Apparently a suicide target and impatient drivers are the leading causes. They are trying crossing arms that completely block all lanes in both directions, more fences to stop pedestrians crossing, but stopping suicidal individuals is not easy.

Quote (WESH.com)

There is the question of safety for residents near the tracks.

I wonder what the question is.

I guess the train has hit zero houses, zero apartments. So living near a train, even a murder train, seems pretty safe.

Did a quick search and the numbers are a little old, but i 1995 EU had an average 3.2 fatalities/billion passenger-km/year (worst Greece: 21, best Spain: 1.4). This includes both passenger and non passenger. The latter being the majority (2.8 of 3.2). Car traffic were better than i expected at 11.4 fatalities/1 billion passenger-KM. I think this number has come down a lot since then.

--- Best regards, Morten Andersen

Took a train from Tampa heading north to DC when I was 5. 30 minutes out of Tampa, we struck and killed a pedestrian.

Florida is not accustomed to train traffic in cities any more, and has probably never been accustomed to them in suburbs. We still had freight trains in town in St. Petersburg when I was a kid, and I'm pretty sure the last circus train came right into downtown while I was in high school...maybe they kept running after I left? But they've always been slow and infrequent. So the introduction of frequent, high speed rail...especially in southeast Florida...is sure to confuse and kill a lot of Floridians.

A freight train, deadly too, I guess.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-dead-2-injured-train-s...


Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Quote (MortenA)

Did a quick search and the numbers are a little old, but i 1995 EU had an average 3.2 fatalities/billion passenger-km/year...

Do European high speed trains intersect roads, or do they have their own right of way?

--
JHG

The BrightLine is a dream to ride.
My daughter commutes from Coral Gables (S. Miami) to Palm Beach Gardens a day or two a week.
My gut feel for this is that FL auto fatality rates are high. Most states that are higher are much lower population so per capita is misleading.
The US average is 1.5/100,000,000 miles (not pax miles).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

Quote (Mint)

Quote (WESH.com)
There is the question of safety for residents near the tracks.
endquote

I wonder what the question is.

Maybe people/houses/apartments being hit by rebounding suicide victims?

The real failure is the sensibility of some people who walk on or attempt to cross train tracks with a train approaching or try cross tracks in a car with a train approaching. Certainly the Brightline is a "higher speed" train but it is not supersonic. It can be heard and seen well before it is close enough to be a hazard. I don't have enough details on all the instances of fatal interactions on the Brightline system, but my gut feel is a segment of our society needs to stop trying to blame the infrastructure for the failing of the victim.

@drawoh,

High speed trains doesn't have road crossing. Only viaducts. Totally separated from road traffic, pedestrians etc. Actually this is true for most RR traffic except for the remote countryside with old lines and little train traffic.

--- Best regards, Morten Andersen

Reading the linked article, it DOES appear that the pedestrian was, uh, pedesting along, having a pleasant day and harming no one, when the train just HIT him/her. For absolutely no reason at all.

I do recall that when trains were first introduced, some places required a guy on a horse to ride in advance to warn people. Maybe this should be reinstated. Maybe not with a horse, though. Perhaps an AI-equipped drone.


Just a thought.



spsalso

Quote (spsalso)

I do recall that when trains were first introduced, some places required a guy on a horse to ride in advance to warn people.

I understand that they did that in some places during the early days of automobiles as well.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

I recalled reading about the Brightline train some time back on the Antiplanner blog.

A current post about same states in part "Brightline took a Miami-West Palm Beach rail line that had a few slow freight trains each day (and probably mostly at night) and added numerous fast passenger trains without adding any new safety precautions. The line between Miami and West Palm Beach is unfenced and crossing gates at grade crossings do not completely block the crossings (as they are required to do for faster trains)."

There are a number of additional posts on the subject. It sounds "problematic" :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Yeah, problematic.

Perhaps there should be signs posted at 25' intervals informing pedestrians that the trains might hit them if they place themselves in front of them.

I'm just guessing at the 25' distance--wouldn't want someone to accidentally miss this life-saving guidance.


spsalso

Quote (drawoh)

Do European high speed trains intersect roads, or do they have their own right of way?

Genuine "high speed trains" (TGV/ICE/etc) running at full speed don't.

But Brightline isn't that. Mainline trains running at 100mph or more can have level crossings, at least here in the UK. They are all fenced though, at least in built up areas, you can't just wander onto the tracks without noticing. You can wander onto them at crossings though.

Morten, where do you live?
Every place in the world that I have ridden high speed trains there have been plenty of grade crossings.
Ever heard of Japan?
Of course the fastest trains in the US are medium speed at best.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

It's my impression that railroads in England must fence their right of way.

Here in the US, it's turned about: the adjacent landowners have the option of fencing or not.

I am guessing the latter method was chosen because of the much longer distances and much emptier landscape. And the desire to rapidly build a rail system to develop said landscape.

Imagine fencing the right-of-way of the first transcontinental railroad. They barely pulled it off as is.

Australia being quite similar to the US, I wonder what THEIR approach to fencing is.



spsalso

Quote (Brian Malone)

It can be heard and seen well before it is close enough to be a hazard.

Not true.

A modern electric train, with wheels in good condition and running on track in good condition is remarkably quiet.

Easily not heard over ambient noise in an urban or sub-urban environment.

Horns, whistles and bells are used when approaching a road crossing, and sometime in limited-sight (for the train operator) areas. Unless the neighboring home owners have complained sufficiently to get a "no horn" zone.

MintJulep I speak from experience - my house is 50 yards from a major rail line and grade crossing (no horn zone) and yes the trains are quiet but anyone with some awareness will hear the train. And there is virtually no reason to be walking on the tracks or within the width of train cars unless you are doing train track work. Most track right-of-way is a no trespassing zone. Pedestrians are not supposed to be there.

@Brian Malone
I also speak from experience - 30 years of it working with passenger trains of all types and their operators.

Quote (Brian)

anyone with some awareness will hear the train

True. Unfortunately most people have zero awareness.

