Ban on building level crossings

[Llanigraham]

I wonder how many of those that are complaining about the red lights/wigwags have undertaken a Defensive or Advanced driving course?

 

[philthetube]

I read RAIB reports concerning level crossing accidents and cannot ever remember drivers bit understanding what wig wags mean being a factor in and incident.

 

[swt_passenger]

I read RAIB reports concerning level crossing accidents and cannot ever remember drivers bit understanding what wig wags mean being a factor in and incident.

It gets raised with monotonous regularity here for some reason, perhaps by people who don’t actually have driving licences and make huge assumptions.

 

[The exile]

While you all debate a normal road traffic light against a wig-wag type, maybe you should have a look at Ashton crossing in Bristol.
Because the council decided that the adjacent road junction should be traffic signal controlled, this crossing has BOTH a normal traffic light AND wig-wags (the two systems are linked).

That does not stop idiots from jumping the traffic signals when the crossing is open, or both when the red traffic signal is showing AND the red wig-wag lights are flashing when the signaller has started the crossing closing sequence.

Here are some Google street view images:
View attachment 108403
View attachment 108405

This last one was taken by Google during the time the council were working on the junction hence there were temporary traffic light signals in operation. But you can see the fixed permanent traffic signals.

View attachment 108404

I also think that the vast majority of drivers that use the road(s) with level crossings regularly, do know exactly that they should stop at the flashing red lights.

In fact, IMHO, the vast majority of road vehicle drivers are more likely to stop at a level crossing that is infrequently used (by trains) compared to a local at a level crossing that has a frequent train service.


That applies to any safety system and also to various laws.

Of course, it should be perfectly possible to link the crossing signals and the traffic lights here so that the left filter arrow becomes part of the crossing sequence which then becomes:

Train (or signaller) activates crossing procedure
All traffic lights giving access to crossing turn to red. Other directions (such as the "straight ahead" green arrow in the first picture) can continue as per the normal traffic light sequence
Normal crossing lights / barrier sequence
Once barriers are open, the various traffic lights giving access to the crossing can revert to green in sequence.

Thus you'd have the crossing not only protected by barriers and "wig-wags" - but also incidentally by the traffic lights which all motorists should understand

 

[the sniper]

The key issue is the effectiveness of that warning being understood and acted upon, that it is a different warning to a regular traffic light does not mean it is better or a warning of a greater significance as that depends on the interpretation of the driver and as we know, many either do not understand wig-wags or do understand but still ignore them,

It'd be interesting to know how many collisions occur at road junctions or pedestrian crossings protected by traffic lights where the driver at fault's excuse legitimately is that they didn't notice the red traffic light(s). From experience, I'd imagine it's quite common. As such I'm highly sceptical about the sanctity of 'regular' traffic lights being any better than the supposedly uninterpretable, but very obvious, wig-wags.

 

[Class 170101]

Problems at level crossings are not always misuse. See the recent incident in Anglia where a car waiting at the crossing was hit by a second at that had skidded on black ice and an unfortunate lady found herself through the barriers with a train bearing down. Fortunately she escaped, and the train was not badly damaged. However as Ufton Nervet and Great Heck have proved, when a train hits a vehicle on the track the results can be fatal.

Did anything happen to the second vehicle driver? I'm surprised the police didn't consider something like careless driving or other charges.

The other incident that caused issues was the one on the Sheringham Line where the crossing failed to work correctly, I think the RAIB have reported now.

 

[bspahh]

Did anything happen to the second vehicle driver? I'm surprised the police didn't consider something like careless driving or other charges.

I think it was this collision at Frating. I can't see anything about the 4x4 driver being charged with anything.

Train hits car at Frating level crossing, near Colchester 7/12/2021

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/greater-anglia-live-updates-train-6312689 A train has smashed into a road vehicle at an Essex level crossing this morning. Greater Anglia train services have been blocked after the incident on the Clacton to London Liverpool Street line between Great...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MattRat]

You could remove all level crossings, and people would still find a way to crash into a train. God will just invent a better idiot. The only thing I can think of that might help, is making sure those type of people don't get a driving license.

