Re: Signaller causes SPAD

[antstig@my-deja.com]

In article <8pmatk$5p51@inetbws1.citec.com.au>,
  "Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au> wrote:
Antstig wrote:
SNIP
> > Where I come from we regard a signal passed at danger as a signal
> > passed at danger regardless of whose fault it is.

Peter wrote:
SNIP
> Yes, but if a signal is passed at danger because the signal restores
in the
> face of the driver,
> we call it a RIFOT (restored in the face of train).

RIFOT = ROTFL!

>Some people here keep
> thinking that the
> signaller is the primary cause of this. Non signalling people of
course :-)

I can only speak for my company but in the vast majority of cases
signals thrown (I prefer the word "thrown" to the cosy neutral
"restored") back in the face of the driver are the signallers fault.
Even they wouldn't have the nerve to concoct a story that the signal
mysterioulsy went back on its own accord, of course that could happen
as a signal is failing when a driver is approaching it thus causing him
to hit it, but it is rare.

Regards

Frank

>
> > This sentence just about sums up your attitude. I must ask some
signal
> > engineer friends of mine what they think of signal designer
engineers.
>
> Signal Design engineers should be thanked if a signal restores due to
an
> unsafe condition.
>
> Signal Design Engineers should not be thanked if their new beastie
keeps
> falling over.
>
> Peter Dwyer
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.