Level crossing stupidity...

[martin_wynne]

This always is the case. It goes along with the mentality that seems to say "never speak ill of the dead". Whoever it is is always presented as a perfect little angel who has never done anything wrong.

 

I think you are being unduly harsh. It is actually "never speak ill of the recently dead". Whatever you think of the person who has died, they will have friends and family who are in distress. As fellow human beings they deserve some support and consideration. The time for an honest appraisal of the dead is when the wound of their death has healed.

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

 

I think you are being unduly harsh. It is actually "never speak ill of the recently dead". Whatever you think of the person who has died, they will have friends and family who are in distress. As fellow human beings they deserve some support and consideration. The time for an honest appraisal of the dead is when the wound of their death has healed.

 

Martin.

I did select my words carefully. So, I am going to disagree. The immediate family do deserve some support but that should not be at the expense of a honest appraisal of the dead. In many cases, especially in the case of children, it really goes overboard with the expressions of "angel virtues. I am certainly NOT in favour of pointing out the badness in the deceased (though the press seem to think it fair game with some adults) just say it like it is. Unfortunately for some they cannot pass through the grieving process.

 

Like everything in life, there are degrees. The example given above is different from that of a motorist jumping barriers. The ages, assumed level of intelligence, competence and common sense, parental supervision/education/training, all play a part.

[faulcon1]

I have loads of compassion for the families that are left behind when someone takes their life. They may feel responsible for their loved ones demise. But when a person suicides by involving a total stranger (train driver) I have no compassion for that person whatsoever. That's an extremely selfish self centered act in which ones knows that they don't give a toss about anyone but themselves.

But for people who behave like idiots at level crossings IMHO they get what they deserve. But the media trots out their bleeding heart rhetoric that the person was a pillar of the community, liked by all who knew them, had a wide circle of friends, good to animals etc. Yet their families and the ones they effect by their selfish actions are often forgotten about.    

[jjb1970]

I think the very reason we are all so cross at level crossing stupidity is exactly because of the impact it has on railway staff (not just drivers either, conductors can be badly affected and somebody has to clean the remains off the train) and the families of the deceased. I have a colleague at work whose son committed suicide (not on the railway thankfully) and it destroyed the family and left both parents hollowed out shells. I don't think they'll ever get over it. Now that is suicide, and level crossing stupidity and suicide are two very different things but either way we should remember that the families of the deceased do suffer hugely and deserve our sympathy just as much as railway workers who should not have to go through such trauma.

[The Stationmaster]

Having seen the aftermath of a couple of suicides on the railway I long ago came to the conclusion that those who do such a thing have advanced to a mental sate far beyond normal reasoning as it is a particularly nasty  (and presumably, at the last moment, very frightening) way of ending one's life.  Clearly people who are in that state are so far into their own thoughts and depression that they have no understanding of what their action might mean for others - to them a train is exactly that, a means to an end and they won't even think of a human being driving it or the unlucky s*ds who come along afterwards searching for the bits and chucking them into plastic sacks. It is not nice, it is far from pleasant, but in a way it is understandable and something which needs to be addressed with compassion.

 

That is very different from an impatient, ignorant, aggressive or downright stupid person driving a motor vehicle thoughtlessly and in a manner which can result in their death or the death and injury of others.  The wife of a former colleague was killed by the actions (or was it inaction) of just such a small minded inconsiderate person ignoring road traffic signals at a level crossing and I hold such people in little more than contempt, tinged with occasional pity for their inadequacies.

[Arthur]

 

Totally agree MIke. We had a friend who suffered from bouts of severe depression and committed suicide (not in a way that involved others) four years ago. She left behind a husband and two great sons, both just embarking on good careers, one engaged to be married.

 

People in that state of mind do not think of the impact of their actions on others, even those dearest to them. Just hope that it never affects you or those dearest to you.

[Reorte]

Being someone who goes through bouts of depression (for what I still regard as valid reasons, but anyway, and not to suicidal levels) all I can say is that someone in that state will realise the effect that it'll have but they're beyond caring. As has been mentioned that's different from plain outright stupidity.

[Reorte]

Then you're probably just in an ordinary bad mood or annoyed, not depressed.

[96701]

My belief is that when one feels so nihilistic that nothing matters, then nothing matters. Ones actions then are inconsiderate of others because nothing matters. That is where the the sympathy of others might be useful.

 

Then in the terms of colliding with trains at level crossings, there might be occasions when distractions lead to accidents. That to me isn't stupidity. 

[bodmin16]

Then in the terms of colliding with trains at level crossings, there might be occasions when distractions lead to accidents. That to me isn't stupidity.