Quote (Brian)

And there is virtually no reason to be walking on the tracks or within the width of train cars unless you are doing train track work. Most track right-of-way is a no trespassing zone. Pedestrians are not supposed to be there.

100% correct.

Anyone without earbuds having a phone conversation might hear a 120 mph train in a no-horn zone. Too many wear audio compromising devices.

Also, Brightline uses cushioned wheels. In a video of the train leaving the station by far the loudest sound was the train's trolley bell sound - the sound of the locomotive engine and cars was barely audible. It appears to make a soft whoosh sound rather than the typical freight train squeal and rumble.

MintJulep and 3DDave thanks for the info and insights. I would like the quieter trains to roll where I live. I still do not understand the reasons or non-reasons some of these train strike victims. The presence of the tracks alone should be enough a signal of a hazard. Some train strike victims in the news are either alcohol or drug compromised and find the tracks a convenient location to lay down for a nap. Fencing may be the only viable option in urban / suburban areas. I have family in the East Bay area of California (Oakland/Richmond), next time I am out there I will have to observe what the BART system does for pedestrian exclusion. It must be minimal or non-obtrusive or I think I would have noticed.

@EdStainless,

I live in Denmark - and have travelled in Europe by train a lot and by road. And i have never encountered a road crossing for high speed tran (TGV, ICE etc.). And the number of train track crossings i know of is small. I live close to a central commuter RR track and even though its a 100 years old all crossings are bride or tunnel (viaducts). Just being curious, i tried to locate Gare Du Nord in Paris and follow one of the main trunks from that station going north that guess will carry TGV trains. As far as i checked: All viaducts. In some cases you could see old roads that had been closed of at a time - but no crossings.

--- Best regards, Morten Andersen

Note to self-
When walking along the tracks, be careful to not get run over by the trains.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

BART uses fences for "pedestrian" exclusion.

I don't believe there are any grade crossings, pedestrian or otherwise, on BART.

Of interest might be that a motorcyclist slid out while making a turn, was then flipped over a fence by his motorcycle, then fell down about 16 feet onto the adjacent BART tracks (which emerge from a tunnel at this location), and was hit by an oncoming train. I'm not sure even Evel Knievel could have done that. September 16, 2022.


spsalso

Well, he'd a tried:)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Hell, Evel probably would've survived that and come back for more!

We have a mental model of what a train track means and what we need to do to remain safe around them. But unfortunately that mental model may not be as reliable if it was trained on slower, noisier trains. It seems like that could be one of the factors at work in this weird situation.

Here's a real video of a near miss at 125 mph by a level crossing in the UK, from CCTV on the front of the train. The incident train was an InterCity 225 (Class 91 electric locomotive hauled passenger express train) capable of 140 mph (225 kph), running at the maximum line speed of 125 mph (200 kph); the train is good for 140 mph, but the signalling limits it to 125 mph due to lack of investment in infrastructure. In this case, it was railway workers who almost came to grief, but it shows just how quickly high speed trains appear and how little time a pedestrian has to save themselves.

Video: One Second From Death: Rail Workers Narrowly Avoid 125mph Train

RAIB report: Report 11/2018: Near miss with a group of track workers at Egmanton level crossing

Network Rail's Safety playlist, which is mostly about trespassing and level crossing safety: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcieUuOBJRe...

And the viral Australian safety video: Dumb Ways to Die

BART actually has a lot of fatalities. In past years, they've had a worker die in a collision and a woman get dragged under the train by a dog leash. However, the majority of on track deaths are suicides and those statistics are not publicly available that I know of. They have said there have been 30 deaths this year in the trains from drug overdoses.

Every worker safety training course that I have taken includes the following very simple statement:

A train may come on any track, from any direction at any time.

120 mph = 176 feet per second = 54 meters per second.

A typical commuter or inter-city train will have an emergency brake rate of about 1.3 meters per second per second.

That means 120 mph to zero takes about 41 seconds.

41 seconds x 54 m/sec = 2,214 meters or 1.4 miles.

To not hit a person on the track when travelling at 120 mph the train driver would need to see the person and apply the emergency brake 1.4 miles before reaching the person.

Think any train driver has good enough eyesight for that?

The numbers are not in your favor. Stay off the tracks.

Quote:

Think any train driver has good enough eyesight for that?

That's assuming the driver even has a line of sight along a straight track section; any curve on the track nullifies even superhuman eyesight

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The train in the RAIB report above slightly outperformed those numbers, braking from 125 mph to a stop in around 0.75 miles (1.2 km), but it's one of the more advanced trains on the network, with exceptionally good brakes that were designed for 140 mph+ (it's a derivative of the Advanced Passenger Train (APT), which had hopes of up to 155 mph (250 kph) in service).

Quote (RAIB)

The track workers became aware of the train about three seconds before it reached
them. One of the group shouted a warning to three others who were between the
running rails of the Down Main line. These three workers cleared the track about one
second before the train passed them. During this time the driver had continued to
sound the horn and made an emergency brake application before the train passed the
point where the group had been working, thinking his train might strike one or more
of them. The train subsequently came to a stand around 0.75 miles (1.2 km) after
passing the site of work.

If the engineer of a train operating at track speed sees something on the track ahead, said something will either remove itself from the track or the train will hit it. Stopping in time is rarely a viable option.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

Seems that I've forgotten my basic equations of motion. This is not the stopping distance: 41 seconds x 54 m/sec = 2,214 meters or 1.4 miles.

It's the distance traveled at full speed during the time that the train could be slowing down.

Stopping distance from 120 mph (54 m/s) at 1.3m/s/s = 1,121 m. Pretty good agreement with the RAIB report.

If the brakes are fully applied 1,121 meters before the person, then the train will be at standstill when it reaches the person.


...exceptionally good brakes....

The limit to braking performance is adhesion between the wheel and rail.

As an upper practical bound, this limits instantaneous deceleration to about 1.5 m/s/s.

Try to apply more force than that at the wheel to rail interface will likely result in a slide, increasing stopping distance.

