That does not look like a sign applied by a statuatory authority, I would ask whomever bought it and placed it there to kindly take it home... Surely it ought to be placed at the top of the ramps not at the bottom of them? I mean it's an underpass, by definition all traffic is going to originate from the level... Just another reason to be skeptical of it's origin for me.

I know that this is a blatant violation of Rule 14  But

- Mate , I'm with ya , I'm absolutely certain it was not placed there by a statuatory authority.

Just from a drivers perspective here, I think the underpass idea is fantastic. Anyway to completely eliminate the ability for pedestrians to interface with the railway is good. I don't know if it is a slight amount of utopia, or what, but the electronically controlled gates that they have at Oaklands (and all around the network) are fantastic in theory, but infact have one giant flaw that school students particularly exploit!

That is the fact that it has an 'Emergency Exit" which can be very easily opened, and it circumvents the entire safety procedure, meaning that they can run out infront of a train (because children inherently will take more risks) to catch it, and risk their lives for the sake of getting it.

It concerns me that the community appears to have totally missed this point, and is willing to expose school students at Wesminster (and a lesser part Marion Primary) to risk because of a concern that an underpass (regardless of being wide open) is a giant risk for their community.

But hey, thats just my opinion, but take heed, those controlled pedestrian gates aren't a silver bullet solution, and create their own problems but the ability to circumvent the entire working of them.

Paul

I think you should listen to Jumbo's opinion as a driver.

It will he or his colleagues who have a child splattered bug like over their windscreen.

A childs' skull impacted at 100 kph explodes like a watermelon, hopefully the windscreen stays intact and the driver only loses his/her nerve and not their life; they will most likely lose their job, not from disciplinary action but from traumatic stress.

If you can DPTI to agree to a bridge with steps  at the down end and a gated access at the up end, good luck.
Active crossings at both ends are not on.

Ian

Ian, I think a change of wording or toning it down; as words to the effect of "child splattered bug like" and "A childs' skull impacted at 100 kph explodes like a watermelon" come across crass and quite crude. Any parent (of which I am NOT one) who has had to deal with the tragedy of loosing a child in this way would be rightly offended by this language. Personally, the best option that protects all members of the community should be the option chosen; personally, I believe if it saves one life it does, as Ian said, have significant impacts upon the drivers. Cost should be irrelevant, safety, however should not.

personal views only

Standard tactic when the argument can't be won on merit, go for emotional blackmail and damn the facts.

The relevant facts, of course, are that road crossings outside schools where students using the crossing are supervised by SAPOL-trained student monitors and a school staff member have a zero fatality rate over the entire history of student monitor operation - despite having many more vehicles per hour traversing the crossings and no active gates. Logically, student monitors and a staff member supervising a gated level crossing would be even safer - just as it is for the level crossings already located near schools that already execute their duty of care in that manner whether they have gates or just a maze.

Go on turbo Tom, do the right thing by the people who have spoken out against your maverick department and their little empire in their ivory tower! Build the level crossing gates, save us millions and send Luigi the little Mussolini off to go and gold plate his local centrel