 

There have been a number such incidents and one only has to read the RAIB reports to find them, and of course any incident (some high profile) is only a combination of circumstances including timing, protection, behaviours, interpretation etc etc. Edited May 3, 2015 by bodmin16

[jjb1970]

I think it is a fair point that there is a tendency to assume all crossing incidents are the result of stupidity when that is not the case. As with all thinks, blanket generalisations are dangerous things.

[bodmin16]

 

This always is the case. It goes along with the mentality that seems to say "never speak ill of the dead". Whoever it is is always presented as a perfect little angel who has never done anything wrong. I will never condone a death being presented in an overtly bad light or libelously, But I don't like the way the dead are made out to be god-like. Why cannot it just be annouced with honestly, the good and the not so good? A death can be tragic, it can be sudden or prolonged, it can be unexpected and unpredictable but is innevitable.

 

Taking one's own life doesn't necessarily make a person bad or nasty or selfish or whatever. I am aware of a number of people who have decided that they no longer wished to stay. Two in particular that I have been involved with were lovely people, one lent money to friends was always on hand to help others, was loving, selfless, didn't drink or take drugs, was in full time employment and came from a loving caring family, who had no idea that they were ill in any way or intended to end their life. The other was in similar circumstances but had a history of mental illness. Both had loads of friends and family around them and are very much missed. Other persons were affected by their final acts. Did they consider this? Probably not if they were in such dark places and that does not make them selfish! I suggest a psychologist or psychiatrist is best qualified to give detailed explanations as to why people,act the way they do.

 

And before any debate ensues, I am acutely aware that people have different levels of good and bad - I guess the message is don't make sweeping statements and generalisations!

 

Can we get back to level crossings now. Thanks.

[JeremyC]

 

They would not be chatting to other occupants (careless driving) and the internal mapping system will have the crossing identified. Radar might pick up the approaching train, audible sensors "ears" listen for the klaxon/bells, visual sensors "eyes" will see the flashing lights. The average human has 2 out of 3 of those - only the really stupid attempt to drive with them both impaired. There is NO valid excuse here for poor driving. There never is - even on an open road. People forget they have a responsibility of competence when they get behind the wheel of any vehicle. Sadly there are far too many drivers out there who do not meet the basic requirements.

If you believe it is impossible for competent drivers to miss all the warning signs then it appears you are wrong. A driver doesn't need to be stupid, inattentive etc. They just need to possess a normal human mind. If anyone finds this hard to believe they should read a book called 'The Invisible Gorilla' by Christopher Chabris and Daniel J. Simons. Its an interesting read; as well as covering why people miss obvious things (apparently due to the way the mind works) it also discusses, among many other topics, why eye witnesses are often wrong and why you shouldn't always believe the most confident speaker.

Jeremy

Edited May 3, 2015 by JeremyC

[The Stationmaster]

If you believe it is impossible for competent drivers to miss all the warning signs then it appears you are wrong. A driver doesn't need to be stupid, inattentive etc. They just need to possess a normal human mind. If anyone finds this hard to believe they should read a book called 'The Invisible Gorilla' by Christopher Chabris and Daniel J. Simons. Its an interesting read; as well as covering why people miss obvious things (apparently due to the way the mind works) it also discusses, among many other topics, why eye witnesses are often wrong and why you shouldn't always believe the most confident speaker.

Jeremy

I'm not sure if it always works like that.  The AOC(L) crossing near us - which has had barriers added - was one of the worst on BR for misuse/abuse at one time but those doing so, including those who were hit by a train, were almost all local people.  they knew full well the crossing was there, you'd have to be blind to miss the batteries of red lights on both sides of the crossing and road approach speeds are invariably low because of the road layout with junction fairly near on both sides.  At one stage a twit wrote to the local paper complaining that the problem was that in one direction you couldn't see a train coming - leaving me wondering what he thought the red lights were advertising.

 

Some months back the crossing was provided with more prominent monitoring cameras and there was a a deluge of complaints saying they were intrusive, erected without Planning Permission, not on railway land and every other excuse you could think of  (the cameras are of course correctly and absolutely legally sited, nor are they visually obtrusive).  In view of the crossing's safety record one wonders why the locals don't want the cameras there - probably a  consequence of seeing some of the film (in which some of them had a starring role) from an earlier rather discreetly hidden camera.

 

And of course the facts of many crossing incidents are that they involve local people who know where the crossing is - and are just impatient (and some of the stuff in RAIB reports is, regrettably, inaccurate - as a past HMRI made very clear to the Parliamentary Inquiry on the subject).