In ideal conditions adhesion might be as high as 0.25.
In poor conditions it might be as low as 0.01.

Adhesion is not friction - it behaves differently at the interface.

For stopping performance calculations however, it calculates like friction. That is, the maximum possible stopping force a wheel can provide is it's weight x the adhesion coefficient.

Bottom line, 1.5 m/s/s is a proven upper instantaneous limit compromise for performance during ideal adhesion and compromised adhesion.

High speed trains will typically have a lower brake rate at higher speed because for the same wheel and rail adhesion tends to decrease as speed increases.

If a higher deceleration is needed then:
Magnetic track brakes: Still rely on friction of the rail head, but the brake material can have a higher coefficient of friction that an steel wheel.
Eddy current brakes are independent of friction.

The APT appears to have neither of these - based on 3 minute of reading Wikipedia.

Well the performance numbers everyone has posted indicate my observations of the garden variety Amtrak passenger and Union Pacific freight trains that pass near my house are nowhere equivalent to the higher speed trains! Pedestrians just need to stay off the tracks. Yeah, easier said than done. I just hate seeing technology skewered because of a subset of human behavior.

I should possibly have said "as good as it gets for friction braking", rather than "exceptionally good". The APT-U (IC225) was designed with minimised unsprung weight, disc brakes, and per-axle ABS. The incident train above had 40 axles all essentially grabbing close to every last bit of adhesion practically available. Compared to more traditional passenger trains, it should have superior braking performance.

Here is a summary of a train accident:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA16FR0...

Two trackworkers were killed. The train was traveling at 110 MPH. The main cause was mistakes in judgement by some of the maintenance workers.

Here is the cab video up to 1.7 seconds before the crash (I am astonished at the ignorance of some of the comments):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUzUFkdOFCM

and here is the docket for this accident. There's a LOT of reading material.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=DCA16FR00...



spsalso

Quote:

We have a mental model of what a train track means and what we need to do to remain safe around them. But unfortunately that mental model may not be as reliable if it was trained on slower, noisier trains. It seems like that could be one of the factors at work in this weird situation.

Further to the point, I grew up in a residential area where the street in front of the house was our defacto playground. We played kickball and hopscotch there. We tossed around baseballs, footballs and frisbees there. No one got hurt or hit by a car on our street playground (even if a few of the neighborhood drivers were mildly torqued off by the situation). We had an intuitive feel for what kind of hazard the street represented, and how to play safely there (for example we didn't play in the street at night).

If someone who grew up in that environment was suddenly transplanted to another neighborhood where the houses and yards and streets all looked exactly the same, but every once in awhile an electric car whizzed by quietly at 65mph, their intuition would fail them, and the odds of that person getting hurt shortly after moving there would go waaay up.

For the most part, people don't intend to put themselves into life threatening situations. More often they just misjudge the risk (Sure, I can multi-task and read that text while driving on the highway.... besides, it's a cat picture!)

This is near me. Trains are not that unusual in South Florida. In fact they are very common. But brightline is a lot faster than any other trains we have here. And until Brightline, these tracks were used mostly for relatively slow freight trains (and in fact, they still are in addition to Brightline). And it is VERY quiet. You really don't hear it coming. Also in many areas, they don't blow the horn due to sound restrictions.

So many can misjudge and think they have more time than they think (comparing it to all of the other trains) to cross the tracks.

I don't know about other areas of the country, but much of this train line is right next to residential areas and there are no fences. Just tracks in an empty field a few feet from businesses and houses.

Also in the Ft Lauderdale area, a main road runs parallel but only maybe 50 feet from the tracks, but has crossings every mile or so. So many people would make a right turn and IMMEDIATELY run into a train crossing. While you can see the tracks, if the train is coming up from behind you while you are making that right turn, you will not hear it until it's hitting your car. Yes, there are gates, but some ignore them. Also many of them malfunction so often (dropping with no train anywhere near) that some may ignore them more than they should...

At those locations where the "warning device" (horn) is restricted, then it would seem like the entity that caused that would then be responsible for events that occurred due to lack of use of that warning device.

Similarly, if a person decides to go around a lowered gate, then they are responsible for being hit by the train. Surely a reasonable person would not assume that, just because there are many "false positives", that that means there are NO positives. Or. If I was going to do that, I would ABSOLUTELY make sure that a train was not coming THIS time.

Beyond that, it does look like all concerned should be revisiting the trackage with regard to safety.


spsalso

Has anyone in this thread ever... actually walked along train tracks when they are in use?

As shown in a video earlier in this thread, several rail workers, who I will remind you work on this equipment daily and are well versed in how these trains operate were barely able to dodge away from a commuter train. If you are on tracks anywhere in rural, farmland, or mountainous America, the tracks aren't always straight where you can look either direction for 10 miles. Often the tracks have multiple curves, elevation changes, and bends that limit view. In these situations, freight trains can also be difficult to prepare for, even if they are louder and slower than a typical commuter, you still have much less time that you would ever think to dodge the train, if the terrain around even allows you to evacuate the tracks, I know from experience.

I think engineered solutions, particularly around commuter tracks where the trains travel exceptionally quickly, are a prudent discussion point on these forums. I don't have a good solution (a really big mattress tied to the front of the train engine?), but I think it's worthwhile to brainstorm ideas.

The rule of law has slowly been eroding; people are driving crazy fast and making crazy lane changes; trucks going faster than 55 and taking 3 right lanes instead of 2, etc., cops taking advantage of asset forfeiture loopholes to line their pockets, etc.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote:

were barely able to dodge away from a commuter train

That was a mainline express, not a commuter train.

However, your point is mostly still valid.

I don't understand why tracks in built up areas aren't fenced, tbh. These incidents are all happening within urban or suburban areas, not in some cornfield 100 miles from anywhere.

Around me the tracks are all fenced except at grade level crossings. People cut holes in the fence. Personally, I like the holes. They allow access to a beach that is walkable from my house. The holes are cut at a curve that has been used for suicide purposes.

Quote:

I don't understand why tracks in built up areas aren't fenced, tbh.

