Level crossing stupidity...

[Hobby]

Just trying to be helpful and point out a potential pitfall. I won't bother in the future. 

[johnofwessex]

9 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

I'd be very careful if you are speaking to a Czech/Slovak person if you say that as their word for "yes" is "ano" and I speak from experience that "ano" and "no" are very easily confused!

 

I had a similar experience in Poland.

 

In Polish signal is always 'Semaphore' Whistle is usually 'Pipo' BUT it can be signal.

 

When my Polish trainer said 'Signal' instead of 'Pipo' the response wasnt what he expected.  Thereafter the Polish crews were warned always to use Pipo for Whistle never Signal

[JDW]

I agree we (or rather, you) have to rely on them being able to understand English - I think that some very basic words like yes or no should be the minimum if venturing somewhere as a professional driver, even if you have no grasp of the actual language. I would say though that although you have to communicate in a set way, and although they must make an effort to understand, sometimes it can be as important to understand why the other person doesn't understand or what the potential misunderstanding on their part could be. You will still have to say no and make them understand, but realising what they could understand can sometimes help you understand the potential misunderstanding (sorry, does that make sense?!) and help you to phrase, re-phase or repeat things in a way that makes them clearer. I'd like to think, though, that since English is a major world language, even the worst speaker would understand "No!" but you never know!

 

As an aside, I used to work on the buses, and having lived and worked abroad had a lot of sympathy for our (mainly) Polish trainees when they were learning with me, and would be careful to avoid colloquialisms etc to make it easier for them. I remember one day, with a trainee driving, we were approaching a set of bus stops in the city centre, and I told the trainee (who spoke good English) to 'stop behind that bus' (pointing to the one just in front). Now, to most of us here, you'd have understood instinctively and stopped 'behind' it, like in a queue of traffic. But he misunderstood 'behind' as in the same as 'behind that wall' to mean 'at the other side of' so overtook and pulled in in front. I was confused at first, it took a few seconds of conversation to realise the misunderstanding. Sometimes even what we think should be the clearest of phrases can be unclear. In any other case, he would have been right, but specifically when talking about vehicles, 'behind' in that context relative to the ends of the vehicle (at the back of) meant what we would call 'in front of' in another context. Seems daft to us but for a non-native speaker its a totally logical way to understand what I'd said. In that case, there was no harm done, but we both learnt something from it.

Another great example of the same thing meaning the opposite is "to go off". If "the alarm went off at 3am", did the alarm start to sound at 3am, or did it switch off at 3am? Usually obvious, but the nuances aren't always there for a non-native speaker.

Anyways, back to level crossings, sorry!

[Dagworth]

 

[kevinlms]

11 hours ago, Dagworth said:

 

That is scary. It's going to be a while before vehicles can be without a driver.

Which means those under age, or lost licences won't be able to go out on their own.

 

How boring is it going to be just sitting in the drivers seat, just in case it makes a stupid decision?

Edited April 28, 2021 by kevinlms
More info

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

That is scary. It's going to be a while before vehicles can be without a driver.

Which means those under age, or lost licences won't be able to go out on their own.

It doesn't stop them now.

[PaulRhB]

18 hours ago, Hobby said:

Just trying to be helpful and point out a potential pitfall. I won't bother in the future. 

It’s a simple fact we have to stick to set words or if there is an incident you become liable. If the person on the phone cannot speak English it’s not feasible to try and work out what they are speaking and the potential of mispronunciation of words is more of an issue if we mangled it. 
The onus is on the user to communicate in our language as they are here, the same as it would be for us abroad. Like I said above when someone does call in and you can’t communicate the safe solution is to caution the next train. That’s far safer than trying to know what is Lithuanian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, German etc mangling their language and getting them hurt and a train also in danger. 
That method works very well with a variety of language abilities and while I can speak bits of two other European languages I’ve never used them although I have heard the accents. 
 

[phil-b259]

19 hours ago, Hobby said:

Just trying to be helpful and point out a potential pitfall. I won't bother in the future. 

 

You rather miss the point.

 

In a court of law a Judge will expect any safety critical communication to be performed in ENGLISH. If other languages were expected to be used then signallers would require to be trained and assessed as competent in the relevant language (This is exactly what happens on Eurotunnel and with Eurostar)

 

As such any signaller trying take the initiative could well become unstuck and found to be culpable by not using the approved communication protocols.

 

So while your observation of how 'No' can be perceived as 'yes' by a Czech speaker is interesting, it makes no difference to the wording signallers should be using when denying permission to cross regardless of the nationality of the user - particularly as occupation crossings are restricted to authorised users (who can be instructed on said protocols) plus its entirely reasonable to expect that persons being employed in the UK (delivery drivers) to be able to speak the English language.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by phil-b259

[kevinlms]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You rather miss the point.