 

[73128]

Hasn't a new level crossing been agreed in principle across the A24 at Robertsbridge on the K&ESR extension from Bodiam?


Another level crossing interlinked with traffic lights is at Wokingham, London end of the station, by the signal box (that fringes between Feltham and TVSC).

 

[edwin_m]

If you want a really complicated one look at David Lane in Nottingham. The tram runs alongside the railway and there is a road junction just next to the crossing. If there is a tram coming then the traffic light phases are altered to give it priority, but if there is a train coming the barriers and wig-wags also operate.

 

[D365]

When a traffic light goes red on you then you know you still have a few seconds where you can get across the junction before the conflicting traffic starts up; then it does start up, and gives you an obviously visible reason to wait until the lights change again.

I’m sorry. What?

Do you actually drive? I sure hope not.

I know of several road junctions where signals change to amber/green as soon as the opposite signals have gone red.

 

[MattRat]

I’m sorry. What?

Do you actually drive? I sure hope not.

I know of several road junctions where signals change to amber/green as soon as the opposite signals have gone red.

I think red straight to green is how it works in some places in the USA. The kind of places who also believe amber means go faster

 

[najaB]

I think red straight to green is how it works in some places in the USA.

Almost everywhere in the USA, plus several other countries.

 

[D365]

I think red straight to green is how it works in some places in the USA. The kind of places who also believe amber means go faster

True, but I am talking about lights where two or more different lanes cross or merge.

 

[Pigeon]

I'm sorry. What?

Do you actually drive? I sure hope not.

I know of several road junctions where signals change to amber/green as soon as the opposite signals have gone red.

Oh for crying out loud.

I'm describing common behaviours and the thoughts behind them. I'm not talking about what I do myself.

I wonder how many of those that are complaining about the red lights/wigwags have undertaken a Defensive or Advanced driving course?

I haven't "taken a course" in any formal sense. I don't get on well with that kind of thing and for a whole variety of reasons I would merely end up getting too agitated and pissed off for it to do me any good, indeed it would be quite likely to do the opposite. But I have certainly studied the area and put effort into learning the lessons (including the self-monitoring and self-analysis necessary to make this work), as a result of coming to the realisation that it is indeed true that passing the test and then blasting gaily away on your own in a shower of ripped-up L-plate confetti does not make you a good driver, rather it makes you a crap driver who thinks they're good. I realised I had a lot more to learn and needed to learn it. I also ride a motorcycle, which tends to add a bit of emphasis to the whole thing.

One of the most basic of the things you don't learn just for passing the test is that you do not rely on people doing what they "should" do; if you want to survive you have to think in terms of what they do do. You're best off getting rid of any idea of it mattering whether people legally should or should not do something, because you look a bit bloody daft whining about your legal rights in the back of an ambulance.

(People get away with the attitude that the law does matter because their cars protect them from injury and they see the insurance claim going in their favour on legal grounds as proof that they must be blameless, so they feel no need to consider that perhaps they do share in the fault because they should have realised what was going to happen and taken action in time to avoid it altogether. On a motorbike your connection with reality is rather more inescapable.)

The same applies regarding level crossings. What you're trying to do is not merely to make sure that in legal terms the railway was in the right and the road user in the wrong (at least, you bloody well shouldn't be). You're trying to make sure that collisions don't happen at all. And you won't achieve that if you don't recognise the need to deal with people's behaviour as it actually is in practice instead of assuming they will all slavishly follow some legal ideal.

