A train driver's plea ( safety video )

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.

Can I get an OT number for watching that?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJon

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