Interesting idea. Can’t hurt!
My Garmin GPS unit does not show any railroads or the road crossings of the railroads.
What is the point of showing grade crossings on a map when drivers will be confronted with warning signs and systems right at the crossing? One might argue that the distraction of looking for grade crossings on maps might cause drivers to be less attentive and wary of the actual warning at the crossing. Instead of looking for trains, they will be checking Google.
The next step is to pipe the crossing warning system right into the vehicle through Google. Sarah Feinberg has not yet thought of that idea, but when somebody does, you can bet that she will be all for it. Then you will have drivers totally relying on Google to convey the warning because it will be old fashioned to watch for roadside warnings. Then Google will become a critical life or death link in the grade crossing warning systems.
My Garmin tells me when I’m entering school zones. It doesn’t confuse me, nor does it distract me from seeing the big school zone flashing lights. I fail to see how this would be much different. Well, at least for people that are using Google maps, I guess. Personally, I like Garmin, or Waze. But to each his own.
Hopefully they will have a routing option that will “Maximize RR Crossings” available so I can increase my train viewing on vacations J
About time: My Tom-Tom would turn a car onto a RR track every time at a crossiing near my home. Instead if it said turn R (L) cross RR then turn L (R). Note: parallel roads are only ~ 50 ft apart edge to edge. Another article.
"
Google Maps will map every railroad crossing in the US to keep drivers safe"
[(-D]
“Turn here”-- on to the railroad track. [(-D]
Why do it that way when it’s far more effective to use features in the car’s radio? There was a proposal in one of Nixon’s administrations to make FM radios so that they would turn on automatically and tune to an equivalent of ‘Civil Defense’ frequencies upon receiving an appropriate signal. This would have been an ideal way to implement a crossing warning – low-power FM transmitter, repeating warning, fires up one message at normal crossings and a nonmaskable one if a vehicle intrudes on the crossing somehow.
Now, of course, it’s even easier to implement - add a separate receiver or module, and require the feature to be built into new radios manufactured or added to American cars. Just the sort of thing Democrats love to mandate… and probably for less than the cost of implementing PTC systemwide.
zugmann,
I am talking about two different things. One is showing people where grade crossings are, and the other is to notify people when crossing warning systems activate. With the former, I fail to see the point. With the latter, I see the danger in shifting drivers wariness away from the crossing, and to rely on Google. If that happens, Google had better be as reliable as the active crossing protection systems at grade crossings.
Wizlish,
I understand your point, and agree that some type of in-vehicle grade crossing warning is inevitable. I have predicted such a feature as part of a much broader in-vehicle control that turns every road into a tollway and bills all highway costs in that way. It would also control and monitor driver performance, levy fines, etc. It would stop your vehicle at activated grade crossings. It probably could also be connected to passive crossings through PTC.
For the time being, however, I think a less formal system operating through Google or similar entity, would add danger rather than reduce it.
The unfortunate reality is that some folks already are checking their GPS unit in preference to looking out the windshield when approaching road intersections. Even if Google shows a railroad crossing those idiots will still not think to check and see if the warning system is operating.
If it was just themselves getting killed I would not grieve too much, but unfortunately their stupidity also kills and injures innocent people.
John
I can think of a few reasons. For example, setting a route that avoids any likelihood of having to wait for a train – or choosing destination options, like restaurants off a highway, where one couldn’t be potentially trapped. Some people drive low-slung cars, or don’t like to risk driving across potentially rough crossings. As mentioned – railfans are likely to make extensive use of a feature that shows positive crossing locations (and enables pins to be dropped to make them destinations, etc.)
We’ve had discussions about the benefits of showing active train movements (and alerts/warnings based on that display, including anticipated wait times or a ‘countdown’ to the last few seconds of ‘safe’ or legally-permitted crossing). There are serious security issues, and some potentially severe business issues, about providing much of the appropriate information. Some public services (ambulance and fire being two significant ones) have a real interest in knowing not only when a train is coming, but how long the crossing will be blocked. There would likely need to be a Federal mandate, and some kind of double-dereferenced data system,to make such a service practical. But identifying just the head end of a train has most of the important safety benefits.
My car has Sirus…it talks to you along with showing a map on the stereo screen…I would imagine it could be programed to say…“railroad crossing in 500 feet, stop and look both ways before proceeding”.
It tells me when I am 500 feet away from my destination, how far it is to my next turn so forth and so on so a verbal warning for crossing shouldn’t be that big a deal.
And a simple verbal suggestion might raise a drivers awarness just enough…
[:-,]Anything would be an improvement over the current FRA/DOT GIS system (Still the same sad joke, just now with a new wrapper and the same data integrity problems.)
As for the i-Zombies and DWO’s[:-,]
There was talk of incorporating in-car warning of emergency vehicles several years ago. And it was just talk - hasn’t happened yet…
Adding a “railroad crossing in 500 feet” verbal to GPS wouldn’t be all that difficult. Interfacing a warning with the actual crossing warning system poses problems, as already noted.
One must remember that some traffic lights at one time went to yellow both ways - from green to red and from red to green. Made for some interesting situations at ground zero as some drivers sped up to beat the red and others got an early start on the green…
I would opine that an interactive warning in the car might save lives, but might also cause some people to take extraordinary chances to beat the train. How far out would ones vehicle be able to “hear” the warning? I can easily picture some bozo running around the smart people who stopped for that gates/lights so he can get over the crossing before the train, all because he “knows” that it’s X seconds from when he gets the warning on his car radio until the train arrives. At least, he hopes it is.
The resolution of consumer-grade GPS is pretty good, but can have issues when roads run alongside the tracks - which is where I believe most of the “turned onto the tracks” incidents have occurred.
That would be fun (not) to listen to while crossing multiple tracks. It may get thrown out the window or worse. [(-D]
The advantage I can see is that the directions might say something like “Turn right beyond the railroad tracks” or something like that.
Just showing the tracks on the graphics might be helpful.
I do not own one of these, and have only seen them used once or twice, so I don’t know if these are useful enhancements or not.
Carl, I’m with you. I wonder if the improvement will show underpasses that are not high enough to clear an 18-wheeler.
So the reason that people pass the ringing bell and flashing lights then drive around the lowered gate is that they don’t realize it is a railroad crossing?
Now I understand how all those accidents happen.
It sounds to me like a plot by attorneys to be able to add Google to the list of defendants in accident lawsuits.
Leads me to think that there ought to be some additional graphic conventions in GPS-system displays. For one thing, instead of just showing grade crossings, the system might show all railroad crossings – with color coding (orange/red/blinking/etc.) showing various kinds of restriction – 14’ or less overhead, one-lane or restricted width (we have several underpasses here that go without adequate warning from 2 or 3 lanes down to one), twisty approaches…
I have thought for some time that there should be a feature in commercial GPS systems that would allow a driver to ‘input’ the size, weight, and type of vehicle, and have the system automatically ‘flag’ or route around any potential difficulties … and warn if the destination, or any part of the route to it, involves special driving skill. To make this work right, you would need a good (and quick!) updating from GIS systems, showing for example things like repaving projects that change effective overhead clearances, and very good conventions both in the graphics used for display and in the methods the GPS device uses to communicate routing to its users…
Hmmmm… wonder if there is an open-source project to program and provide something like this, or perhaps an add-on like the overlays for police radar traps and speed cameras…