Engineering solutions to incompetent motorists turning left/right at level crossings

[Lucan]

A low speed collision into a bollard on the edge of the carriageway could be recovered in less than a minute as the car would likely still be driveable.

In the other Barnes Lane crossing thread I said I had once driven a breakdown truck and I could have got that car off in minutes, but red tape stops things being simply and promptly sorted like that. Bollards would be no different, and if they are the type that sink into the road surface they probably would not do so after the collision and continue to obstruct the track until road works equipment could be brought to the scene.

 

[edwin_m]

If you look at them ones on the overhead on motorways, may drivers think they mean proceed with caution. (even professional ones) then expect to force there way in when they get to the emergency services attending the incident that closed the lane(s) in the first place.

Do they actually think that, or know what they mean and think they can get away with it?

The high street level crossing in Lincoln actually used to be normal traffic lights when it was gates (the one Brayford Wharf one no traffic control at all they just shut the gates when the traffic was clear). When the High Street was converted to barriers the traffic lights were replaced by the more standard flashing lights. However the outcome was the same, when the lights activated speed up (including the pederstrains on the footpath). People used to complain they were down too long, but because of the mis-use of the crossing, they had to start the sequence sooner to ensure the crossing was clear. I am sure the signallers had a few stories to tell. From memory most gated crossing I recall in Lincolnshire either have no lights or standard traffic light. The gates of course in most cases prevent this kind of incident as they cover the track, except on single track roads where they only cover one side of the track.

The same would have happened if they'd kept the standard traffic lights instead of the wig-wags.

One point that did interest me was the if the crossing fails then no lights, so the user won't know there are in an danger. Would I be correct in saying that if the crossing can't activate then the signal won't clear anyway? I do remember a case a few years ago where Network Rail got into some trouble because of an accident on the Gainsborough - Doncaster line. The lights were not bright enough for the motorist to see. (I assume they went through the barrier) But I don't think the standard traffic light would have prevented that situation.

I believe an automatic crossing (which isn't interlocked with signals) will notify a fault and a controlled one won't clear. But if standard traffic lights go black or even stay red for a long period people will start driving across. They do that cautiously, but at a level crossing that would probably just make it more likely to be hit, as they are in danger for a longer time.

 

[Pigeon]

what engineering solutions could prevent this?

Bridges

But for a very simple and useful improvement, just kerbs. According to http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/02track3.htm there is a 6" clearance between the top of the rails and the bottom of the loading gauge envelope, apart from where the wheels stick down. That's enough height to have quite a reasonable kerb along the edge of the roadway, continuous apart from gaps for the rails. So the edge of the road would continue to be defined all the way through the crossing, in the same way that it is defined on either side of it (usually, and if not kerbing could be installed for a short distance on either side), and I reckon that that would go a long way towards discouraging those who do it out of sheer divviness.

 

[JohnElliott]

I also wonder if we are reaching a point where geo-fencing/scanning linked to the ignition of the vehicle/accelerator/brakes could be used to stop a vehicle proceeding in certain scenarios. This could include onboard displays that highlight the crossing or audio notifications.

Since the railway seems to be moving towards standard track balises for everything, perhaps put them each side of the crossing broadcasting a custom packet that's ignored by trains but picked up by cars and interpreted as "no entry"?

 

[30907]

Since the railway seems to be moving towards standard track balises for everything, perhaps put them each side of the crossing broadcasting a custom packet that's ignored by trains but picked up by cars and interpreted as "no entry"?

Do cars have a way of doing this?

 

[zwk500]

Do cars have a way of doing this?

Not currently, and you'll never retrofit every vehicle although it's not impossible you could include it as a requirement for builds after a certain date.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess if autonomous cars can read roadsigns, you could just put a "no left/right turn" on the approach.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess if autonomous cars can read roadsigns, you could just put a "no left/right turn" on the approach.

Let‘s hope that autonomous cars have enough sense not to turn off a road and onto a railway in the first place.

 

[Starmill]

I fully agree. There's also the issue that wigwags don't fail safe - green is a blank signal - whereas if a traffic light is blank you know it's failed and that the situation reverts to what it would be if it wasn't there at all, i.e. "give way".

I think I've seen them in use at a fire station once. I don't overly see the point in anything being there as it's established to give way to emergency vehicles, and doing so is one thing that pretty much every driver does do. But even if we considered they didn't, again in this application normal traffic lights (just left on green* unless someone in the fire station presses a button to cause them to do otherwise) make more sense.

