OT: Steering a train?

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:44:38 -0000 someone who may be "Roger Mills" wrote this:-

I would describe it as a lack of observation of the road ahead.

[Paul Herber]

Yateley ! I can't wait for the really serious accident that is going to happen there, and it will, sooner or later.

[tinnews]

So if, for example, I spread snow all over a road, that's OK and could be used as a 'traffic calming' device?

It's just the same in principle, I put a hazard there which (I agree with you) the driver should observe and thus slow down.

How does this differ from speed bumps and kerbs impinging on the normal road space?

[Nick]

those "road improvements"... but as you say there's definitely going to be a bad one any time soon... Large vehicles have to plan how they pass each other outside the bank now and there's a dropped kerb crossing on the roundabout exit to allow wheelchairs to cross, just when the driver's are looking / checking the traffic coming from the right and to their left "there's a wheelchair, crossing the road" I reckon the dept responsible is seeing how stupid they can be - some sort of Darwin's Award competition between Highways agencies perhaps ?

Nick

Nick

[dennis]

How does it differ from other road users? If a driver can't cope with stationary objects the driver should catch a bus before he hurts someone else. Why is it only incompetent drivers that complain about road calming and speed traps?

[Paul Herber]

Here are some comments about the "improvements" from an advanced driver friend

awful! why narrow the road? kids get off buses there and clog the pavements visibility - poor road line it takes quite a bit of concetration for an advanced driver like me at

30mph you'd be into that kerb by the roundabout possibly one of the most dangerous bits of road I know

[The Natural Philosopher]

yup. Same here..saw a really nasty accident CAUSED by these so called 'safety measures'

The point is that for 99% of drivers, they are not needed. I think a far far better solution is to prosecute drivers who have accidents aggressively, and get them off the road.

Anyone culpable for a road death..up to an including the councils who put tin these things, gets prosecuted for manslaughter. Anyone who is simply careless and causes injury or death, a simple ban from driving for the appropriate time, and anyone who causes property damage a hefty swingeing fine.

And let mortorists who demonstrate that they can drive safely, do so in peace.

No.

Speed cameras are just as bad. First thing ANYONE does when they see a speed camera is either slam on the brakes, or look at their speedos and then slam on the brakes. Unless they are already travelling 10mph less than the limit,. which makes them a mobile traffic jam anyway.

None of these are conducive to lessening accidents.

Its the usual thing of the government wanting to reduce situtation X, so they look at what they THINK is causing it - behaviour Y, and then ban that.

However speed per se is not the CAUSE of accidents. It simply makes them worse. Accidents are caused by stupidity, ignorance and inattention by and large. If the penalties for being stupid, ignorant and inattentive were made larger, people would think twice, and Blair would be in jail..

The current ethos however, is that if you stuck to the rule book, and

*meant well* you are *ipso facto* blameless. I think this attitude is deeply dangerous and very disturbing..

You see the same in the 'let's tax 4WD' movement..why? Why not tax lorries, or commuters? basically because 4WD are a teeny minority of road users that belong to a 'clarrss' that Laber loves to hate. The sensible thing is to tax the fuel, which is supposedly the thing whose consumption you are trying to limit. Anyine who drives a gas guzzler will then pay through the nose if they use it a lot..which is what you want. Anyone who drives 700 miles a day will also pay through the nose, which is also what you want. Pensioners who drive landrovers because they live in the middle of Exmoor, once a week into town, won't pay much, which is also what you want.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think if that train driver had been looking out and observing the track ahead, he would have seen that the track was broken, and if he had not been speeding, he would have been able to stop in time, don't you?

[The Natural Philosopher]

It isn't.

[Roger Mills]

It isn't!!

There's one of these width restriction type traffic calming devices about half a mile from my house - with priority in a defined direction. On many occasions, when I have had priority, I have been nearly hit by cars coming the other way - whose drivers have suddenly seen the calming device and veered to my side of the road to avoid it.

However competent you are you may not always be able to avoid an accident caused by other people's incompetence - and exacerbated by these inherently dangerous devices.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:28:18 +0000 someone who may be Paul Herber wrote this:-

Why?

Could be many reasons.

This is a problem? One of the reasons for narrowing a road is to widen the pavements.

Longer visibility is not used by motorists to increase safety. Rather they drive at higher speeds, restoring the level of risk to what it was before. Elementary risk compensation.

Time for your friend to slow down then.

Is the kerb coated in invisible paint? How does your friend avoid all the other kerbs?

Dangerous for who?