There has to be big gaps in the fence at every crossing, rendering them somewhat useless at keeping cars and people off the tracks. Fences only works well for tracks that are isolated from road traffic.

"Has anyone in this thread ever... actually walked along train tracks when they are in use? "


I have. It used to be difficult to avoid it if you were a kid interested in trains.

An interest usually leads to knowledge of the subject, which can be very useful when on railroad tracks.

And so I can report that although I walked along those tracks, I have yet to be injured or killed by a train. And I fully expect that state to continue.



spsalso

Regarding the "one second to death" video posted earlier:

If those workers were only going to be on the tracks for a very short time, they should have posted a lookout. They did not.

A similar event happened on BART in October of 2013 (two killed):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10...

Note the sentence:

"The procedures for such maintenance require one employee to inspect the track and the other to serve as a lookout for oncoming traffic, BART officials said."

Here is an NTSB report on the matter:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReport...

I note that it was not mentioned that the employees clearly failed to provide a lookout, even though they were supposed to. I think sometimes we CAN blame the victim.



If it was going to be a "longer" time, they should have shunted the rails, which would have put up a red block for the approaching train. They did not.

In my above link to a crash in Chester PA in 2016, the workers had not shunted the rails--two died.



spsalso

Quote (spsalso)

Regarding the "one second to death" video posted earlier:

If those workers were only going to be on the tracks for a very short time, they should have posted a lookout. They did not.

That's unhelpful and rather misses the key lesson. When dealing with high speed traffic on curves with poor sighting, simply "posting a lookout" doesn't create a safe system of work. At Egmanton, there was a lookout - but they weren't deployed effectively.

If you want to be really picky, rather than saying "they" (those workers), we need to say "he" (the PiC) should have .... - which puts a different complexion on the question of whether it's OK to blame the victims. While the rest of the team must call out unsafe practices if they see them, they shouldn't be assumed to have the knowledge of line speeds, sighting distances, location of trackside aids, etc. to be able to make that judgement in every case.

A.

I think A key lesson is that, if you post a lookout, that you realize the whole point of a lookout; and that the lookout should be able to warn of oncoming traffic in time to alert the crew properly. That being the whole point.

Another key lesson is that there's a point where you've gone from a "short time" to a longer one, and should shunt the track.

I do wonder if it was considered unacceptable to cause this VIT (very important train) to slow down, something that would have happened with a shunt.


spsalso

I think the problem they'd allowed themselves to believe they had was that there were a lot of trains and they were spending too much time standing around in the cess getting nothing done. The train that nearly hit them had been the third to pass through the worksite in the preceding five minutes and during the day, there's about fifteen movements an hour timetabled in one direction or the other. Having planned a system of work that used the available automatic warning systems (fitted because sighting times were known to be too short for effective lookout working), the PiC reverted to what was effectively simple lookout working to maximise time on the tools.

Shunting the track isn't part of the suite of protection options available in the UK - a fair bit of the network is no longer served with conventional track circuits (even if this one is) - so the closest (and undoubtedly better than just relying on lookout protection) option would have been to take a temporary line blockage. That's an administrative faff and the local signalling centre was already running as many blockages as it could cope with.

So not really about this particular train being too important - more a case of trying not to create a huge backlog of delayed services. You could easily make an argument that this part of the network is sweated too hard, with not enough money made available to move routine maintenance to times when there's less traffic.

A.

> I think sometimes we CAN blame the victim.

It is undoubtedly true. And each tragic case has its own twists and turns. But when you get a disproportionate share of problems you have to look beyond that. Brightline is apparently worst in the US.

I try to put it into context: one accident per 32,000 miles traveled (as Greg points out that's train miles, not people miles). So if the train is averaging 100 miles per hour, that one fatal accident per every 320 hours of train drive time?!? For each and every train in their fleet!?! That seems like a lot to me.

If somebody cares to follow the data trail from here: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/saf...
you might find a broader number for "trespasser" deaths per train mile.

That little note that suicides are not included - very sad.

I suppose "other non-trespasser" are people at crossings? Probably explains the large number of injuries vs deaths compare to trespassers due to the protection of being in a vehicle.

Trains and bridges don't get suicides reported at all while guns get every suicide reported as violence.

When I was a kid we used to walk or ride our bikes between the tracks because the roads had basically no shoulders and it was more dangerous to walk along the roads. My brother actually got hit riding his bike on the road. We were always aware of what was going on with the train traffic, which wasn't very heavy, but was inconsistent. We would continuously be on the alert for any trains and move off the tracks if we saw or heard them. Of course, these were fairly slow freight trains, not high-speed trains.

People should learn not to play on the tracks any more than they know not to play on the roads.

Quote (TugboatEng)

Trains and bridges don't get suicides reported at all while guns get every suicide reported as violence

Do you even care that anything you say has a factual basis? https://www.volpe.dot.gov/rail-suicide-prevention

Did you read your link?

https://www.volpe.dot.gov/rail-suicide-prevention/...

The statistics are not so easy to find because of these standards.

It's very disingenuous to not include the facts in reporting. It makes Trains, bridges, and guns seem a lot more dangerous than they really are. Using that logic one could argue that the Golden Gate Bridge is the most dangerous in the world yet it hasn't had a failure and I don't know of anybody that has "fallen" off since it's construction was completed.

? They list numbers in the graph at the bottom and… https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publ...

I guess I have to fall back in "not reported on". I live a 1/4 mile from a section of railroad that is popular for suicide and live in the San Francisco Bay area by that most infamous bridge. I see the emergency response but never a story.

That is called whatabouting and is the same thing used in many cases to claim that avoidable problems aren't so bad because other avoidable problems exist.

Sure, it's fine to imply that suicide is just worthless people removing themselves from life and that it is so unfair to gun makers that they don't report suicides on train tracks like "15 year old dies painlessly and instantly when hit by train." because the public really needs to know all the details to make an informed decision about trespassing on rail property.

But then I wonder why the defending of guns and think well, if the suicides are just worthless people as implied, it's not the gun's fault or the fault of the companies that sold 1.2 times the US population of firearms.