How many car drivers have forgotten everything about this from their theory and also never come across these lights at railways, lifting bridges, motorway gantries or fire stations?

I'd suggest that if you have trouble seeing the lights or interpreting their meaning, you're driving recklessly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2023 ==

Bridges

But for a very simple and useful improvement, just kerbs. According to http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/2-track/02track3.htm there is a 6" clearance between the top of the rails and the bottom of the loading gauge envelope, apart from where the wheels stick down. That's enough height to have quite a reasonable kerb along the edge of the roadway, continuous apart from gaps for the rails. So the edge of the road would continue to be defined all the way through the crossing, in the same way that it is defined on either side of it (usually, and if not kerbing could be installed for a short distance on either side), and I reckon that that would go a long way towards discouraging those who do it out of sheer divviness.

Wouldn't that risk a serious tripping hazard where the rails intersect the footway though? There'd be an enormous gap for pedestrians, and wheeled mobility aids and children's prams would be all but forced into the road!

 

[JamesT]

Wouldn't that risk a serious tripping hazard where the rails intersect the footway though? There'd be an enormous gap for pedestrians, and wheeled mobility aids and children's prams would be all but forced into the road!

Only if the pavement is at the height of the kerb. You can have the footway and the road at the same level, with a kerb in between the two for separation. Consider something more akin to the separators for cycle lanes, though not the type with bollards on top.

 

[Starmill]

Only if the pavement is at the height of the kerb. You can have the footway and the road at the same level, with a kerb in between the two for separation. Consider something more akin to the separators for cycle lanes, though not the type with bollards on top.

Double-sided kerbs are not preferred because they can imply to blind people that they're walking in the road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many car drivers have forgotten everything about this from their theory and also never come across these lights at railways, lifting bridges, motorway gantries or fire stations?

In some parts of the country, potentially many. Level crossings simply aren't common anywhere.

I can confidently say I have not been stopped in the car for a train for years, probably ten years or more.

Motorway "red Xs" aren't like wig wags and are very poorly observed.

Yes, not knowing about them is negligent. But we design the roads to cater for the fact that many drivers are negligent, and level crossings should not be an exception. Thus regular lights, that every driver sees multiple times a day, make more sense.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In some parts of the country, potentially many. Level crossings simply aren't common anywhere.

I can confidently say I have not been stopped in the car for a train for years, probably ten years or more.

Motorway "red Xs" aren't like wig wags and are very poorly observed.

Yes, not knowing about them is negligent. But we design the roads to cater for the fact that many drivers are negligent, and level crossings should not be an exception. Thus regular lights, that every driver sees multiple times a day, make more sense.

Standard traffic signals have a different legal standing, which allows authorised persons to pass them on red. Changing level crossings to regular signals would be a bad move for that reason alone. You're always going to get some selfish ****s who choose to ignore both types of signal, but the way to deal with them is by punishing them, not by making signals more ambiguous for the majority of road users who do understand and follow the rules.

In the thread specifically discussing the recent incident at Motspur Park, there were a few users suggesting that the driver in question should have their licence revoked. This I don't support, as whilst this incident could have been far worse, it wasn't. I suspect that had the driver been stopped at the crossing due to a train, they probably wouldn't have then made the same mistake once the barriers lifted after the train cleared the crossing. This driver will no doubt be extremely embarrassed at having made the mistake they made, and will likely feel the pain when it comes to renewing their insurance. It isn't the sort of mistake one makes twice, and they've probably learned to be a little more observant and attentive when driving at night.

 

[Starmill]

In some parts of the country, potentially many. Level crossings simply aren't common anywhere.

I can confidently say I have not been stopped in the car for a train for years, probably ten years or more.

Motorway "red Xs" aren't like wig wags and are very poorly observed.

Yes, not knowing about them is negligent. But we design the roads to cater for the fact that many drivers are negligent, and level crossings should not be an exception. Thus regular lights, that every driver sees multiple times a day, make more sense.

It's not that it's negligent that's the issue, it's that it's reckless. You can try to make caveats about it but you couldn't possibly argue that the lights aren't easy to see in normal conditions, or that a driver could be genuinely uncertain what they mean.

Obviously this excludes rare cases where the lights aren't working as they should or where they've been installed incorrectly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2023 ==

Standard traffic signals have a different legal standing, which allows authorised persons to pass them on red. Changing level crossings to regular signals would be a bad move for that reason alone. You're always going to get some selfish ****s who choose to ignore both types of signal, but the way to deal with them is by punishing them, not by making signals more ambiguous for the majority of road users who do understand and follow the rules.