Edited May 3, 2015 by The Stationmaster

[trisonic]

Sorry but I think that if you covered the Gorilla in flashing lights with a warning sign implying that there were in fact Gorilla’s about - everyone would see him. Those results rely on not telling subjects to look out for any Gorillas.

 

Best, Pete.

Edit: Sorry crossed with Mike’s reply...

Edited May 3, 2015 by trisonic

[Kenton]

I don't think that someone who is suicidal thinks only of themselves, neither do they analyse with any degree of reason the impact on others. If curing the suicidal was simply a matter of telling them to "snap out of it" or "think of the impact of your actions on others" then there would be no more suicides. Depression comes in a wide range of mental states and as a condition it certainly does not mean suicidal. Most people experience depression in some form or other during their lives and some are more prone to it or more able to cope than others. Events that can trigger such episodes can vary from the obvious and understandable (perhaps loss of a job; loss of a loved one, a devastating medical condition) to the mundane and inexplicable (loss of a bet, inability to socialise, bad exam results) it is wide ranging. Thankfully, most of us have the ability to cope and pass through it as a part of life. To others, it can devastate their lives. To a few they see no possible resolution.

 

I don't suffer. Hopefully never will, but who can foresee the future. But mental illness needs respect, as we know not when we might tread that path.

[Reorte]

The "everyone makes mistakes, even of the blindingly obvious" line is true up to a point, I'm sure we all do and there's a degree of luck that means that for most of us we'll never miss something or make a mistake at just the wrong place and time for a disaster to happen. But part of good driving is vastly reducing the chances of those misses or mistakes happening at such a time. You know there's a level crossing coming up, you are (or should be) concentrating harder than normal so you're less likely to miss things, paying more attention to what's around you, just as when you're overtaking something you'll be checking the traffic around you more than normal.

 

With the vast number of vehicles on the road even very unlikely events are going to happen occasionally but I can't believe that they could account for anything other than a small fraction of level crossing incidents. What does, however, seem to be quite common is worrying ignorance like the aforementioned complaint of "can't see the train coming in one direction." If there are enough people like that, well... Incidentally I wouldn't like the cameras being there either, a more monitored world like that is precisely the sort of thing that makes me depressed, and if it wasn't for the behaviour of some people then there wouldn't even be any thought given to putting them up - and it's not the sort of measure that'll do anything about genuine errors either, only with people who know that they're chancing it. Mind you I don't see how cameras can be both prominent and not visually intrusive.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Reorte

[JeremyC]

Sorry but I think that if you covered the Gorilla in flashing lights with a warning sign implying that there were in fact Gorilla’s about - everyone would see him. Those results rely on not telling subjects to look out for any Gorillas.

 

Best, Pete.

Edit: Sorry crossed with Mike’s reply...

The book covers more than the gorilla experiment and it's actually another part of the book I was referring to. My understanding is it's to do with expectation. You really need to read the book to get the whole explanation. The situation the book explores is simulator tests on pilots being presented with a runway incursion when landing; over 50% of pilots missed seeing the other aircraft. After extra training they would spot the incursion, but worryingly if they didn't encounter the situation again for a period their chances of spotting it would revert to its original level. This would suggest that most drivers who miss the lights on a level crossing either use them infrequenty or rarely find them closed. It might explain something in accident reports from the days before AWS where there are references to drivers passing signals at danger then swearing they were clear and it being noted the driver had never been checked at that signal before. They 'saw' what they expected to see.

Worryingly it would appear the mind has an almost suicidal ability to dismiss evidence that conflicts with its expectations.

Edited May 3, 2015 by JeremyC

[martin_wynne]

A few days ago I drove across a level crossing which I am very familiar with and have used many times.

 

Two seconds after crossing it I realised that I couldn't remember whether the lights had been flashing, and hastily looked in my mirror to check. They weren't.

 

Should I give up driving?

 

I am firmly convinced that a green light when it is safe to cross, rather than an absence of lights, would be a much safer arrangement and more in keeping with most driver's expectations.

 

Martin.

[ZiderHead]

It does seem odd that railway/airfield crossing traffic control lights are different to those used everywhere else on the road network. 

Edited May 3, 2015 by ZiderHead

[Reorte]

A few days ago I drove across a level crossing which I am very familiar with and have used many times.

 

Two seconds after crossing it I realised that I couldn't remember whether the lights had been flashing, and hastily looked in my mirror to check. They weren't.

 

Should I give up driving?

