Originally Posted by
JDNSW
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