Until I see those 1 and 2 year olds killing themselves, their siblings, their cousins, relatives, parents, unborn future family members. And a 6 year old getting gun to kill a teacher. It's like macbre roulette - guess how many days it's been since a 2 year old killed someone with a gun.

I reflect on a guy in college who got a gun for self defense and committed manslaughter over the student lounge TV station.

Maybe another thread on how unfair the presentation of gun violence is to gun makers that sell guns for export to Mexico, to be used by cartels to fight the Mexican government, to keep American supplied with fentanyl, that is defended by gun-toting gangs, to advertise how dangerous the gangs are so everyone needs guns, which makes it easier to buy guns in America for export to Mexico.

Staying with pedestrian deaths while crossing railroad tracks, here is one from 30 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KP73CFhfjs

She plainly walked in front of an oncoming train while crossing the tracks. She did not check for approaching trains on those tracks. She (apparently) ignored the pedestrian gates. And, once warned by the safety equipment, continued walking without checking for oncoming trains.

Would YOU have done that?

WHAT are we to do here? Magic bungee cords that wisk people out of harm's way? Armored crash-proof taxis? Run trains across crossings at 3 MPH?

My view is to trust the innate survival instinct of humans (and other animals), and to not do a lot.

You may have other views. Building on that, would YOU be willing to pay for the various overcrossings, undercrossings, escalators, people movers that would be needed to eliminate human-train interaction? How much? If we did a go-fund-me, how much would you put in?


spsalso

That is a common cause. One train parks directly at the crossing, continuously triggering a false warning, blocking the view of the second track, and overriding the warning from the second train. In many locations a parked train will leave the crossing in this state for hours, causing those most familiar to come to ignore the warning and cross as dozens did in that video.

Often the reason for stopping so close is to allow the crew to shorten their walk for a meal break rather than stopping outside the warning block on the track and leaving the sightline from the crossing clear and the signal operated by moving stock.

The railroads do this so much there are towns where children have to climb over and under rail cars to get to and from school. They have 100% immunity and no motive to change procedures. They can, and do, blame the victims.

Mary T. Wojtyla was killed by the procedure of parking so close. I have seen emergency vehicles hit by the same trap.

My dad works in agriculture and the ag community was always against the expansion of railroad in the region because a certain company's operators made a game about blocking access roads.

I have experienced issue with that same company locally, they will leave the final car across a major thoroughfare (2x2 lanes) during switching for 20 minutes. It's like a game to the operators.

I also know someone who has to cross the tracks to get to his house. It is a very unique situation. He is also a drunk that complains a lot. I have seen it, though. The railroad intentionally parks trains across his access, usually 6-10 cars with plenty of room to shift either way. They want him out.

Suicides on the track are sad but don't restrict our access due to sad people. Fence off the areas with poor visibility and let the tracks be crossable just like any other one or two lane road.

The approaching train was not hidden by the parked one. You can clearly see it approaching while Mary T Wojtyla was at least 15-20 feet away from the impact point. She kept going.

It did NOT "sneak up" on her. And the stopped train was not obstructing her view. The person accompanying her clearly saw it, and stopped. She did not.




spsalso

You can, from where the camera is, but not for her before reaching the critical decision to cross, as all the others did. Had the parked train not obscured the view the lawyer and she would not have started across the tracks.

Is the moving train clearly visible at the distance it would have triggered the crossing from the side of the tracks all the people were crossing from? If not, the parked train obstructed her view of the moving train.

15-20 feet at 88 feet per second is less time than most people can identify a problem and far less time than they can react.

Stop making excuses for procedural failures that apply false warnings and create obstructed views. This is the most common situation for crashes at multi-track crossings.

It's not sneaking, it is making a false alarm; it is lying, it is concealing a danger.

Nevertheless, the lawyer with her clearly saw the train and stopped short, but she just wasn't paying attention until it was too late for her. In the full video, you can see her actually behind the the lawyer and she speeds up and when she gets hit, she's about 4 ft ahead of him. Not paying attention is a fairly common cause for lots of injuries and deaths, ala distracted driving, but ditto distracted walking.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The initiating factor was a false alarm that lasted so long dozens of people, without stopping to look, crossed those tracks. It is sensory overload, where the warnings are prolonged and there is an obvious cause that is clearly not dangerous concealing a separate hazard.

Had there been independent alarms, one for each track, or the first train not concealed the second, she would be alive.

We know that proper alerting could be added and that sensory overload is a frequent problem, so which is the moral failure?

More than that, the nonchalance of the others crossing in front of the stationary train and its engineers indicates the parked train operator knew about the hazard over a long time, would have been aware of the risk of the second train, known that not everyone has experience around tracks, and did nothing - not even signs warning that a parked train might conceal a second one traveling at very high speed or moving to completely block the street; did not even sound a horn to protest stepping onto the track by the parked engine that could see the danger and had not involved police to arrest those going around the arms so casually and practiced.

Can't save everyone, but safety measures are there to save as many as possible and the clear observation was that they were being ignored by a lot of people.

WE can see the oncoming train when she is 15' away from that track.

SHE is between us and that train.

So she could have seen what we see. It was not obscured from her view.

The mass of the stopped locomotive is not great enough to bend the light path in a curve such that we could see what she could not.


I am not sure why people seem to assume that there cannot be an approaching train hidden by a stopped one. I recall it happening locally.

"I see a stopped train. Therefore it is safe to cross all the tracks."


spsalso

They applied the logic: If we run we minimize the time on the track which minimizes the time we are exposed to risk.

Quote (IRstuff)

Nevertheless, the lawyer with her clearly saw the train and stopped short, but she just wasn't paying attention until it was too late for her. In the full video, you can see her actually behind the the lawyer and she speeds up and when she gets hit, she's about 4 ft ahead of him. Not paying attention is a fairly common cause for lots of injuries and deaths, ala distracted driving, but ditto distracted walking.

I have not yet looked at that video.

Are trains louder than AC/DC on the headphones?