The point about the road signals at level crossings is about a different aspect of the situation: it's that the current standards are a classic example of crappy user interface design. If you want to tell people that they need to stop then you need to use the same indication that you use in every other situation where you're telling people to stop. If you also need to communicate some additional information to the emergency services then you need to use an additional indication, separate from the ordinary one. The logic that the ordinary information is actually a subset of the emergency-services information therefore the emergency-services signal is the only one that's needed would be fair enough if you were designing a protocol for two computers to talk to each other, but it doesn't work for a system designed to communicate with humans, because humans can't be programmed to respond identically to an unusual and weird way of indicating something and to a familiar and commonplace way of indicating the same thing that they see all the time. So you need to provide the ordinary stop signal in its ordinary form, and have the emergency services signal as well, as a separate and distinct thing.

With humans the mere fact that the signal is unusual means that it won't be interpreted identically to the normal one. People may be intellectually aware that the formal meaning is the same, but they will still respond differently because the unusual presentation inevitably adds the implication that there is something unusual about the message and something unusual about how you should respond to it. The most reliable way to get people to respond in the normal manner is to provide the normal signal. The extra information which is only important to the emergency services should be conveyed by an extra signal; it is then less important if ordinary people aren't familiar with it because they still have something they are familiar with to latch on to.

It is a waste of time to think in terms of making the thing wail more loudly and flash more garishly to try and get the message across because it doesn't address the root of the difficulty: it's like turning up the water pressure to try and squeeze more flow past a blockage instead of simply clearing the blockage. In this case the blockage is the simple fact that the signal is unusual. If you want to make the thing easier to understand then the way to do it is to speak the same language that people are used to hearing all the time, not make it shout more loudly in foreign.

I'm not daft enough to think that adding normal traffic lights will stop people jumping the lights because they've decided they want to. This aspect is about how to communicate most clearly and unambiguously to all the other people.

If you are trying to convey something important requiring immediate action then there must be no uncertainty or ambiguity about what the signal means.

Exactly.

I don't think you have understood how people actually behave in real life, if a driver is progressing along a road at speed and sees something they do not understand how to react to, many won't simply stop, they continue while thinking about what it means and how to respond

Exactly, again. Indeed it is my untestable hypothesis that the Ladbroke Grove crash was the result of the Thameslink driver displaying typical car driver behaviour. Not properly trained - crammed, rather than trained, which as we all know means you might pass the exam but you forget most of it as soon as you walk out of the room - out he goes with a licence to drive trains but the mental habits of driving cars, cocks up, thinks "oh bollocks, can't do anything, best just carry on and it'll sort itself out eventually", accelerates in an attempt to get back to normality a bit quicker... Natural enough if you take a wrong turning on the road, but suicidal on the railway.

And of course the car driving test is itself often passed by cramming - all these "give us a wad of money and pass your test in a week" outfits and what have you. It's not uncommon for people to not know what a lot of common road signs mean, and it's also not uncommon for people to be so unconfident (even if they passed their test years ago) that they are continually overwhelmed by the whole experience of driving, and make "carry on through and hope" their default reaction to anything they find hard to understand because they don't have enough CPU to think about it and steer at the same time.

 

[edwin_m]

I see @Pigeon has responded at length to other posters, but not to my request for research evidence to justify their opinion about the relative impact of different traffic signals.

 

[Llanigraham]

And quite frankly his response against undertaking a Defensive or Advanced driving course shows exactly why he needs to take one! They are not a "test" as he thinks but would show him where he might, note might, be able to do things in a better way.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a trade-off between the benefit of having a unique traffic light used only on level crossing which conveys some additional information to a small group of road users

But they are not used only on level crossings.

I have seen somewhere, a while ago, a human factors study which was unequivocal in showing that twin red lights, alternately flashing, were much more conspicuous than a steady red.

I can also speak from personal experience, in that I have more than once misread or even completely missed red traffic lights, but never missed flashing red twin lights (on a smaller sample, obviously).

 

[Annetts key]

Wig wags are used at many, but not all railway level crossings. They are also used to close roads at moving bridges (lifting or swing bridges), where some fire stations or ambulance stations have exits on to a main road and I think they may or may have been used to close roads very close to airport or airfield runways when a large aircraft was due to take off or land.