In the thread specifically discussing the recent incident at Motspur Park, there were a few users suggesting that the driver in question should have their licence revoked. This I don't support, as whilst this incident could have been far worse, it wasn't. I suspect that had the driver been stopped at the crossing due to a train, they probably wouldn't have then made the same mistake once the barriers lifted after the train cleared the crossing. This driver will no doubt be extremely embarrassed at having made the mistake they made, and will likely feel the pain when it comes to renewing their insurance. It isn't the sort of mistake one makes twice, and they've probably learned to be a little more observant and attentive when driving at night.

A permanent disqualification from driving would be incredibly unlikely indeed. The worst likely for an offence of this nature would be a short temporary disqualification, though we don't know if this offence can be proven.

 

[zwk500]

In some parts of the country, potentially many. Level crossings simply aren't common anywhere.

They're very common in some parts, just not everywhere.

I can confidently say I have not been stopped in the car for a train for years, probably ten years or more.

Lucky you. I've had some Level crossings I drive over at most once or twice a year and been stopped nearly every time (Southwest London, perhaps unsurprisingly)

Motorway "red Xs" aren't like wig wags and are very poorly observed.

The key point here is that a pair of flashing red lights means 'Temporary Road Closure' and therefore passing it is a separate legal offense to disobeying a red traffic signal, which is part of a set of signals controlling conflicting movements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're very common in some parts, just not everywhere.

Sorry, that was a typo, I meant "everywhere". I wasn't entirely sober when I posted that, noting the time

(Which reminds me, I have yesterday's Delay Repay to claim)

Lucky you. I've had some Level crossings I drive over at most once or twice a year and been stopped nearly every time (Southwest London, perhaps unsurprisingly)

I hardly ever drive over any level crossing. Indeed I think in recent years the most common one I've driven over is the one near Oswestry on the A5 which I doubt is capable of displaying anything now!

Obviously in some parts of the country they are common, but that means familiarity varies.

To use an example, there are only a few sets of traffic lights in Milton Keynes (perhaps fewer than 5, as I sit here I can only think of two but I'm sure there are a couple more) where you turn right against the flow of oncoming traffic, and there were none at all up to about ten years ago. This is very common elsewhere. The problem was that this unfamiliarity caused a lot of accidents when the first one opened outside the Bletchley ASDA. These junctions therefore, in MK, now all have yellow signs indicating "Right turners - beware of oncoming traffic" - a non-standard sign, but one that has succeeded in reducing accidents at these locations.

There is no driver in the country that isn't familiar with the idea that a red traffic light means stop. Some may choose to ignore it*, but those same people will also choose to ignore wigwags or zigzag the barriers on AHBs. Thus, the safest option would seem to be to use the familiar signal of the red traffic light backed up by the barriers.

Yes, the legislation is different, but the law isn't (despite what people often think here) immutable. The law is often changed in order to improve the safety of things, the most recent one of note being the change to a default urban speed limit of 20mph in Wales, which is a far bigger, wider-reaching and more controversial law change than changing the type of lights used at level crossings.

I am absolutely confident that changing the lights at level crossings to standard traffic lights (with some sort of signage prohibiting professional emergency services drivers from passing on red and an associated law change) would improve level crossing safety, and that having the green as a straight on arrow would also provide a "don't turn left/right" prompt for people blindly following satnavs onto the track - maybe even actually have no left/right turn signage too! Intuitive roads are safer roads.

* I'm not talking about amber gamblers but rather those who would go through a red light that had been showing for some time and of which they were fully aware and able to stop. Amber gamblers are easily dealt with in safety terms by requiring the road traffic light to go red at least ten seconds before a train passes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2023 ==

It's not that it's negligent that's the issue, it's that it's reckless. You can try to make caveats about it but you couldn't possibly argue that the lights aren't easy to see in normal conditions, or that a driver could be genuinely uncertain what they mean.

Because many drivers don't see them often they're less familiar and require more processing time in the brain. That's why standard traffic lights would work better.

Familiarity is curiously powerful. I've done quite a few road running races where we've gone through traffic lights, and when I've been approaching a red my brain prepares to stop despite this not being necessary!