--
JHG

I would recommend against looking at the entire video. The lawyer had gotten ahead of her and so she was running to catch up; the lawyer had even sped up just before the second track, and she sped up more to continue closing the gap. Her momentum carried her into path of the train - she was leaning back, fully on the brakes as it were, when the train hit, about 0.5 seconds after she realized why the lawyer stopped. They were following after a large crowd that had not stopped to look had also gone across the tracks.

The parked running train and false crossing warning from the parked train were loud. The second train gave a toot on the horn, but did not sound continuously as it approached the blind intersection. Earphones or not, the noise level didn't seem to change much.

https://youtu.be/2KP73CFhfjs?t=388 is the start of the replay of the crowd behavior before the death, but sequenced on Youtube after the death, so you won't see the instant before the death without rewinding.

I see no one stop completely before going onto the second track and only a few even look.

The woman with the white bag looked, saw the train coming, backed up, and waited. The lawyer was hurrying across the track in case a train was coming.

The woman was not part of the crowd.

Of course, the crowd had already passed before the train approached the crossing. The one woman with the white bag was alone. Saw the train coming and waited. Removing train was blasting its horn as it approached the crossing. He probably even told the women," if we hurry up, we'll make it ".

If one was so inclined that would be the perfect way to murder someone unfamiliar with trains, especially the little speedup and sudden stop. If that fails, then Plan B.

This image shows it all. The camera angle is nearly in-line with the people before they even get to the tracks, and the oncoming train is clearly visible (the whitish blob to the right of the stopped train). THAT is why the first woman stopped, and she's looking at the moving train to wait out its crossing. Neither the lawyer nor Wojtyl were even paying attention, since the train was less than 100 ft away and clearly visible before they even cross the first set of tracks. There is no way they wouldn't have seen the train had they bothered to look.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

"Bothered" carries a lot if they are not expecting a train to be there, an impression enhanced by the continuous false warning and the stationary train as clear cause for the false warning. The situation changed but the track warning did not.

Quote:

"Bothered" carries a lot if they are not expecting a train to be there,

Would you say the same if they crossed a street without looking both ways?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The moving train was also blowing its horn well within time for them to hear it and pause.

Was it really a false warning? The gates typically sound for the duration that a train is within the vicinity. This even applies for switching.

I have witnessed this type of accident. I was riding with my dad in his truck on a 4 lane with center divide. We were in the left lane, another car was at our quarter in the right lane. A elder man sprinted from the center divide and cleared our lane but did not see the kid driving on our rear quarter and got hit at about 35mph. My dad and I both saw it coming from our perspective.

Hearing it isn't seeing it, especially if the horn sounds when out of sight. It is why most emergency vehicles slow down at intersections in spite of sirens and using flashing lights.

The warning is that a train is moving towards or on the crossing. If the train is not moving toward or isn't in the crossing, particularly if it is obviously stopped for loading there is nothing to warn against, so the warning is false.

Trains are not radioactive nor do they emit lethal amounts of thermal or electromagnetic radiation. The only danger, aside from falling off of one, is when they are moving or blocking the road. That is when the gates and lights and bells should go.

In related news, the length of trains has increased, so towns that had two crossing would have had only one blocked if a train stopped. Now the trains are far longer creating the potential for hours every day during which a town may be cut in half, leaving children unable to reach school or go home after and no way for emergency vehicles to cross. This leads to children climbing onto and under railcars and, worse, couplers. So far the railroads have flipped the middle finger to the people and the only equal response, blocking the tracks, is currently illegal, while blocking the road is not.

At some point people need to be responsible for their own actions. Alcohol is available to purchase at any grocery store and WAY more people die from alcohol than railroad accidents.

If you get hit by a train that's on tracks while the crossing alarm is sounding while it's sounding its horn... that one is on you. There is no reason to set the rest of society back.

It's funny watching everyone rip on the guy that says airbags cause deaths and then watch the same people say trains cause deaths.

Expect a train on any track from either direction at any time. Not that difficult.

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

Quote (davidbeach)

Expect a train on any track from either direction at any time. Not that difficult.

I was just going to post exactly that statement, but davidbeach beat me to it.

It's not difficult for those very familiar with tracks. I am reminded that the airport in London puts up signs for pedestrians to look Right when crossing the road because of the number of people who are not familiar with traffic and, by habit, looke Left to see if the one-way road is clear.

Add in the casual nature of the majority of the crowd not making any obvious action, and someone is going to be left out.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/28151/watch-a-speedi...

The video was edited to show a crowd crossing when there was no train approaching and then cut to a scene where one person attempted to cross with no crowd present immediately before a couple ran in front of the train. The crowd has nothing to do with the accident.

I assume the lawyer was leading the client. Perhaps we should be talking about how institutional education deprives individuals or experience based learning?

I will also admit that the school of hard knocks produces some frustratingly dense individuals.

The crowd crossed before the same stationary train with the same signals warning them not to cross. The crowd action shows that many felt it was safe to cross under those conditions and would likely have been observed doing so by the lawyer and Mary. Perhaps the crowd members knew there would be a horn sounded by a second train, knowledge that Mary and the lawyer may not have and would not be observable.

The warnings were clearly ignored and insufficient for so many to cross in full view of the train crew. As tempting as it is, the death penalty should be avoided for observable errors and trespasses. If I put up a sign "No Trespassing" and every day watched 100 people walk through my property from my front porch, I cannot then claim total innocence if one of them finds a set bear trap. After all, while everyone knows the damage a bear trap can do, recognizing the danger of it in tall grass is another matter.

Unlike me, rail barons bought enough politicians long enough ago to create laws that entirely insulate them from almost the entirety of liability, so they are excused from most repercussions by the bribes they made .

Perhaps how capitalism pushes private risks into public places for private profits should be included in education.

The video was cut. We don't know how much time elapsed between the crowd crossing and the lawyer + woman.

Perhaps I should argue that the warnings against Marxism are obvious and clear yet ignored by many?

Maybe it's well known that railroads have deep pockets which makes them the target of lawyers. Is that capitalism?