[Nick]

Well, the reason I am complaining is that.... a) A great deal of money has been expended b) A great deal of inconvenience/disruption has been suffered by locals and road users whilst works were in progress and will continue for road users until it is improved again c) it is difficult for anyone to argue it is an improvement when more accidents are happening It is no excuse to blame the ineptitude of drivers - they are there and drive badly - giving then more hazards to try to negotiate safely is a true sign of inability to comprehend the situation that DOES exist - driving standards are indeed quite poor generally d) More money is going to be spent re-modifying and patching people up ( those that aren't killed) and I thought each road death costs thousands ( 100's of thousands ?) e) Non-drivers are complaining ! Shopkeepers are complaining ....

I struggle to find what if any good has become of this ? and all the time we are paying.....

Nick

b) It is quite obviously hazardous

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:32:38 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

No, because trains are not (usually) operated on sight. Rather they are operated on reserved track under a signalling system.

Only when the signalling system is not working are trains operated on sight and then only at slow speeds.. That is why trains took so long to get from Newport to Cardiff on Saturday.

[dennis]

How does a static object cause an accident? It is the driver without any doubt.

Motorists that can drive safely don't have a problem with these measures. Its the ones that can't drive that have trouble with them. That is the same ones that ignore speed limits and make the authorities put these things in in the first place.

No they don't. I know what speed I am traveling within a couple of mph at all times. It is not difficult and is a part of driving.

[Nick]

Yes Dennis.... you are quite correct.. however there exist people that can't drive as perfectly as you of which young and inexperienced drivers form a percentage, who when, e.g. they are on their way home, late, from the pub, full of bravado, feeling they can handle their drink etc etc, perhaps even going faster than they realise, they misjudge these road improvements and could impact with a sensible pedestrian who is choosing to walk home.... now if the improvement had not been there and the road was still straight, an incident may not have occurred - this is the point several seem to be making....

Nick road improvements

[Dave]

So the driver can sit slumped in his seat, chin on chest and ensure that all he has to do is make sure his hand stays on the dead mans handle. Isn't there a duty of care involved here?

OK. I am aware that if he goes through a warning signal he _should_ get a warning tone in the cab, but like a faulty point, he will not know if the warning system is working 100 percent, despite any on board checks he might do.

This is not much different to a car driving along an unlit motorway at night. The government has spent millions on signals to warn drivers that there is a problem ahead, only to use them to get us to take a break from driving, as tiredness can kill: don't drink and drive and finally don't use a mobile phone while driving.

Dave

[Dave]

Could a 'mortorist' be a safe diver :-)

Dave

[Autolycus]

"Dave" wrote in message news: [e-mail]...

Rubbish. It's the driver's duty to observe signals, but to expect him to spot track defects, and to stop the train short of them, suggests you've never ridden in the cab of a train - or even thought very hard about it. The driver _has_ to trust the signalling system, including the AWS that duplicates the visual signals. It would be a very slow journey through major junctions if he had to get down and check the points (and, presumably, apply and remove point clips on both his route and any that might conflict with it). On straight track, you can often watch road traffic on level crossings that you are approaching - should he pile on the brakes in case the barriers don't come down? "Wrong side" signal failures can occur (e.g. Clapham) but they are very rare indeed. Even the sort of track defects that can derail a passenger train, such as a broken rail, are often only visible from a few yards away - and the stopping distance of a train from 100 mile/h is something like 3/4 mile under good conditions. Drivers do report track defects, but usually as a result of feeling something as their train passes over it. Of course, if a defect develops under his train, the driver feels nothing - there's very little sensation of what's happening further back, which is why wheel slide protection equipment is needed, and why, in the days of partly-braked freight trains, a derailment could occur without the driver realising till he got stopped at a signal, went back to see his guard, and realised he only had half of his train (and no guard)

Hmmm. Right.

[Kenny]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

Had the train been travelling at 20 MPH or so, then, yes, the driver

*might* have been able to stop in the distance he could see (it was dark at the time). There is NO WAY that the Driver can see a defect in the track at sufficient distance to stop before it at 95 MPH- it takes more than half a mile to stop from that speed. On a Pendolino, the speed of the train is monitored by the train itself, exceeding the speed limit by 3 MPH causes the brakes to apply, so I doubt he was speeding- as a Train Driver myself, speeding is a quick way to lose your job!

[Andy Hall]

This is all very nice, but I do wonder what's going on when I sit on a relatively new electric train going to Waterloo and the brakes come on every few hundred metres, although not violently. According to the driver, the train is doing this on its own and he is going to need to "reboot it" - his words.

So the lights went out and the air conditioning went off and all went quiet for about 20 seconds. Then it all came back and the train moved slowly off. No good, though, it still had a mind of its own and he gave up. The PA system became confused as well and started announcing stations completely out of order. It made it to Staines and everyone had to get off. They towed it away in the end.

I'm wondering whether the deadman's handle has been replaced by three Control-Alt-Delete buttons.