The requirements are set out in the highway legislation, which the railways HAVE to comply with. The railway does not have a choice. If people are unhappy with wig wag lights, then you should discuss it with your MP.

With railways, there are are always signs on the approach to the level crossing:


Even if the driver does not understand the triangle warning sign, the ‘stop when lights show’ sign is clearly understood.

And at the level crossing there will be at least two wig-wag signals (one either side of the road) on each side of the crossing. These lights are far brighter than normal traffic signals



As I said, they are used elsewhere:



Flashing red lights are also used in motorway signs:


I seriously doubt that there are many drivers that don’t understand what a bright flashing red light means. If you did a proper survey of road drivers and asked what does a flashing red light mean, the overwhelming response would be the correct meaning.

Of course, if you know of any evidence that backs up your viewpoint, please do provide details.

 

[Falcon1200]

The point about the road signals at level crossings is about a different aspect of the situation: it's that the current standards are a classic example of crappy user interface design. If you want to tell people that they need to stop then you need to use the same indication that you use in every other situation where you're telling people to stop. If you also need to communicate some additional information to the emergency services then you need to use an additional indication, separate from the ordinary one. The logic that the ordinary information is actually a subset of the emergency-services information therefore the emergency-services signal is the only one that's needed would be fair enough if you were designing a protocol for two computers to talk to each other, but it doesn't work for a system designed to communicate with humans, because humans can't be programmed to respond identically to an unusual and weird way of indicating something and to a familiar and commonplace way of indicating the same thing that they see all the time. So you need to provide the ordinary stop signal in its ordinary form, and have the emergency services signal as well, as a separate and distinct thing.

So, what you appear to be saying is that despite being warned by road signs that they are approaching a railway level crossing, it is perfectly understandable for a motorist, on seeing flashing red lights on both sides of the road, to think 'that's not a traffic light' and drive straight through them ? I find that an incredible and, frankly, ludicrous suggestion.

I seriously doubt that there are many drivers that don’t understand what a bright flashing red light means. If you did a proper survey of road drivers and asked what does a flashing red light mean, the overwhelming response would be the correct meaning.

Agree 100%.

Of course, if you know of any evidence that backs up your viewpoint, please do provide details.

Agree too, and it would also be interesting to know what percentage of vehicle incursions at LCs closed to the road are caused by the motorist deliberately disregarding the red flashing lights because they are not traffic lights ? I would suggest a figure of, say, 0.0%.

 

[MarkyT]

But they are not used only on level crossings.

I have seen somewhere, a while ago, a human factors study which was unequivocal in showing that twin red lights, alternately flashing, were much more conspicuous than a steady red.

I can also speak from personal experience, in that I have more than once misread or even completely missed red traffic lights, but never missed flashing red twin lights (on a smaller sample, obviously).

Another important factor is that the twin flashing red light arrangement has, for better or worse, become the defacto world standard for level crossings! Crossing road signals first emerged in the US in the early 20th century with the original 'wig wag' a single round target board with a red lamp mounted on a swinging mechanical arm, designed to replicate a watchman swinging a lamp. These were soon superseded by a single flashing light at first, then the twin lights system became established. The recent migration to LED illumination is claimed to make the occasional signals even more visible, as they switch on and off much more suddenly than older filament lamps, and thus catch the eye more readily when flashing.

 

[Annetts key]

Here’s a video of a full barrier level crossing showing the full sequence, including the road traffic lights.

 

[Ediswan]

The recent migration to LED illumination is claimed to make the occasional signals even more visible, as they switch on and off much more suddenly than older filament lamps, and thus catch the eye more readily when flashing.

Claimed by whom ? There is other research which suggests that even relatively large changes in a scene can be missed if the change occurs during a blink or saccade. LEDs can do that, filament lamps cannot change fast enough.

