From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:59:23 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >bob  wrote:   
   >>On 2015-02-17 16:38:27 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:   
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >>Pot, meet kettle.   
   >   
   >Well, no, I didn't set up a straw man, so your PKB accusation is   
   >inappropriate.   
   >   
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >>You are contending that people will violate a crossing regardless of   
   >>the state of barriers across the roadway blocking access to the   
   >>crossing.  I contend this is not the case.   
   >   
   >Drivers drive around lowered crossing gates. There's a famous video of   
   >a driver who drove around lowered crossing gates in a situation in which   
   >video cameras were placed at a newly-designed grade crossing with major   
   >safety improvement. A center barrier had been erected for the last 40 feet   
   >of the highway approaching the grade crossing, and the lowered gate completely   
   >blocked that side of the highway. A motorist made the decision to drive   
   >onto the wrong side of the highway to drive around the lowered gates.   
   >   
   >You cannot contend that a safety system can be placed at a grade crossing   
   >that no driver will violate.   
   >   
   "Every time someone invents a better idiot-proof system, someone else   
   breeds a better idiot"   
      
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)