Re: [NSW] Five (in a car) thought dead after train crash

[petercook2705@my-deja.com]

With logic like yours the Sydney-Melbourne service either wouldn't
exist, or would be provided by trains that never pass the speeds of a
1920s service due to regulatory restrictions.  The sheer cost and scale
of a program to carry out the upgrades you propose would stifle any
development of passenger services, most of which are already inherently
not viable.  Your proposal would essentially mean the end of
intercapital rail services.

It's all well and good to say we should provide boom gates, but WHY?
They are designed to discourage drivers from moving onto a level
crossing immediately after the rear car of a train has passed, not to
stop them in the first place.  This is why they are generally only used
on multiple track - where another train could be approaching from
behind the first one which may not have been seen by the car driver.

A level crossing is generally something that is visible to anyone who
has been licensed to drive a motor vehicle, and common sense dictates
that a driver who has met the qualification procedures (which includes
a section on level crossings) would slow down upon approach and prepare
to stop if necessary.  They would look out for warning bells/lights etc
if they are provided, or they would stop and look for trains at the
stop sign if other forms of protection have not been provided.

Therefore, assuming the protection signals (if any) have not
malfunctioned, the driver of a vehicle that has been hit by a train at
a level crossing either:
a) Saw the train (or the signals), and decided to proceed anyway; or
b) Didn't look
Either way, the driver of the car can be deemed negligent by their
intention to proceed across a level crossing without exercising due
care.

Assuming the driver decided to proceed, a piece of wood with a few
flashing lights on it that extends half way across the road would
either:
a) Cause a driver to reconsider their idiotic plan of ignoring the
warning system; or
b) Cause a driver to weave around the gates

Since at this point, the driver has already been deemed negligent,
their death their own responsibility.  No amount of nannying can stop
someone who, through their own stupidity, commits an action that could
easily result in their own deaths.

If a driver is unaware of the inherent danger of proceeding onto a
level crossing, protected or otherwise, while a train is approaching,
then they should never be permitted to drive a car.

Level crossings, including unprotected ones or ones with limited
protection have always been and will always be a fact of life.  If a
person decides to risk their life by ignoring the warning signals or
signs, they deserve exactly what happens to them.


MrPC


In article <MPG.14e12330ecffdaaa989683@news.iprimus.com.au>,
  Graeme <grimegrime@hotmailremove.com> wrote:
> Using that logic we should never as an example have progressed from
> propeller passenger aircraft to jet propulsion...In fact we should
never
> do any thing but drag our selves around on all fours.
> Of course people will drive around boom gates,but at least they
usually
> have to stop before they do the act.You not being a moron, can you in
all
> honesty say that you  have never been distracted at a critical moment
and
> some how lost the plot ever so slightly.
> My argument is that if you want to run passenger trains at 160 km
h,then
> you should make sure your signalling system and all your ancillary
> equipment is at the highest standard,not some piss weak set up that
was
> introduced around 80 years ago when the road traffic was light and
the
> average car could do 60 km h flat out.
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/