Having said that, with wig-wags, the flashing is repeated, so whichever is true, the chances of not noticing the signal in good time must be vanishingly small. Also, LEDs can be rigged to brighten and dim like filament lamps, if desired.

 

[MattRat]

Just a general response, but no seems to have pointed out the real reason people jump lights, and that's because they are in a rush to get somewhere, and say they didn't have time to stop and wait (which is a stupid answer of course). It's what I like to call them shaving 0.2 seconds off their lap time.

 

[MarkyT]

Claimed by whom ? There is other research which suggests that even relatively large changes in a scene can be missed if the change occurs during a blink or saccade. LEDs can do that, filament lamps cannot change fast enough.

Having said that, with wig-wags, the flashing is repeated, so whichever is true, the chances of not noticing the signal in good time must be vanishingly small. Also, LEDs can be rigged to brighten and dim like filament lamps, if desired.

I first saw the claim for a project to replace all crossing warning lights in the Netherlands. That was well over a decade ago. The repeated and alternating flashing is the key I agree, as that would avoid a single change of state being masked by a blink. I don't see any benefit in ramping brightness up and down at changeover.

Here's a more general reference:

Blinking, Flashing and Temporal Response

Using Color in Information Display Graphics and ATC/ATM Interface Design. Design methods, color science, and color guidelines.

colorusage.arc.nasa.gov

BLINKING, FLASHING, AND TEMPORAL RESPONSE
...
Temporal modulation (blinking, flashing) is a very powerful tool for drawing attention. This, along with auditory alerts, is the heavy artillery of attention manipulation and must be used sparingly, with care. Ad designers of commercial websites know that it's almost impossible to ignore large flashing graphic elements in peripheral vision, even to the point that it's difficult to read the non-flashing main content. The most powerful types of temporal modulation should therefore be used only for hazards, i.e., for data that require immediate user action.

 

[Bald Rick]

Claimed by whom ? There is other research which suggests that even relatively large changes in a scene can be missed if the change occurs during a blink or saccade. LEDs can do that, filament lamps cannot change fast enough.

I first saw the claim for a project to replace all crossing warning lights in the Netherlands. That was well over a decade ago. The repeated and alternating flashing is the key I agree, as that would avoid a single change of state being masked by a blink. I don't see any benefit in ramping brightness up and down at changeover.

I saw the same report. The Dutch also experimented with doubling the flashing frequency, not sur if it was rolled out.

 

[NoRoute]

I seriously doubt that there are many drivers that don’t understand what a bright flashing red light means. If you did a proper survey of road drivers and asked what does a flashing red light mean, the overwhelming response would be the correct meaning.

Of course, if you know of any evidence that backs up your viewpoint, please do provide details.

Well I'll refer you to HSE safety publication on level crossings, RR359, page 38, Issue: Understanding of warning lights, Issue (my emphasis):

Not all vehicle drivers fully understand the instruction given and the required user behaviour to the onset of an amber light. Users understanding of the steady amber at road traffic lights and at level crossing lights was compared. Higher numbers of users (slightly more for level crossings) interpreted the required action for an amber light incorrectly for both light warning systems.

There is also evidence that some users incorrectly determine the required action upon the onset of the red lights at a level crossing. Just over 50% of users correctly confirmed the required action at the onset of a red light compared to all users for road traffic lights.

The wigwag light system also used at fire stations to stop road traffic and allow the fire pumps to be driven onto the road, are routinely ignored by vehicle drivers.

This is taken from a HSE Publication, so I would say it validates the suggestion that not all drivers understand how to respond. Taken at face value, a 50% failure to understand the correct response to a wig-wag signal, as compared to all responding correctly to a road traffic light is quite a serious safety finding.

The fact that wig-wag signals need to be accompanied by a road sign telling vehicles to stop when flashing is worthy of remark in itself, I believe these signs were introduced specifically because many drivers did not know how to respond. You may have noticed that we don't have signs on road traffic lights instructing drivers to stop when the red light shows, I wonder why we have them for wig-wags but not on traffic lights?