 

[WAO]

I am absolutely confident that changing the lights at level crossings to standard traffic lights (with some sort of signage prohibiting professional emergency services drivers from passing on red and an associated law change) would improve level crossing safety, and that having the green as a straight on arrow would also provide a "don't turn left/right" prompt for people blindly following satnavs onto the track - maybe even actually have no left/right turn signage too! Intuitive roads are safer roads.

.....is the right answer.

How come the pivoting MG crossing gate (which obstructed the track when open to road traffic) was allowed to be done away with?

Could it not have been automated?

There's never an ORR when you want one, but when you don't...

WAO

 

[Bletchleyite]

How come the pivoting MG crossing gate (which obstructed the track when open to road traffic) was allowed to be done away with?

Could it not have been automated?

Wind is the main potential issue I believe. If very windy you'd need very powerful motors to move it.

 

[WAO]

A crossing keeper could work at perhaps 150 - 200W?

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

I am absolutely confident that changing the lights at level crossings to standard traffic lights (with some sort of signage prohibiting professional emergency services drivers from passing on red and an associated law change) would improve level crossing safety,

The research does not support this, and neither does the real life experience of almost every other railway in the world.

Speaking personally and anecdotally - I have ‘misread’ red traffic lights a number of times. Including one set I am very familiar with as I cross them on average 4 times a day. Some of the misreads are due to the layout of the lights or junction, but some are inexplicable.

Conversely I have never misunderstood rapidly flashing red lights, in any circumstances, anywhere in the world. They mean stop. I don’t know how anyone can misunderstand them.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not an engineering solution - but we should be much stricter in terms of motorists ability to drive. So many people who clearly should not be on the road are allowed to keep their license. Sadly I don't think there is any engineering solution that can make up for incompetent or dangerous drivers - they always manage to find a way of doing something that was not expected so the best we can do is ban them from the roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The research does not support this, and neither does the real life experience of almost every other railway in the world.

Is there published data from such research?

Speaking personally and anecdotally - I have ‘misread’ red traffic lights a number of times. Including one set I am very familiar with as I cross them on average 4 times a day. Some of the misreads are due to the layout of the lights or junction, but some are inexplicable.

I don't recall ever having misread a red traffic light. I've been confused by layouts, certainly, but that's the layout, not the light.

Conversely I have never misunderstood rapidly flashing red lights, in any circumstances, anywhere in the world. They mean stop. I don’t know how anyone can misunderstand them.

So you're going along a nearly empty motorway in lane 2, overtaking a lorry, and you see "red Xs" and wig-wags across all lanes ahead. Are you just going to stop there?

If you answered "yes", ten seconds later you were killed by an errant lorry whose driver was pratting with his phone.

(What I'd do if I saw that was think it's likely to be a signalling error and instead pass it, but be slowing down, continue at a low speed in lane 1, and stop at the first suitable safe place to call 999 and report the likely multi-car pileup it would cause).

 

[zwk500]

I don't recall ever having misread a red traffic light. I've been confused by layouts, certainly, but that's the layout, not the light.

I have certainly done it at temporary layouts, although that's more understandable.

So you're going along a nearly empty motorway in lane 2, overtaking a lorry, and you see "red Xs" and wig-wags across all lanes ahead. Are you just going to stop there?

If you answered "yes", ten seconds later you were killed by an errant lorry whose driver was pratting with his phone.

If one came up with no prior warning (e.g. 'move left' arrows) I'd slow down and move over when safe to do so, but not stop completely for the obvious reason you state.

If a red light is so ubiquitous why do Police cars use flashing red lights to direct traffic when stopped?

 

[edwin_m]

So you're going along a nearly empty motorway in lane 2, overtaking a lorry, and you see "red Xs" and wig-wags across all lanes ahead. Are you just going to stop there?

How would that be different if they were steady red stop lights instead?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would that be different if they were steady red stop lights instead?

It wouldn't be substantially different. My point was that wig-wags don't carry any sort of magic status in drivers' psyche. Indeed their meaning to a normal driver is in practice exactly the same even if technically governed by different legislation - only trained professional emergency services drivers need to see the two differently.

 

[edwin_m]

It wouldn't be substantially different. My point was that wig-wags don't carry any sort of magic status in drivers' psyche. Indeed their meaning to a normal driver is in practice exactly the same even if technically governed by different legislation - only trained professional emergency services drivers need to see the two differently.

