that if the crossing were replaced by a bridge, or if the traffic management by lights etc were such that there was never a queue there, there would be no accident. One crossing I have used in Melbourne recently is a case in point - there is a set of lights just beyond crossing, and with slow moving traffic it is very easy to have the lights change such that cars can very easily get caught. OK, they should not enter the crossing if the way through is not clear, but with bumper to bumper traffic moving at 15kph it is very easy to see it happening. Proper linker of traffic lights and crossing lights could prevent this to a large extent, and I know of other crossings in Melbourne where this is done.

As another example, there have been a number of level crossing accidents where roads run alongside railways for some distance, and then cross with two sharp corners and a level crossing. It has long been known that this is a recipe for crossing accidents, regardless of signs and flashing lights.

This is exactly my point, but you keep talking about a single fault causing the accident! Again in this post "In that case, the single cause of a collision is the driver that entered the level crossing."

I don't think we are really that far apart except for your insistence that accidents can have a single cause and that you look for a faults rather than contributing factors. And that you insist on restricted meanings for words! Certainly, I am not about to disagree with you about the need to obey the law and use common sense with level crossings.

John

[CraigE]

Dutchy one of the local drivers here in Esperance is in it (Ian with moustache) and was filmed a couple of months ago at the Sims St crossing. We were all sent it on dvd, just re watched it and we even make an appearance, we were crossing the sims st crossing in the white dual cab Colarado after rolling out a train across the crossing, heading around to the barracks to prep another. Had watched it a couple of times but did not notice until tonight. We were running around trying to get trains moving and all they wanted to do was make a clip, caused us lots of delays, but the message is worth it.
Not just the trauma accidents cause the victims and their families but the trauma it causes to the driver, their families, friends and emergency services workers as well as anyone else witnessing or assisting.
I have spoken to too many drivers that have been involved in incidents that have killed or maimed.

[CraigE]

Entering a blocked intersection is ILLEGAL. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

A level crossing is an intersection.

A driver should never enter any intersection that they can't leave.

Clearly the driver is at fault.

Saying the intersection is at fault is a copout. If people followed the road rules and drove with any common sense whatsoever there would be virtually no crashes of any kind at all (allowing some for mechanical failure).

Obviously a major problem is the "driving" standard in Australia, but that is A: a topic for another conversation and B: not likely to change for the better in your lifetime, or mine.

Yep, come and sit at a crossing like we do when rolling trains out and see the dipsticks blatantly ignoring crossing lights, marked lines etc.
Almost daily we are reporting people (vehicles) to the police that cross flasshing light (2 yesterday in one hour for me alone). Idiots that stop at the flashing lights and either dont think the loco is moving or are just too impatient. Well be warned if we get your number and report it to the police you will get fined. There are a lot of people finding that out here lately. There is no excuse. The crossings are clearly marked as are the no standing areas either side of the crossing about 1 car length. The amount of people that just park on these or on the rail is amazing. We even had a school bus do so, needless to say this bus driver lost his job.
NO EXCUSES people, you will come off second best when 11,000 tonnes of loco and loaded wagons are bearing down on you. Remember these things can take more than 2kms to stop.
Also aside from crossings we have a lot of issues with trespasses taking shortcuts on rail reserves, corridors and stations / depots. It is illegal to be there. We have had heaps of close calls and usually just get given the finger. People walking out from behind wagons stabled in the yard and infront of moving trains. Like today two very attractive young ladies and as we said you can tell us to get stuffed, but you wont be a pretty young thing anymore when missing a leg and an arm for taking a 30 second short cut.
Above all these things can be silent, especially when being propelled or if you are near them mid rake, so if you are near them you need to be on your toes. It is only a matter of time before someone gets hit down here.

[CraigE]

Because you keep talking about fault - this is not the same as a factor! Talk about semantics!

It is just as unarguable, for example, that if the crossing were replaced by a bridge, or if the traffic management by lights etc were such that there was never a queue there, there would be no accident. One crossing I have used in Melbourne recently is a case in point - there is a set of lights just beyond crossing, and with slow moving traffic it is very easy to have the lights change such that cars can very easily get caught. OK, they should not enter the crossing if the way through is not clear, but with bumper to bumper traffic moving at 15kph it is very easy to see it happening. Proper linker of traffic lights and crossing lights could prevent this to a large extent, and I know of other crossings in Melbourne where this is done.

