[mindslight]

Every time I see some analysis of an unprotected level crossing crash putting fault on a driver it blows my mind that the standard is still that trains have the right to just blow through intersections, everybody else be damned - especially given how infrequently utilized most tracks are. That kind of priority should require a crossing gate with positive verification that the gates are down and intersection is clear before giving the train signal to proceed. And I say this as someone who likes trains.

(And yes, I get the physics involved. Similar physics applies to cars versus people, yet outside of some very narrow and high utilization contexts like controlled access highways, cars' speeds are limited by having an implicit responsibility to stop to avoid collisions)

[Incipient]

A car can typically stop within 5-10m at most city speeds (reaction time notwithstanding) and not really waste much energy in the process. A freight train probably takes about a month to stop, at the cost of a lot of energy/fuel. It absolutely makes sense they have right of way.

[mindslight]

Cars waste exactly as much specific energy coming to a stop from a given speed as a train (or anything else) does. City speeds are limited precisely because otherwise the stopping distance would be too great. If you're driving 25mph in a city and someones jumps out in front of you and you hit them, you're not going to get blamed. If you're driving 65mph you will.

It only "makes sense" for trains to have unimpeded right of way if you're prioritizing corporate expedience over human life. Within my point there are still two main ways trains can move at high speeds - bridge crossings and crossing gates with positive control. If railroads want to operate at high speeds, then they should have to fix their infrastructure rather than being allowed to continue to dumping their externalities onto the public.

[Incipient]

Of course "specific energy". You're either unaware a train is significantly more massive than a car, or you're deliberately trying to mislead with your statement. Neither is encouraging.

[mindslight]

I would say that focusing on the total big number is deliberately misleading. When the goal is to accelerate (decelerate) mass using the friction created by the weight of the mass itself, the amount of mass cancels out. Likewise when the goal is to transport mass, then cost per unit mass is what matters.

As I said in another comment, we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier.

[IdiranVibe]

> at most city speeds

This is exactly it! Their speeds are limited around areas they're likely to interact with people to enable this. Agreed that slowing them down probably is wrong but they should definitely be protecting crossings.

[FreshStart]

They could send a drone ahead?

[david38]

You need to take physics again. You clearly don’t understand it. The physics of stopping a car is nothing like the physics of stopping a train. The mass is so different it’s comical for you to even say that. The propulsion system is not even remotely similar.

[mindslight]

Thanks for the content free insult and wild hyperbole?

Mass cancels out and is irrelevant. "Train is Big" makes for a great red herring though. And "propulsion system", really? I'm pretty sure they both use wheels to accelerate and decelerate, not reaction mass or gravity bending sci-fi tech.

Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed, with the main difference being the constant factor. Therefore, for any desired stopping distance, we can set a maximum speed. This is done with cars, where areas of heavy interactions (cities), speeds are low. Moderate interactions speeds are moderate, and the onus is still on cars to stop even though it doesn't feel that way. And there are controlled access roads where speeds are high and you're not practically expected to stop for pedestrians in the road (though obviously you certainly should try).

Currently train tracks are treated as if they're controlled access, while often having few controls. That's the problem.

[mindslight]

> Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed

Doh. Stopping distance is proportional to the square of speed. I knew this was wrong when I was typing it out, but I convinced myself it was right. I must have been thinking of the time. Being the square of the speed actually makes my point stronger, as the speed doesn't need to be reduced nearly as much to obtain a given stopping distance.

[comprambler]

You are making a point that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned, correct.

Though what you don’t get is the concept of inertia at the train’s scale. You can’t just say “mass cancels out”. The specific energy to stop is the same per given amount of mass, however the amount of mass is not in the same league. Not to mention the CoF differentials between rubber/asphalt to steel/steel.

[mindslight]

I agree that the lower coefficient of friction of steel on steel leads to less favorable maximum speeds for trains when applying the otherwise uncontroversial standard of possibly needing to stop at an uncontrolled crossing. I don't see what the amount of mass has to do with anything though. Like we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier and require more fuel to get back up to speed.

I'd say the problem with simply saying that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned is that railroads will understandably say that it will take time to comply, and then stonewall for decades because of funding/whatever. Whereas the standard of liability can be changed atomically after some notice period, and if the railroads haven't upgraded their crossings to be able to maintain the speeds they'd like, that's on them.

Also the framing is different. Prohibiting certain types of crossings is creating new regulation, whereas removing the unjust liability shield is fixing traditional corruption.