Thread: A train driver's plea ( safety video )

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

All these excuses are bull****, wake up

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

Baz

Originally Posted by BigJon

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

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.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.

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

Originally Posted by BigJon

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 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model]Human error model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

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

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.

Originally Posted by BigJo[COLOR="SandyBrown"

[/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