As another example, there have been a number of level crossing accidents where roads run alongside railways for some distance, and then cross with two sharp corners and a level crossing. It has long been known that this is a recipe for crossing accidents, regardless of signs and flashing lights.

This is exactly my point, but you keep talking about a single fault causing the accident! Again in this post "In that case, the single cause of a collision is the driver that entered the level crossing."

I don't think we are really that far apart except for your insistence that accidents can have a single cause and that you look for a faults rather than contributing factors. And that you insist on restricted meanings for words! Certainly, I am not about to disagree with you about the need to obey the law and use common sense with level crossings.

John
John,
I appreciate the points you have made in this thread. Generally you are correct and I agree there are usually multiple factors involved in all accidents, but and its a big but in most cases there is one major contributing factor and even without all the others the incident would most likely still occur. None of any other factors mean anything at all if you are not paying due care.
Like one of our intersections here that has a rail crossing 4 odd car length back from the T junction. Everyone blames the trains crossing when infact that is irrelevant, then they blame the intersection itself again irrelevant if you are paying due care and driving lawfully as required. This intersection for example could be better, but it is not and was designed for a lot less traffic. Upgrades would be good but are not a priority as there is actually not a lot wrong with the intersection. We had 3 accidents at this intersection in one day due to inattention and not giving way (one very serious and we were first on scene and I spent 3hrs in the car looking after the trapped young fella, as he was pinned bad took us that long to get him out safely). 5 cars written off and 2 damaged, 4 people taken to hospital and one expected to spend 6 months in rehab. All because of complacency and one major contributing factor. I relate it tback to the swiss cheese theory.
We often see stories in the paper here where people claim to have been held up at crossings for 15 minutes. What BS, the longest we actually tie up a crossing is 3mins 30 seconds (obviously excepting failures, but that is rare on a crossing). People are so self absorbed in their life and their agendas they just can not be patient.

[twitchy]

Personally having driven trains & my Dad did so for 40+ years. We got to see all manners of morons not caring about just ripping across the crossings no matter what. We also got to see MANY failed crossings.
One of the things that is supposed to happen is the driver MUST sound his horn when approaching level crossings.
I know in his time dad hit a Backhoe (wasn't supposed to be working there, was parked on the line operating),
2 cars ( a drunk nurse had crashed onto the line in 1, can't rmember the other), a Mack truck ( didn't look at the crossing, bet he does now)
& a moron who walked onto the track & just sat down & waited for the train!!!!!!!
I was lucky enough to of only ever hit live stock.

Train drivers have to be ever vigilant for all this sort of stuff & have to wear the consequences of the actions of Richard craniums!!!!!

[JDNSW]

John,
I appreciate the points you have made in this thread. Generally you are correct and I agree there are usually multiple factors involved in all accidents, but and its a big but in most cases there is one major contributing factor and even without all the others the incident would most likely still occur. None of any other factors mean anything at all if you are not paying due care.
Like one of our intersections here that has a rail crossing 4 odd car length back from the T junction. Everyone blames the trains crossing when infact that is irrelevant, then they blame the intersection itself again irrelevant if you are paying due care and driving lawfully as required. This intersection for example could be better, but it is not and was designed for a lot less traffic. Upgrades would be good but are not a priority as there is actually not a lot wrong with the intersection. We had 3 accidents at this intersection in one day due to inattention and not giving way (one very serious and we were first on scene and I spent 3hrs in the car looking after the trapped young fella, as he was pinned bad took us that long to get him out safely). 5 cars written off and 2 damaged, 4 people taken to hospital and one expected to spend 6 months in rehab. All because of complacency and one major contributing factor. I relate it tback to the swiss cheese theory.
We often see stories in the paper here where people claim to have been held up at crossings for 15 minutes. What BS, the longest we actually tie up a crossing is 3mins 30 seconds (obviously excepting failures, but that is rare on a crossing). People are so self absorbed in their life and their agendas they just can not be patient.

Three accidents in a day at the one intersection - all due to inattention! No contribution from the intersection design? But these same drivers presumably went through a lot of other intersections without any accidents in the same day? I suggest if accidents keep happenning in the one location, then the location must be a major factor in these accidents, and I seriously doubt that it is some magical influence that induces innattention, although it may be something about the design that makes dangers less obvious to drivers than normal.