Who may be trained and professional but they are often also driving much faster than is considered safe for the rest of us and possibly having other hazards to think about such as if they are chasing someone. Also they aren't necessarily familiar with the roads they are driving on. Making life more difficult by expecting them to check for a special sign isn't going to help, especially if it leads to a train smashing into a fire engine.

 

[TSG]

How come the pivoting MG crossing gate (which obstructed the track when open to road traffic) was allowed to be done away with?

Could it not have been automated?

No

Wind is the main potential issue I believe. If very windy you'd need very powerful motors to move it.

Wind, perhaps.

Also the fact that the tips would be moving across the road surface very quickly (or crossing operation would need to be glacially slow) which presents a greater hazard to road users.

For manual crossings it would be impossible for the operator to safely start closing the facing barriers at a busy crossing because they would have to wait for vehicles/pedestrians to clear the entire length of the gate rather than the negligible width of the lifting barrier (no, people don't always stop when the lights are red).

The propensity of the last moment sprinter to be forced, back to traffic, in to the path of the last moment driver is greater as the runner has to traverse the length of the boom, rather than duck the skirt as it swings out (remember that any CCTV/remote control loop will have some latency)

The only place a trapped pedestrian or animal can stand in order to be released if the barriers reopen is right in the middle of the road and railway, otherwise they'll be forced on to and trapped on the railway. Think this one through (yes, people do get trapped in the barriers and then let out before a train is run).

An automatic crossing cannot rely on a swing gate to fail safe i.e. close the road, in the event of power of barrier machine failure

With a lifting barrier the shear bolt/boom detection system works in the opposite plane to the force of movement in operation. Designing a safe and reliable shear bolt system where the bolt needs to stay intact for hundreds of thousands of normal movements (including jerks to a stop for a people doing a runner, and yes, motoring against a high wind) without suffering metal fatigue, and yet be sure to detach properly and detect that it has done so when it's hit would be.... tricky.

Similarly, you would need to be sure that collision did not cause the gate to swing into the path of a train which then impels debris into waiting pedestrians. This is harder to manage with a swing gate as it's supposed to be able to swing over there.

Level crossings are already a civil/track engineering challenge because you need to maintain alignment for both road and rail, and manage clearances for rail. Having swing gates complicates this because you now have to factor in the alignment of the gate hinges and the sweep of the gates across much of the crossing. You have to meet standards on gap at the bottom when they're closed so this is not necessarily simple.

Also consider there are places where the width of the road versus the width of the railway may not match closely, so you will have a gap or overlap somewhere, making it more complicated. (there are standards on gap between closed gates too)

So, no, gates aren't a good plan

Bear in mind automated crossings can't be placed around complicated junctions, which is where this is most likely to be a problem. Manual crossings are monitored so this is less likely to go unnoticed and become truly dangerous (MCB-OD adds a new dimension to this though). Many suggestions would increase risks for more common cases or be grossly disproportionate to the risk. Cats eyes at the carriage way edge is probably doable though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who may be trained and professional but they are often also driving much faster than is considered safe for the rest of us and possibly having other hazards to think about such as if they are chasing someone. Also they aren't necessarily familiar with the roads they are driving on. Making life more difficult by expecting them to check for a special sign isn't going to help, especially if it leads to a train smashing into a fire engine.

If they're not able to check for signs, they shouldn't be in the job. Checking signs is a key part of it - for instance they need to see a STOP sign even if they may decide they can disregard it.

 

[zwk500]

If they're not able to check for signs, they shouldn't be in the job. Checking signs is a key part of it - for instance they need to see a STOP sign even if they may decide they can disregard it.

Emergency services vehicles need to be able to tell if the obstruction is likely to be able to respond to their sirens and horns. A steady red light today means they know traffic is being controlled and that oncoming traffic will likely give way even if they go through a red light. Whereas a flashing red light clearly tells them the obstruction cannot be removed immediately.
Also a stop sign is a particular shape for the reason of identifying it.very different to a supplementary plate that might read 'cyclists dismount' as much as it might read 'emergency vehicles not exempt'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also a stop sign is a particular shape for the reason of identifying it.very different to a supplementary plate that might read 'cyclists dismount' as much as it might read 'emergency vehicles not exempt'.

My suggestion would be to use the "X" level crossing symbol mounted on the traffic light pole either above or below. You could potentially also use the red-and-white blocks on the traffic light surround. It's presently used for ungated crossings, but there's no reason to treat those any differently.

Level crossing wigwags showing the X sign, from sabre-roads.org.uk