Dangerous Ideas

[coborn35]

[quote user=“Bucyrus”]

I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal.

The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals.

The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings.

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus:

It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service. Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.

But that doesn’t that set up a dangerous precedent? From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not. So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won’t people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)?

For me, this isn’t a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle.

Well yes I think that, as you say, flagging inoperative signalized crossings would cause drivers to lower their guard if they became accustomed to the flagging and the might begin to extend this reduced wariness to passive crossings.<

[schlimm]

Well I got hit in broad daylight yesterday while flagging a crossing so there goes your logic. You cant fix stupid. If someone is dumb enough to not see the huge train going by, feel the vibration, hear the noise or see the numerous reflective stripes going by, well, thats not the railroads fault. People commenting here have never flagged a crossing before. Standing outside while a 15 mph drag comes through with 150 cars in the middle of the night? With *** of people in cars? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for disaster. Crew vans are already stretched thin as it is, this would just be another waste of their time.

That’s a good point, and of course, you can’t really fix reckless [saw a guy try to turn a 90 degree corner at 50+ : wiped out, flipped a 360 and kept going]. Maybe the safer answer would be to carry some device that could be placed there that gives of a lot of flashing lights of differing colors - like police or firetruck flashers? Then retrieve it after?

[zugmann]

If there is increased awareness at passive crossings - maybe we should start tearing out the gates and lights?

I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard. You flag the head end of a train because it isn’t occupying the crossing. I get that. But once it occupies the crossing - shouldn’t it become an issue of a driver paying enough attention that he doesn’t crash into stuff? If someone hits the side of a train at a marked crossing - you really think someone waving their little lantern is going to do anything?

Hope you’re OK Coburn. You have a great point - some of those that don’t get to play in traffic underestimate the risks.

[Anonymous]

[quote user=“coborn35”]

Bucyrus:

I believe that a train stopped on a signalized crossing where the signals have either failed to activate or have been taken out of service is far more likely to get run into than a train stopped on a non-signalized crossing, all other things being equal.

The reason being that many of the drivers would be familiar with the crossing, and would be less cautious when approaching a crossing that they believe is protected by automatic signals.

The fact that the railroad company requires crews to flag crossings with signals that have been taken out of service is a sure indication that they realize that such a crossing cannot be treated like just any other non-signalized crossing. So the flagging rule is an acknowledgement that drivers will lower their guard and rely on the signals at signalized crossings.

[schlimm]

Around here, sometimes when a traffic light at a busy intersection is out, the police will park with flashers on and manually direct the traffic. Might be dangerous, I suppose, but it works. And that does not lead to more disregarding of the light when it is back in operation. The key element is that it is rare.

[Anonymous]

I touched upon this in the other thread. We think we are making something less dangerous, and we end up making it MORE dangerous since it allows people to lower their guard.

Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly.

It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.

[zugmann]

Yes there is an unintended consequence to adding a safety measure that arises from the safety measure making the user less careful because he or she relies on the safety measure. Somebody invented a table saw on which you can touch the spinning blade and it stops instantly. It stops so fast that it causes lots of damage to the saw, but it won’t cut you. But even if the cost were no higher than a conventional table saw, I am not so sure I would want to become habituated to the safety saw. Lowering you guard and relying on the safety saw, might lead to getting your fingers cut off in the jointer.

So why would someone become habitual to crossing lights (or other crossing lights)? Even worse than losing a finger or two…

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus:

So why would someone become habitual to crossing lights (or other crossing lights)? Even worse than losing a finger or two…

Well I am just saying that I have a choice whether or not to buy and use that safety saw. It could save my fingers, that I would have otherwise accidentially cut off. But it could also lull me into a false security that could cause me to lose fingers that I would have otherwise retained by being more careful.

For better or worse, I see the crossing lights as having that same potential unintended consequence. But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.

With the saw, the greatest danger would be to get used to it, become less careful, and then have an accident with an unprotected saw or other power equipment.

[zugmann]

But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.

So, don’t let your guard down. Same thing with the saw…

Safeguards are there to assist; but should never be relied upon.

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus:

But for that to happen, you have to have a failure to activate on top of just letting your guard down.

So, don’t let your guard down. Same thing with the saw…

Safeguards are there to assist; but should never be relied upon.

That is true, but it runs against human nature. Keeping yourself on guard is work. So machine guards and other safety devices can sometimes be labor savers as well as protectors from harm. No use being vigilant of you don’t have to.

[edblysard]

Its called “SawStop” and it stops the blade in 5 milliseconds.