There wasn't that big a time gap; you can see the people that crossed the track dispersing on the other side when the lawyer and the victim start crossing the tracks.

Not saying there could have been better controls or warnings, but this was 1992, and people supposedly had more common sense back then. Tragic as it was, we've argued against someone else about how it's not possible to get 100% safety, and that should be true here as well. I mean, at the end of the day, if I hadn't been lucky when I was 12 and ran into a car instead of the other way around, I wouldn't be here either, so looking left and right when crossing any thoroughfare is just stuff you have to do.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (IRStuff)

There wasn't that big a time gap; you can see the people that crossed the track dispersing on the other side when the lawyer and the victim start crossing the tracks.

I strongly disagree with this statement. We have no idea what the time gap was from the video. What I do know is that I saw a portion of video with a lot of people crossing the tracks separated by a pause and then a video with only one person attempting across the tracks. After which the fateful couple also attempted to cross the tracks.

You can disagree all you want, but the video is pretty easy to follow, given that the other woman is wearing and carrying extremely distinctive clothing and bag. A grand total of maybe 8 seconds, tops

She's at the back of the pack, walking slowly
She was going to cross, but walks back onto the curb to wait out the oncoming train; the camera operator zooms out so that the oncoming train can be filmed
She stands there at the curb and the lawyer and the victim walk up
The pair pass the standing woman and the oncoming train is visible to any of the 3, assuming they looked

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Note that the woman in black was one step past the first track, looked left and reversed course; she obviously had common sense.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Common sense is used to describe prior experience, not some connection to a greater ethereal and all pervasive intelligence allowing an individual access to some previously encountered knowledge that is earned by mystic karma.

Seems like the one who turned had experience and more than enough time to cross and not enough common sense to tell the other two a train was coming. Do you suppose that woman slept well knowing that a tap on the arm or a word would have prevented Mary from being turned into pulp and splattered across the way? Common sense would be to do what would avoid carrying that memory for the rest of her life.

Who would wash the blood off and chuckle that they knew the splatter was going to be good and just let it happen, taking odds on if it would be one or both? Common sense predicted it was going to happen.

The woman with the bag never stopped looking to her left,.towards the trains. The lawyer and victim passed her on the right.

As they say, "Evolution fails when stupidity is no longer fatal."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Evolution can't "fail", because there are no goals to achieve. It just IS.


Meanwhile let's not forget the true killer:

"Mary T. Wojtyla was killed by the procedure of parking so close."*

Death by procedure. An interesting concept.

spsalso


*from post by 3DDave, approximately 34 posts previous

Wait and see how people who don't follow procedure die in aviation.

I wonder how far away she'd have to have parked...

Sorry, out of context...


The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

I'm missing the "...don't follow procedure..." in my post.

You're claiming procedure WAS followed in the train/pedestrian event. And it killed someone.

There's a difference between following procedure and not following procedure (it's kind of the opposite, in a way).



spsalso

Odd reading. The railroad procedure was to park so closely that her trip was started while the view was blocked and an indicators of train movement were triggered by the stationary train - blocking the view and triggering the inappropriate indicators was a direct result of the railroad procedure.

The casual acceptance of the pedestrians violating procedure was also a defacto railroad procedure. That was also a procedure.

Contrast that with airlines. If a passenger won't stay seated the plane will not push back from the gate. If the passenger refuses company procedure they will be removed from the plane and possibly banned from the property for life.

Airlines are the safest form of travel. Trains? Not so much because they have bad procedures and those sometimes kill people.

It was probably confusing by the contrast of good airlines procedures with crappy railroad procedures.

Recall the Florida crash a few years ago caused by not following the good procedure of triggering O2 generators and depleting the reactive chemicals prior to loading a fire bomb into the cargo bay right where it could cut the controls.

But for Mary, the railroad procedures tended to put people at risk and she was the victim. Had the railroad actively prosecuted pedestrians for going past the barriers as airlines do with uncooperative passengers, the initial crowd would have been still blocking the path. Had the railroad put a conductor at the crossing to be picked up as the end of that train departed the crossing, that would have been enough. Had the procedure been to park the train no closer than 500 feet from the crossing then the other train would have been visible to Mary and the lawyer when the crossing horn sounded and the crossing arms would be coming down and lights flashing, all reinforcing attention to the moving train.

Many locations are putting in double arms to block both lanes to prevent drive-arounds. Small changes can prevent many deaths.

Even if one thinks Mary was fully deserving and would gleefully shove her, the operator of the train that hit her wasn't deserving of experiencing that and neither was her family, the bystanders, or those who responded to the aftermath. For her it was done in an instant and no more. For everyone else, it's a large portion of a lifetime.

Quote (3DDave)

Had the railroad actively prosecuted pedestrians for going past the barriers

California just legalized jaywalking...

About time, too :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

I live in SE Wisconsin and there are a significant number of 'no horn' crossings.
They have proven to be safer because they have center barricades and arms that fully reach them.
It does nothing about pedestrians, but it sure eliminates drives skirting the signals.
There is a train 2 or three times a week that because of hazardous cargo always sounds the horn.
I am a ways from the tracks but it is still odd to only hear the horns every now and then.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

Railroads have police, who can arrest people.

So do the cities that have the stations where the pedestrians are crossing the tracks.

Apparently the "procedure" of these government entities was not to do anything about it.

The particular government entity was Downers Grove, Illinois.


The stopped train was stopped because it was loading/unloading passengers at a station. The platform length is 800'. If the locomotive were to be 500' from the pedestrian crossing, that would allow only two passenger cars to be at the platform. It would also mean that passengers alighting from the train would have to walk 500' to cross the tracks. Or, of course, they could be impatient and......



spsalso

Build the platform away from the crossing?

The town may have no authority unless the railroad file a trespass complaint.

---

Car centric laws were designed to increase the danger to pedestrians. That is what jaywalking laws do.

The "WALK" sign is not matched by all-red and no-turn and as soon as I step off the curb I can be hit by turning drivers who are often looking at only the traffic they will merge with - 180 degrees from me.