 

In a court of law a Judge will expect any safety critical communication to be performed in ENGLISH. If other languages were expected to be used then signallers would require to be trained and assessed as competent (This is exactly what happens on Eurotunnel and with Eurostar)

 

As such any signaller trying take the initiative could well become unstuck and found to be culpable by not using the approved communication protocols.

 

So while your observation of how 'No' can be perceived as 'yes' by a Czech speaker is interesting, it makes no difference to the wording signallers should be using when denying permission to cross regardless of the nationality of the user.

 

 

 

Indeed the same expectation would apply in any country, to have critical information discussed in the 'home' official language.

Presumably countries with more than one official language, i.e. Canada with English & French, that information ought to be communicated in either. Although it is reasonable in the western Provinces to speak in English first, but in Quebec, probably better to speak French first.

 

A major exception is the aviation industry, where pilots & Air Traffic Control MUST communicate with each other in ENGLISH.

[Hobby]

But surely safety is all about a continuous learning curve where safety procedures develops over time, that's the way Railway Safety has developed anyhow. Decades ago East European workers were unheard of in the UK so our safety procedures were based around that premise, things have changed and such changes should be reflected in our future thinking.

 

It's clear that I'm on my own on this, I thought that at least NR would be considering such developments but it would seem not and as you are both coming across as defensive rather than taking it as a possible learning point (which is the way I intended it) and perhaps feeding back into the system, I shall bow out gracefully!

Edited April 28, 2021 by Hobby

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Hobby said:

But surely safety is all about a continuous learning curve where safety procedures develops over time, that's the way Railway Safety has developed anyhow. Decades ago East European workers were unheard of in the UK so our safety procedures were based around that premise, things have changed and such changes should be reflected in our future thinking.

 

It's clear that I'm on my own on this, I thought that at least NR would be considering such developments but it would seem not and as you are both coming across as defensive rather than taking it as a possible learning point (which is the way I intended it) and perhaps feeding back into the system, even if nothing comes of it at least it would be highlighted.

 

This where international standard non-text signage should come in. IKEA can do it!

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This where international standard non-text signage should come in. IKEA can do it!

But a level crossing site with pictures of Allen keys and cross head screws isn't going to be very useful............

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, Hobby said:

But surely safety is all about a continuous learning curve where safety procedures develops over time, that's the way Railway Safety has developed anyhow. Decades ago East European workers were unheard of in the UK so our safety procedures were based around that premise, things have changed and such changes should be reflected in our future thinking.

 

It's clear that I'm on my own on this, I thought that at least NR would be considering such developments but it would seem not and as you are both coming across as defensive rather than taking it as a possible learning point (which is the way I intended it) and perhaps feeding back into the system, even if nothing comes of it at least it would be highlighted.

While you might be correct in that the world is more 'international', the practicability is that in Britain the dominant language is English and all discussion by default is going to be English first, for a very long time - generations.

 

How much time is a Signaller going to spend, attempting to find out what language a person speaks - when maybe the answer is none?

 

Somehow a non English speaking person, has to initiate a conversation in such a way to understand English.

In this day and age, it's not impossible for them to call up an interpreter service, or a language app.

 

Besides, British has left Europe!

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

But a level crossing site with pictures of Allen keys and cross head screws isn't going to be very useful............

No, that's to build a set of gates, not to use them!

[iands]

11 minutes ago, Hobby said:

But surely safety is all about a continuous learning curve where safety procedures develops over time, that's the way Railway Safety has developed anyhow. Decades ago East European workers were unheard of in the UK so our safety procedures were based around that premise, things have changed and such changes should be reflected in our future thinking.

 

It's clear that I'm on my own on this, I thought that at least NR would be considering such developments but it would seem not and as you are both coming across as defensive rather than taking it as a possible learning point (which is the way I intended it) and perhaps feeding back into the system, I shall bow out gracefully!

Please don't take this as a criticism, but how many languages do you think a signaller should be able to understand, and be understood in? Yes I understand your concern and commend your foresight, but until there is one universal worldwide language spoken by everyone its just not practical for any signaller to understand the example you quoted, or any other similar sounding words from many other languages that could be misheard/misunderstood that could lead to an incident. 

[martin_wynne]

Could the signaller not press a button to send a pre-recorded message? In a variety of languages? Presumably there are only a few standard responses to a call from a user-crossing. Say 6 buttons - yes, no, ring again in 5 minutes, ....

 

Martin.