Also drops the blade beneath the table surface.

Destroys the blade, so your cost is the blade and the brake cartridge.

Beats the cost of having a finger sewn back on by several thousand dollar.

The technology was originally offered to Rockwell Delta for their Unisaw, but they refused because they though it indicated their saw was unsafe.

Their thinking was that by having a brake on the blade people would think the saw too dangerous to use…like any tool, used incorrectly it is dangerous.

And any woodworker will tell you this…“it isn’t a matter of if I cut myself, but only a matter of when”.

Sawstop now manufactures the entire saw themselves, and it sells quite well.

The reason I bring it up is this.

Last year, a “armature” inexperienced wood worker sued Ryobi because he managed to cut off a fore finger and mangle his thumb badly.

His contention was that, because the technology to prevent his accident was out there in the form of the SawStop, Ryobi had a duty to install this technology or one like it on their saws, and had they done so, his accident would have been prevented.

Fact of the case are pretty simply.

His had never used a table saw before, he hired out as a sub contractor installing wood flooring.

His employer showed him how to use the saw, the miter gauge, the rip fence and in his words, “trained me” for a day or so before letting him work solo.

The saw was a small, table top portable version.

The man needed a small section of flooring ripped to width, so, with the saw on the floor at a bad height to use and with out the rip fence in place, and with the blade raised all the way to its full height, he tried to freehand rip a piece of oak flooring.

The wood bound up, he tried to force it through the blade, slipped and shoved his hand into the blade.

Any wood worker with any experience will shudder at the

[schlimm]

Although it is a great story, and very instructive, it really is a bit of a stretch as an analogy to the rail crossing controversy, since the latter involves safety in a public setting. I also have some concerns about how widespread the negative sentiments concerning our legal system have become. I also wonder what railroad employees think about the safety devices you use in your daily work, which have a long history, in some cases (air brakes, the Janney coupler, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Ed,

I can certainly see the advantage of a table saw that can’t cut the operator. But I can also see the unintended consequence of this safe saw causing an injury that would not have happened otherwise. If all power tools had this technology as a standard requirement, I suppose wood workers would all be better off.

<

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

Here is a little more recent news on the double run-into-train crash in Chicago. I don’t see much sympathy for the position that the drivers were at fault for not seeing the tank cars. Most interesting is the article comment-assumption that the car headlights failed to illuminate the reflectors:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-15/news/ct-met-car-train-crash-20110214_1_freight-train-gates-and-warning-devices-warren-flatau

One of the victims does say that there were no flares burning.

[Anonymous]

In regard to unintended consequences, I believe that the nationwide push to add yield signs to non-signalized crossings will increase the crash rate rather than reduce it. Because a yield is perceived to be the most permissive of traffic control signs, it will deemphasize the gravity of the crossbuck in the minds of most drivers.

As I mentioned, recent studies have shown that most drivers do not know that a crossbuck means yield, so there is a nationwide push to add yield signs to all non-signalized crossings. Yet, while relatively few drivers realize that a crossbuck means yield, nearly all drivers believe that a crossbuck means you should stop for a train. From a practical standpoint, what is the difference between these two interpretations? I don’t see any.

Here is an interesting discussion among traffic control people about adding yield signs to grade crossings.

[Convicted_One]

I don’t see much sympathy for the position that the drivers were at fault for not seeing the tank cars.

Officials said that the absence of a functioning rail-crossing warning system was a key factor contributing to the crashes.

Investigators will examine why the headlights of the automobiles did not illuminate the reflective strips on the tankers, officials said.

I think this is the slippery slope that the FRA has headed the railroad industry into with their reflector mandate.

Isn’t it human nature to assign added significance to the perspective that one prefers, personally?

Those preferring the railroad’s position will never want to get up off of their convictions that if the car had yielded as required, the collision would ne

[schlimm]

Very true. Those folks on whose turf the accidents happen will naturally blame the “intruder,” no matter what the specific situation might be, as above with the black tankers. And the intruders will blame the owner/workers. So you have gridlock, with lots of insults flying in each direction. Even seeking solutions to reduce the potential for accidents is rejected as unnecessary and too expensive. Lots of smoke, not much light.

[Convicted_One]

I think there is an aspect to it where the argument is “OK, but the railroad is professional, so they are expected to know what they are doing, and since they routinely cross public highways,… they understand the special risks they present …MORE SO than your average dumb cluck behind the steering wheel.”

it’s not at all a matter of who sinned first, it’s a matter of who sinned worst.