On a similar subject of accident "causes", a quite common type of accident round here - car leaves road and hits tree, killing the teenage driver. It is probable that he (almost always "he") was travelling above the speed he was limited to as a red P plater. He is also slightly above the alcohol limit for a red P plater.

Now, is the major cause of this accident speed? Or drinking? Or inexperience? Or the law that required several cars to drive home instead of one? Or the tree a metre from the edge of a dirt road? Or the car going the other direction that was a bit late dipping? My point would be that there are multiple factors, at least two of which involve breaches of law, and assigning a single "cause" is misleading and does not help in increasing road safety.

Again, I have to stress that I am not in the slightest excusing stupid behaviour at level crossings or any other type of intersection (In over fifty years of driving the only intersection accident I have been involved in was when a car drove through a stop sign into the LH side of my car, without even slowing - and I accept it was partly my fault; I stopped, but not quite soon enough, as, knowing I had right of way, I was not driving slowly enough to stop for other traffic.)

Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.

John

[CraigE]

Three accidents in a day at the one intersection - all due to inattention! No contribution from the intersection design? But these same drivers presumably went through a lot of other intersections without any accidents in the same day? I suggest if accidents keep happenning in the one location, then the location must be a major factor in these accidents, and I seriously doubt that it is some magical influence that induces innattention, although it may be something about the design that makes dangers less obvious to drivers than normal.

On a similar subject of accident "causes", a quite common type of accident round here - car leaves road and hits tree, killing the teenage driver. It is probable that he (almost always "he") was travelling above the speed he was limited to as a red P plater. He is also slightly above the alcohol limit for a red P plater.

Now, is the major cause of this accident speed? Or drinking? Or inexperience? Or the law that required several cars to drive home instead of one? Or the tree a metre from the edge of a dirt road? Or the car going the other direction that was a bit late dipping? My point would be that there are multiple factors, at least two of which involve breaches of law, and assigning a single "cause" is misleading and does not help in increasing road safety.

Again, I have to stress that I am not in the slightest excusing stupid behaviour at level crossings or any other type of intersection (In over fifty years of driving the only intersection accident I have been involved in was when a car drove through a stop sign into the LH side of my car, without even slowing - and I accept it was partly my fault; I stopped, but not quite soon enough, as, knowing I had right of way, I was not driving slowly enough to stop for other traffic.)

Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.

John
John,
There is actually nothing wrong with the intersection itself, no different from hundreds of others. The biggest problem is traffic flow has increased dramatically and people just do not take due care. Three accidents in a day is unsual to say the least and I know operators that have worked the yard for 7 years and not seen one accident there. In my observation it is purely inattention at this one. People waving talking to each other, on mobile phones and not even looking at opposing traffic. Yes the intersection should be modified with the volume of traffic and preceding rail crossing to make it more capable of sustaining higher volumes of road and rail traffic, but as we live in the country the state govt and main roads do not care and are loath to spend the money. Now if it was in Perth.:wasntme: We watched one woman one morning nearly have 3 accidents in about 60 seconds. Firstly she parked on the rail line when we were getting ready to roll out a train, thenshe pulled forward waving to another car and chatting nearly hitting the car in front, then she went to pull out onto harbour road without checking and pulled half out in front of a road train. How she got to the shops I will never know.:eek: Very common to see people just not caring, running rail crossings, parking on the rail or no parking zone, running stops signs or not checking at the give way signs.
All of the accidents that day were from not giving way and one part inexperienced driver.
Oh and it was a full moon too.:o

[Davo]

I thought it was great that in Ontario, Canada, by law school buses have to come to a complete stop at any rail line, whether or not the lights are on or if you can see there's no train on the track at all.

[JDNSW]

I thought it was great that in Ontario, Canada, by law school buses have to come to a complete stop at any rail line, whether or not the lights are on or if you can see there's no train on the track at all.

I think that also applies in many states in the USA, but is, of course, a state law. I do remember while I was in Texas some years back, a school bus had stopped as required, then proceeded to the intersection just beyond the line, and was stopped by a red light there. The driver apparently failed to realise that the back of the bus was protruding into the crossing, and it was hit by a high speed train, with considerable loss of life. The crossing/ intersection layout in this case was clearly a contributor - the red light, or at least the stop line, should have been on the other side of the crossing.

John