Edited April 28, 2021 by martin_wynne
typo

[96701]

1 minute ago, martin_wynne said:

Could the signaller not press a button to send a pre-recorded message? In a variety of languages? Presumably there are only a few standard responses to a call from a user-crossing. Say 6 buttons.

 

Martin.

To put it simply, no.

[Hobby]

I was simply pointing out that times change and if necessary so should safety procedures. OK in this case there may not be any reason to make a change, but such changes in Society still needs to be considered, not dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or not workable, especially as we on here are not the right people to make such decisions.

 

I'm sorry I even bothered.

[kevinlms]

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Could the signaller not press a button to send a pre-recorded message? In a variety of languages? Presumably there are only a few standard responses to a call from a user-crossing. Say 6 buttons.

 

Martin.

How many, which order and how do you stop it once you've heard the bit relevant to you? Note heard is not the same as understood!

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, Hobby said:

But surely safety is all about a continuous learning curve where safety procedures develops over time, that's the way Railway Safety has developed anyhow. Decades ago East European workers were unheard of in the UK so our safety procedures were based around that premise, things have changed and such changes should be reflected in our future thinking.

 

It's clear that I'm on my own on this, I thought that at least NR would be considering such developments but it would seem not and as you are both coming across as defensive rather than taking it as a possible learning point (which is the way I intended it) and perhaps feeding back into the system, I shall bow out gracefully!

 

Network Rail is regulated by UK law and UK Judges.

 

Level crossings are a particular bugbear as they involve the public - and consequently it becomes imperative that Government rules in dealing with the public are followed.

 

Please remember that if a fatality occurs then the first thing the ORR will expect is that the tapes get pulled and if the communication is found not to be in accordance with the published protocols then the signaller can easily end up in court being prosecuted for that.

 

It doesn't matter how well intentioned the signaller is - deviation from the approved script is viewed as negligence or a departure from 'best practice' and thus opens all sorts of avenues for legal point scoring.

 

If you wish things to be different then you are going after the wrong people - you need to convince the legal industry that going contrary to 'approved' communications actually has a benefit.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by phil-b259

[martin_wynne]

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

deviation from the approved script

 

If it's an approved script, it can be a pre-recorded message.

 

Martin.

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I was simply pointing out that times change and if necessary so should safety procedures. OK in this case there may not be any reason to make a change, but such changes in Society still needs to be considered, not dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or not workable, especially as we on here are not the right people to make such decisions.

 

I'm sorry I even bothered.

 

You need to appreciate that safety critical communications at level crossings have LEGAL STANDING. They are not the same as informal instructions or conversations between mates.

 

The LAW mandates that English is the only language which must be used.

 

Any changes, as desirable as they might be (and I do see they might be beneficial)  will need to come from the Government by way of official DfT regulations which will stand up to cross examination in a court of law.

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, Hobby said:

I was simply pointing out that times change and if necessary so should safety procedures. OK in this case there may not be any reason to make a change, but such changes in Society still needs to be considered, not dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or not workable, especially as we on here are not the right people to make such decisions.

 

I'm sorry I even bothered.

Don't be sorry you bothered. It's always interesting to hear views.

 

But in this case, I don't know how practical it is to understand a wide variety of languages. And so far the discussion has only been for European languages.

 

I know many tourist attraction places in Australia, have problems reminding overseas drivers once they've finished and drive off, that we drive on the LEFT! This I suspect is more of an issue than an occasionally used level crossing.

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I was simply pointing out that times change and if necessary so should safety procedures. OK in this case there may not be any reason to make a change, but such changes in Society still needs to be considered, not dismissed out of hand as irrelevant or not workable, especially as we on here are not the right people to make such decisions.

 

I'm sorry I even bothered.

I think people are getting a little entrenched here.

 

Personally (and from an entirely random member of the public outside the industry perspective) I believe there should be no expectation for a signaller to know anything other than English, and it's certainly not an area for trying to innovate alternatives that might well be misunderstood.

 

On the other hand if there's some bit of information that the signaller knows that might correctly lead them to believe their message has been misunderstood that's all well and good, not that it should be expected that they have it, or should use it in any more of a context than satisfying themselves that the person on the other end of the phone understands.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

You need to appreciate that safety critical communications at level crossings have LEGAL STANDING. They are not the same as informal instructions or conversations between mates.

 

The LAW mandates that English is the only language which must be used.

 

Any changes, as desirable as they might be (and I do see they might be beneficial)  will need to come from the Government by way of official DfT regulations which will stand up to cross examination in a court of law.

 

Which is tantamount to saying that a sufficient command of English is a legal requirement to be permitted to use the crossing. How is that to be communicated?

 

I assume that in Wales, Welsh has the same standing as English for this purpose?

Edited April 28, 2021 by Compound2632
Inadequate command of my native language.