5 ms·

The hell? Just put big automatic gates everywhere. Seems like a simple life/cost estimation exercise.

paulcole 6y ago
Think about the thing you know best. Imagine an article about a challenging problem related to that thing. A person with almost no knowledge of that thing reads it and says, “Seems simple enough” and presents a solution. Are they likely to have overlooked something? Misunderstood the problem? Be unaware of the challenges in solving it?
- misnome 6y ago
  By my interpretation of the article, it seems to agree that this is the solution. The caveats seem to come mostly from paying for it.
- amelius 6y ago
  Yes, but sometimes just bluntly stating a solution can be a request for enlightenment.
- drewzero1 6y ago
  Can we just put this comment on the top of every discussion here?
- a3n 6y ago
  "Why don't they just ..." https://blog.jgc.org/2012/08/why-dont-they-just.html?m=1 https://blog.jgc.org/2012/08/why-dont-they-just.html?m=1
michaelcampbell 6y ago
> Seems like a simple life/cost estimation exercise. All safety mechanisms are this. The tricky bit is the value of life calculus. Is it worth an added $10/year tax for every taxpayer to MAYBE save 1 life per 5 years? You'll get different responses for different reasons. That $10 may be a rounding error for many, but to some its the difference of a week of lunches for their kid or not, and they vote, too.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Just for completeness $10/year from every taxpayer is $1.43B/year from one billionaire. So the problem of $10 being unaffordable to some is easily handled.
  - michaelcampbell 6y ago
    Asking someone else to pay is always easy for those not being asked, sure.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    I wonder if that's the most cost-effective way to use $1.43B to save lives?
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  With trains the cost/benefit is greater than just stopping the crash from taking a life. Train/car collisions are messy and require fixing the infrastructure that has been disrupted (a collision/derailment will most likely screw up the tracks and any equipment in the way); and the train line will be out of service for the better part of a day, at least.
ecpottinger 6y ago
Read Darwin Awards. You find even with the gates in place people get out of the cars to raise the gates and still try beating the trains.
crocal 6y ago
Actually no. Cannot be too big and automatic. You need to allow a stranded car to break free. You must not crush a car that is only half way in. Sigh. Railway crossings are pure evil. There is no fail safe design that I know of without adding a proximity sensor inside the car (I am a railway signalling engineer). Would love to be wrong though.
- jcrawfordor 6y ago
  I know that at least in this area some wyes and crossing points use radar (the same type used for lane occupancy on roads) as an additional safety measure---something like track circuit clear but radar detection of an object results in a very restrictive signal like a "red-yellow." Do you know if there's a reason why this hasn't been deployed for road crossings? Definitely it wouldn't be perfect but seems like it could help with stuck-vehicle scenarios, especially in more urban areas where speeds are low but visibility is poor. I guess I assume that the reason it isn't being done is because it would require some kind of upgraded cab signalling that would cost too much to roll out.
  - rexpress 6y ago
    Googling "MCB-OD crossings" will bring up various pages and videos that show such crossings in the UK. They are relatively new to the UK but I believe they have been used for some time in continental Europe. They have disadvantages including expense, and additional road closure times (compared to automatic half-barriers) as they must be closed and proven clear early enough that an approaching train does not need to slow down.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Trains are very heavy and have long braking distances at speed, in some cases over a mile. For a train to have enough time to stop, the crossing would have to be kept clear for a very long time, which would probably tempt drivers to bypass the gates since they would perceive the crossing to be overly safe (described in the article as the "cry wolf" phenomenon).
- rexpress 6y ago
rsynnott 6y ago
This is probably better than nothing, but it is amazing how often cars get stuck in them.
brnt 6y ago
I was once closed in by automatic beams here in NL. Not a fun experience having to lift my bike through some hedge to get out.

Think about the thing you know best. Imagine an article about a challenging problem related to that thing. A person with almost no knowledge of that thing reads it and says, “Seems simple enough” and presents a solution. Are they likely to have overlooked something? Misunderstood the problem? Be unaware of the challenges in solving it?

misnome 6y ago
By my interpretation of the article, it seems to agree that this is the solution. The caveats seem to come mostly from paying for it.
amelius 6y ago
Yes, but sometimes just bluntly stating a solution can be a request for enlightenment.
drewzero1 6y ago
Can we just put this comment on the top of every discussion here?
a3n 6y ago
"Why don't they just ..." https://blog.jgc.org/2012/08/why-dont-they-just.html?m=1 https://blog.jgc.org/2012/08/why-dont-they-just.html?m=1

michaelcampbell 6y ago

> Seems like a simple life/cost estimation exercise. All safety mechanisms are this. The tricky bit is the value of life calculus. Is it worth an added $10/year tax for every taxpayer to MAYBE save 1 life per 5 years? You'll get different responses for different reasons. That $10 may be a rounding error for many, but to some its the difference of a week of lunches for their kid or not, and they vote, too.

AlexandrB 6y ago
Just for completeness $10/year from every taxpayer is $1.43B/year from one billionaire. So the problem of $10 being unaffordable to some is easily handled.
- michaelcampbell 6y ago
  Asking someone else to pay is always easy for those not being asked, sure.
- jfk13 6y ago
  I wonder if that's the most cost-effective way to use $1.43B to save lives?
bobthepanda 6y ago
With trains the cost/benefit is greater than just stopping the crash from taking a life. Train/car collisions are messy and require fixing the infrastructure that has been disrupted (a collision/derailment will most likely screw up the tracks and any equipment in the way); and the train line will be out of service for the better part of a day, at least.

ecpottinger 6y ago

Read Darwin Awards. You find even with the gates in place people get out of the cars to raise the gates and still try beating the trains.

crocal 6y ago

Actually no. Cannot be too big and automatic. You need to allow a stranded car to break free. You must not crush a car that is only half way in. Sigh. Railway crossings are pure evil. There is no fail safe design that I know of without adding a proximity sensor inside the car (I am a railway signalling engineer). Would love to be wrong though.

jcrawfordor 6y ago
I know that at least in this area some wyes and crossing points use radar (the same type used for lane occupancy on roads) as an additional safety measure---something like track circuit clear but radar detection of an object results in a very restrictive signal like a "red-yellow." Do you know if there's a reason why this hasn't been deployed for road crossings? Definitely it wouldn't be perfect but seems like it could help with stuck-vehicle scenarios, especially in more urban areas where speeds are low but visibility is poor. I guess I assume that the reason it isn't being done is because it would require some kind of upgraded cab signalling that would cost too much to roll out.
- rexpress 6y ago
  Googling "MCB-OD crossings" will bring up various pages and videos that show such crossings in the UK. They are relatively new to the UK but I believe they have been used for some time in continental Europe. They have disadvantages including expense, and additional road closure times (compared to automatic half-barriers) as they must be closed and proven clear early enough that an approaching train does not need to slow down.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Trains are very heavy and have long braking distances at speed, in some cases over a mile. For a train to have enough time to stop, the crossing would have to be kept clear for a very long time, which would probably tempt drivers to bypass the gates since they would perceive the crossing to be overly safe (described in the article as the "cry wolf" phenomenon).
rexpress 6y ago

rsynnott 6y ago

This is probably better than nothing, but it is amazing how often cars get stuck in them.

brnt 6y ago

I was once closed in by automatic beams here in NL. Not a fun experience having to lift my bike through some hedge to get out.