From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:   
   >On Monday, 16 February 2015 16:25:47 UTC+1, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>bob  wrote:   
   >>>On 2015-02-13 20:23:01 +0000, Marc Van Dyck said:   
   >>>>rcp27g@gmail.com explained on 13-02-15 :   
      
   >>>>>or putting in positive singalling control on others (ie where the   
   >>>>>crossing is protected by railway signals that aren't cleared for the   
   >>>>>train until the barriers are down and the crossing positively checked   
   >>>>>to be clear).   
      
   >>>>This is perfectly feasable but requires to order the gates to go down   
   >>>>at a distance that is longer than the braking distance of the train.   
   >>>>This means there will be a long delay between the gate going down and   
   >>>>the train actually passing the grade crossing.   
      
   >>>Indeed, this is the case.  It is less convenient but allows for   
   >>>positive safety.   
      
   >>>>As it has been mentioned,   
   >>>>motorists are unpatient creatures; if the delay is too long, people   
   >>>>think the gates are faulty and start turning around them. You might end   
   >>>>up this way with a grade crossing that is inherently less safe, because   
   >>>>of human nature...   
      
   >>>Solved by making the barriers block the whole road.  As the crossing is   
   >>>positively checked to ensure the barriers are down and the crossing is   
   >>>clear before clearing the signals for the trains, the issue of cars   
   >>>being trapped within the crossing is avoided.   
      
   >>Clearing level crossings several minutes before the train arrives mitigates   
   >>against non-existant risk, and it's quite labor intensive. How is the   
   >>cost of delay justified? How is the personnel cost justified?   
      
   >This "non-existant risk" just killed 6 people.   
      
   You know, I really can't stand people on Usenet who can't debate, and therefore   
   find it necessary to set up a straw man.   
      
   She didn't violate the grade crossing minutes before the train arrived, but   
   within the last 15 seconds. She had a minor intrusion at about 15 seconds,   
   then at about 5 seconds, pulled deliberately into the path of the oncoming   
   train. The system you advocated addresses a period of minutes before the   
   train arrives in which there really isn't any danger of collision.   
      
   The rest snipped as you are arguing from a false perspective. I just have   
   no interest in selectively reading anything useful you might have to say   
   given your attitude.   
      
   Your choice.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)