 

I am firmly convinced that a green light when it is safe to cross, rather than an absence of lights, would be a much safer arrangement and more in keeping with most driver's expectations.

It's alarming when that sort of thing happens but I very much doubt that it means that you hadn't been paying attention, you just hadn't remembered it. This seems more likely to happen with routine thigns (have I locked the front door?) If the lights had been flashing I'm sure that you would've seen them and stopped.

 

The green light idea sounds good.

 

It does seem odd that railway/airfield crossing traffic control lights are different to those used everywhere else on the road network. 

They don't mean quite the same thing, they've got even more force than ordinary traffic lights, and flashing makes them stand out better too. I wouldn't like them to be the same for that reason, but having a positive aspect to them as well as a negative one may help, since the absence of it when the crossing is closed could make the message stronger.

[jjb1970]

Ergonomics and human factors is an essential part of good system design. Human beings are fallible and it has been recognised for decades that even very highly trained, competent people are liable to make errors which in hindsight appear to be inexplicable. I once investigated an incident involving multiple fatalities which was caused by operating a certain piece of high voltage apparatus in a way which was explained by most as being Darwinism in action and clearly the work of an idiot. Except that the guy who made the mistake had been the chief engineer for the design program of the apparatus in question with a reputation for being an extremely competent and capable electrical engineer. Therefore to dismiss the incident (which incinerated several people and badly burned more) as nought more than the work of an idiot would be dangerously simplistic and would do a grave disservice to the victims. I'm not an expert on level crossings and would never claim to be, but in those accidents I have investigated within my own sphere of competence I would say that a recurring factor is poor attention to human factors.

[The Stationmaster]

Ergonomics and human factors is an essential part of good system design. Human beings are fallible and it has been recognised for decades that even very highly trained, competent people are liable to make errors which in hindsight appear to be inexplicable. I once investigated an incident involving multiple fatalities which was caused by operating a certain piece of high voltage apparatus in a way which was explained by most as being Darwinism in action and clearly the work of an idiot. Except that the guy who made the mistake had been the chief engineer for the design program of the apparatus in question with a reputation for being an extremely competent and capable electrical engineer. Therefore to dismiss the incident (which incinerated several people and badly burned more) as nought more than the work of an idiot would be dangerously simplistic and would do a grave disservice to the victims. I'm not an expert on level crossings and would never claim to be, but in those accidents I have investigated within my own sphere of competence I would say that a recurring factor is poor attention to human factors.

Very true.  Now the interesting thing about level crossings is that they seem to work in a slightly different way in that respect and that is possibly down to something rather more fundamental than they 'not seeing what you expect' situation explained by Jeremy in Post No.703.

 

My reason for seeing this is because automation of level crossings in fact reduced collision rates at crossings significantly - the reason being that by far and away the largest category of level crossing incidents was 'collisions' and equally the largest element of those was a collision between a road vehicle and the crossing gates (which in many cases were or were nearly fully closed to road).  I think there is something in the motorist mind, certainly of many which is not so much the 'I am a god in my inviolate tin box' but rather 'if something nasty starts to happen the skill of myself and the other driver(s) etc will help us keep the consequences to a minimum'.  It rather comes back to the local here who said 'the trouble is that you can't see the train coming' - almost as if that either meant that it wasn't coming or if he got there before the train it would give way to him;  it comes right back to a lack of understanding that railway crossings are rather different from any other sort of road intersection.

 

Hopefully the Highway Code, safety campaigns, well advertised visits by the BTP mobile camera unit, 'Top Gear' stunts, and so on should be informing motorists that rail crossings are different from anything else thus they need to pay greater attention to the signs etc warning you that you are approaching one.   Motorists might still suffer from the 'we're never stopped here' syndrome but experience and history indicates that - at least in terms of consequences - it has never been massively significant in railway collisions (yes, they have undoubtedly happened, but not very often) and I suspect it is probably far less significant in respect of motorists ignoring level crossing lights than most other factors such as deliberately trying to beat the train (difficult when you can't see it of course).

[ForestPines]

It might explain something in accident reports from the days before AWS where there are references to drivers passing signals at danger then swearing they were clear and it being noted the driver had never been checked at that signal before. They 'saw' what they expected to see.

Wasn't it the case in the relatively recent Greenford SPAD incident, that the driver insisted the signals had all been clear, until he was shown the forward-facing camera footage?

[royaloak]

The reason they are different (they are actually the same as the ones outside a Fire or Ambulance station, check the highway code) is because, to an Emergency vehicle on an Emergency call, a red traffic light means give way where-as flashing red lights mean STOP.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by royaloak