If I jaywalk, I can see if the pavement is empty of cars for a great enough distance that I can cross before even the street racers can get me and I only need to look 2 directions and not 6 and I don't worry that some nearby stopped car will close the 3-5 foot gap and crush me because they saw an opening behind me and punch it to get that slot. There are cars to left and right and none behind.

Cities could place mid-block crossings to stop traffic and get the same effect, but that protects pedestrians.

She was walking on a public right of way. City police could have ticketed her.

I suspect the platform is placed where it is BECAUSE passengers can easily cross the tracks at the street. As opposed to, say, the tracks themselves. I can imagine the complaining from the public if they had to walk an extra 500 feet. If I was the railroad, I'd let the city decide: "We'll put it wherever you want it."

Imagine the complaining if passengers had to climb stairs to a bridge to cross the tracks. MUCH safer. Ain't happening.

spsalso

This is my local crossing on a blind curve. Everybody that wants to seems to make it across successfully. I have also included a picture of the fence. There is evidence of a lot of foot traffic through that fence.





Dang it, now everyone on train is going to think I'm a foamer

I'm late to the party.

Like a couple others have said unfamiliarity is the problem here. The solution isn't necessarily an engineered one. If we had adopted that approach to roads we would have all around roads fenced off once cars became the dominate road going vehicle.

I'm all for safer streets, but that is a completely new topic. Streets are where people actively live. Rail tracks are for the most part not. Though there are clear exceptions! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TvNBm0DTJg

It really isn't that hard to recognise and avoid a rail track and a train running on one. Trying to fence them off in many sparsely populated areas is like trying to fence off a river/lake/ocean to avoid drowning. Even fencing them off in a populated area is open for debate for reasons already outlined.

Quote (spsalso)

Australia being quite similar to the US, I wonder what THEIR approach to fencing is.

Sporadic. Even in large metropolises of 5milion people there are areas in inner city which are unfenced. Though crossings are largely fenced and controlled. Rural areas are often lights only, quite rural areas are merely signed.

Quote (spsalso)

I don't understand why tracks in built up areas aren't fenced, tbh. These incidents are all happening within urban or suburban areas, not in some cornfield 100 miles from anywhere.

Why is the same argument not applied to streets where we have cars? Cars are far less predictable.


This is a commuter rail line, <5km from the city centre in a metropolis of 5million people in a highly developed nation by OECD measures.


It is also located in a state and country known for its "nanny state" approach to safety. That generally exceeds safety requirements in the US and Europe. (I'm not necessarily saying that is a good thing though!) Around here whenever we have European workers on engineering site we half baby sit them the entire time to make sure they don't break any of our stringent workplace safety rules. (I'm not faulting the European workers, just pointing out the difference in standards.)

Quote:

Like a couple others have said unfamiliarity is the problem here.

Unless someone grew up in a cave and never watched TV or movies and never once had to cross a street, that might be a valid point; I'm having trouble seeing why the required logical leap from street to track might be so difficult to make. Babies have to learn to be afraid of lots of things, but these are not babies.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Recently police left a car on the tracks with a suspect locked inside, train sounding the horn as it approached the crossing. The car was crushed like a beer can and carried hundreds of feet down the track; even then the cops had no sense for the difference in scale and did not drive their SUVs along the smooth path parallel to the rail, but grabbed a first aid kit and ran, covering in 30 seconds what could have been done in 5 seconds, and leaving all other tools behind.

Are police unfamiliar with roads and cars and unable to convert that to rail? Apparently the answer is, Yes.

Most people "get it."

Why are there guard rails on highways if most people get it? Because there should not be a death penalty for those who do not.

The police in this case had extreme tunnel vision, and little situational awareness--very similar to Mary Wojtyla.


spsalso

With the invention of LRAD, perhaps it's the to upgrade from a horn to a verbal warning. The crossing gates indicate when a train is present but not what it's doing. "Get off the tracks, there is a train coming!" Better yet, "It's not worth it, call this phone number for assistance (555)***-****.

I'd hate this. I live near tracks.

Car hit by TWO trains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzr_Qwa0U74


Driver received broken arm. And an arrest.


spsalso

From the Antiplanner blog, Brightline has struck again.

"The good news is that it took a month before a Brightline train on its new Orlando route killed a pedestrian. The bad news is that it did so in the same circumstances as previous fatalities south of West Palm Beach:"

EDIT: Maybe suicide, maybe not...

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

You'd think that a clanging sound at a railroad crossing would be adequate warning, crossbar, or not.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Yeah, you'd think :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Antiplanner noted a lack of crossing gates in the street view photo.

However, that photo shows the mounts for Antiplanner's "missing" gates already installed. Depending on the photo date, those gates are likely already in.

That includes crossing gates for pedestrians on both sides of the street.

Note also the bazillion red flashing lights.

So: Gates. Bells. Red flashing lights. Possibly loud locomotive horns, unless the locals complained about the sound (then Antiplanner could blame THEM for the death).

The crossing should probably also have an Acme Hovering Grabber Drone to snatch people out of the way before the impact.


spsalso

"Acme Hovering Grabber Drone". I like it. Why be half safe? LOL

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Machine gun towers would be a surer bet. Anything that moves, day or night...

Trains are funny things- I'm told they sound a lot like tornadoes, although those seem to NEVER sneak up on people.

spsalso
"It's my impression that railroads in England must fence their right of way."

Only since the 1845 Railways Act! Prior to that they may have been unfenced (before my time...)

I think that this applies to 'land designated as a railway' since any land that has been a railway has to be un-designated before it isn't a railway. So even if there are no rails, you can be fined for trespassing on the railway. This type of trespass is a criminal offence, not a civil one, in England.

Current penalty £1000 ($ 1220)

The French high speed TGV lines originally had some level crossings but these were removed and replaced with bridges / underpasses.

Trespassing on a railway when there is no railway.

Is there an enhancement for silly walks?

"Your crime has been enhanced." "No, that's a bad thing, for you."

spsalso

That's what the law says