Level crossings Summary of findings and key human factors issues

 

[MarkyT]

Well I'll refer you to HSE safety publication on level crossings, RR359, page 38, Issue: Understanding of warning lights, Issue (my emphasis):



This is taken from a HSE Publication, so I would say it validates the suggestion that not all drivers understand how to respond. Taken at face value, a 50% failure to understand the correct response to a wig-wag signal, as compared to all responding correctly to a road traffic light is quite a serious safety finding.

The fact that wig-wag signals need to be accompanied by a road sign telling vehicles to stop when flashing is worthy of remark in itself, I believe these signs were introduced specifically because many drivers did not know how to respond. You may have noticed that we don't have signs on road traffic lights instructing drivers to stop when the red light shows, I wonder why we have them for wig-wags but not on traffic lights?

Level crossings Summary of findings and key human factors issues

I'd say this is partly down to familiarity. A typical road user is far more likely to regularly see standard road traffic signals as they go about their business, whose total number of installations must be many orders of magnitude greater than that of rail crossing warning lights. Furthermore, crossing lights are typically less likely to be closed to road traffic on any road user's individual approach than are standard road traffic lights. Part of the justification for the signals only being illuminated when warning for a train is that a steady green standard light illuminated for long periods could eventually be ignored, and then a single state change to red might not be easily noticed. Flashing is a well-established way of drawing attention to an important warning. What else would an alternately flashing pair of red lights mean? Even if you'd never seen one before, the suspicion must be that it might just be some kind of urgent warning associated with the obvious railway crossing the road just ahead, especially where combined with a brightly marked and illuminated barrier already closed or in the process of falling across the road.

 

[NoRoute]

I'd say this is partly down to familiarity. A typical road user is far more likely to regularly see standard road traffic signals as they go about their business, whose total number of installations must be many orders of magnitude greater than that of rail crossing warning lights.

Agree, the road user's understand of traffic lights is being continually reinforced so understanding is automatic, which is exactly what you want when conveying important safety related signals.

Furthermore, crossing lights are typically less likely to be closed to road traffic on any road user's individual approach than are standard road traffic lights. Part of the justification for the signals only being illuminated when warning for a train is that a steady green standard light illuminated for long periods could eventually be ignored, and then a single state change to red might not be easily noticed.

There are traffic lights on lightly used pedestrian crossings which are also green for the vast majority of time, so would be susceptible to the same effect but we don't remove the green lamp from these so I don't find that argument convincing. Also the green lamp conveys important information, it highlights the presence of a junction at all times and provides a check to confirm that the signal is operating and it is safe to proceed, and for the driver to check they can see at least one clear signal.

Flashing is a well-established way of drawing attention to an important warning.

Exactly, "an important warning" but it isn't a warning, it's a command to stop.

What else would an alternately flashing pair of red lights mean? Even if you'd never seen one before, the suspicion must be that it might just be some kind of urgent warning associated with the obvious railway crossing the road just ahead

Fully agree, it could be easily interpreted as a warning but it's not a warning, it's a command to stop.

 

[najaB]

Just over 50% of users correctly confirmed the required action at the onset of a red light compared to all users for road traffic lights.

I'm very interested in exactly what the question asked was, and what exact replies were given. I suspect that the answers were of the form "Stop if the barriers are coming down..." which would indicate that the problem isn't with the signal but people's attitude to / understanding of how the risks at level crossings.

You only have to look at how common it is for people to weave around the barriers at AHBCs where they wouldn't drive through a red light.

Edit: As an aside, I don't imagine there are many drivers who would ignore the lights at a level crossing but never try to run a red light.

Fully agree, it could be easily interpreted as a warning but it's not a warning, it's a command to stop.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the sign is the command to stop. The lights are a warning. If I'm not mistaken the sign is present all the time, even where there aren't lights and/or barriers.