Level-Crossing Perils

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1012, 1 July 1930, Page 10

Level-Crossing Perils

Can crossing accidents be entirely eliminated? Theoretically they can, and that only by elimination of crossings throughout the length and breadth of the country. No matter how efficiently railway tracks may be indicated, accidents will occur as long as highway and track intersect on the one level and as long as human nature is what it is. The General Manager of Railways may devise all sorts of mechanical devices to arrest the attention of the road user; but he will still have to record a dismal list of wrecks and mutilations. There is no way of protecting the absent-minded foot passenger or the reckless or preoccupied motor driver. The United States Bureau of Public Roads recently issued a comprehensive report on crossing accidents and a statistical analysis, the purpose being to determine how far “grade crossings,” as the Americans call them, can be protected, and what form of warning is most efficacious. The report finds That despite all external safeguards it will be necessary by persistent and forceful publicity (newspaper accounts of disasters being quickly forgotten and unable to strike the personal note) to keep in the minds of all highway users a realisation of the hazards to which they are exposed while crossings exist. The investigators examined the greatest conceivable variety of mishaps. Interspersed in the monotonous sequence of pedestrians, motor-cars and teams blundering on to crossings and being struck by trains that could neither turn aside nor stop quickly, were frequent unique combinations of circumstances and occasionally a note of near-comedy. In one case a helpful neighbour and several members of his family met death when the friend whose car they were towing applied his brakes suddenly and stalled the first car in the path of a fast train. In another case it was ail excited woman who grabbed the brake and stalled the car on the line. One driver, after stopping on the track, backed off safely but continued to back in a semi-circle until he was once more in front of the train. An unlucky farmer lost his life while trying to “urge cow over crossing.” An interesting part of the inquiry was to discover whether accidents were more frequent in urban or rural localities. It was found that in numbers they were almost equally divided, though smashes in the rural areas

HOW AND WHERE SMASHES OCCUR

NO blame is attachable to the driver of the locomotive.*' This is a common rider at inquests on the victims ol level-crossing accidents, and the coroner says it more or less as a salve to the nerves of the engineman unfortunate 'enough to be involved in a collision. In other words, the blame for 90 per cent, of crossing smashes lies in actual fact with him who had got in front ol the train. And the 10 per cent. —whose fault is that. Theoretically and in law the victim’s again, but in practice the authorities who fail to safeguard the crossing to a reasonable degree.

were more severe, due 10 the faster speed of trains and motor-cars in the less populous parts. This has been . found to be the fact in New Zealand. In view' of the Sockburn disaster | which recently shocked the Dominion, the following note about crossings protected by keepers is important: “Apparently there is sometimes confusion ; as to the signals given by watchmen to highway travellers, as in a number of instances cars were driven on to the crossing under a mistaken impression that a proceed signal had been given. This is especially apt to happen when the watchman is a member of a train crew" and is.giving signals to his engineman. On the other hand, the watchman is more ofteu completely ignored. Instances have been reported in which the watchman was struck by an automobile, or a lantern knocked out of his hand. One watchman threw his lantern at an approaching car in a last futile effort to bring it to a stop.” A study was also made of the degree to which the approaching train was visible to the motorist. Accidents do happen under the most favourable conditions for their elimination, when visibility is excellent. These are accidents whose cause can be accounted for by nothing less than sheer inattention. The average motorist slows down when he sees a crossing sign ahead, but is disinclined to stop until he sees the necessity for so doing. Stopping and starting a car causes a few moments’ delay and calls for a certain physical and nervous effort, particularly when the road to the crossing is on the up-grade. Where the driver does not have a clear view up and down the rails for some distance . before he reaches the track he is apt ( to see the train too late for a safe stop in the distance left him. The law placing the onus of ; smashes and collisions on the road user is the same in the States as here. A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court places the re sponsibility for caution at crossings squarely upon the motorist or other user of the highway. Under this . decision the motorist is supposed to . take every care to learn whether the , way is clear, even, when necessary, to the extent of getting out of his car for a look up and down the line. Even with the responsibility so definitely assigned, however, the improvement of visibility at crossings should be as much a part of a highway-safety pro- ! gramme as any other measures designed to protect the careless driver and to expedite traffic generally. —C.W.