I still don't understand why "same reason it has been done with those other signs and signals" isn't a sufficient response. Also, I suggested that it makes no cost difference for new signs but no one has responded to that, why?

Enough people cannot recognise what crossbucks mean with the words Railway Crossing printed thereon without taking the writing off and completely confusing more idiots.

I still don't understand why "same reason it has been done with those other signs and signals" isn't a sufficient response.

For the very simple reason that, despite numerous requests, you have completely failed to demonstrate any benefit at all.

Then; your idea that new signs should be phased in when replacements are needed - are you seriously suggesting that we should have two types of signs for decades? You have to be kidding.

I still don't understand why "same reason it has been done with those other signs and signals" isn't a sufficient response.

Because we don't have any idea why it was done with those other signs. If you can chase up some documentation on that which supports such a decision with scientifically valid evidence, I'll consider it.

On the other hand, we do know that Australia's standard for level crossing signage was the product of extensive research and that Australia's record of level crossing safety is quite good. Unless there are valid arguments showing the flaws in that research or demonstrating that there is a better option, there is no need to make a change.

Also, I suggested that it makes no cost difference for new signs but no one has responded to that, why?

I agree that there would be no difference in the production costs.

However, there would be up-front costs incurred for the re-designing of the signs (which is never as simple as "remove the text" like it's a Word document), re-tooling of the manufacturing equipment, re-writing of legislation and standards, and replacement of each jurisdiction's inventory of spares that would no longer be permitted to be installed.

I would suggest that those up-front costs should be paid for by those who want such a change to occur, not everyone else who is happy with the current design and is not convinced that there is a need to make a change.

Has anyone researched the fatalities or injuries at Level Crossings  here over the last few years. Our road toll is not to great for our population. Equal to England on a per  capita basis from 7 odd years ago.

Has anyone researched the fatalities or injuries at Level Crossings  here over the last few years. Our road toll is not to great for our population. Equal to England on a per  capita basis from 7 odd years ago.

The ONRSR has that data.

In the most recently reported period (the second half of 2018) there were just 14 collisions at road level crossings in the whole nation, a rate of just 1.01 per thousand level crossings.

I still don't understand why "same reason it has been done with those other signs and signals" isn't a sufficient response.

Because we don't have any idea why it was done with those other signs. If you can chase up some documentation on that which supports such a decision with scientifically valid evidence, I'll consider it.

So why wasn't that explained before?

On the other hand, we do know that Australia's standard for level crossing signage was the product of extensive research and that Australia's record of level crossing safety is quite good. Unless there are valid arguments showing the flaws in that research or demonstrating that there is a better option, there is no need to make a change.

And when it comes to roads, and maybe railways too, we have learned a lot from European countries where things like level crossing signs and give way signs are without text.

I would suggest that those up-front costs should be paid for by those who want such a change to occur, not everyone else who is happy with the current design and is not convinced that there is a need to make a change.

Or anyone else supportive of it.

I still don't understand why "same reason it has been done with those other signs and signals" isn't a sufficient response.

Because we don't have any idea why it was done with those other signs. If you can chase up some documentation on that which supports such a decision with scientifically valid evidence, I'll consider it.

So why wasn't that explained before?

It was explained numerous times on the first page of this thread - including in just the fourth post - that our current standard design for level crossing signs was informed by extensive research, but we don't know why other places have chosen the policies they have.

You will do better on discussion forums if you engaged with other posts (you know, discussion) instead of just repeating your points. Repeating yourself is a good way of making your point look weaker, not stronger, because people can see that you don't have any response to scrutiny.

And when it comes to roads, and maybe railways too, we have learned a lot from European countries where things like level crossing signs and give way signs are without text.

If a European person jumped off a cliff would you follow them?

Anyway, we have quite a low rate of level crossing collisions in Australia (2.02 collisions for every 1000 level crossings per year) which is a lower total rate than the rate of 'significant accidents' (a collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury) in almost every country in Europe. Level crossing safety is an area where we should be teaching Europeans.

If we are to change our policies regarding level crossings, it should be the result of scientifically valid research which demonstrates that a proposed change will actually be better than the current standard, and not just copying what someone else does.

@justapassenger, don't bother with information and facts.

I think utopia and fantasy is the answer.

Or anyone else supportive of it.

Nup

It was explained numerous times on the first page of this thread - including in just the fourth post - that our current standard design for level crossing signs was informed by extensive research, but we don't know why other places have chosen the policies they have.

But the thing is that other here don't know why we have done it for other signs, such as those prohibiting a turn in a given relative direction, but that wasn't explained until I asked why whatever reason it was done with those signs is not an argument.

Anyway, we have quite a low rate of level crossing collisions in Australia (2.02 collisions for every 1000 level crossings per year) which is a lower total rate than the rate of 'significant accidents' (a collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury) in almost every country in Europe. Level crossing safety is an area where we should be teaching Europeans.

Surely not when compared to the U.K or Germany.

Myrtone; despite numerous requests, you have not given us one benefit that would be achieved by changing.  This is as silly as your idea of a slip road into Clifton Hill some time ago.
Just forget it.

Before I give any benefit, I would like to hear from someone who does know why it was done with other signs and/or someone who has personal experience with the linguistically neutral, textless signs.

Before I give any benefit, I would like to hear from someone who does know why it was done with other signs and/or someone who has personal experience with the linguistically neutral, textless signs.

With that said, I would recommend to the forum moderators that this thread be closed for now.

If someone does come up with a benefit, they could open a new thread to explain it and show the data.

No, just walk away from it.

I must admit that I've been finding this conversation quite amusing.

First, the notion that the current level crossing sign is the best because it was the result of a lot of research is interesting. My first information on the standard crossbuck dates from 1879 on the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St Louis RR, and I'd bet it wasn't new at that time. The notion that some US railway came up with the absolute all time best level crossing design 140 years ago is ludicrous. It's likely that the current design tested 'best' precisely because it was familiar to the people being tested. It retains the familiar crossbuck, while surrounding it with a highly contrasting block to bring it out of the background.

Second, the idea that Australia has something to teach Europe about level crossing safety is wishful thinking. We only have a fraction of the road or rail traffic of Europe, and, generally our sightlines are generous. These factors mean that our accident rate should be, and is, much lower.

Third, IMHO, level crossings are one of the highest risk to safety of the modern Australian railway. This is because of 1) the increasing congestion in urban areas, leading to stacking over crossings even in plain roads, and 2) the increasing weight of road vehicles. I heartily support the Victorian government's program of level crossing removals and putting in flashing lights just about everywhere.

Fourth, Myrtone is quite correct to note that most other countries do not include text on the level crossing sign; the text is clearly not necessary. My reference (Railway Signalling & Interlocking, Ed by Theeg & Vlasenko) notes only five countries that include text: USA, Mexico, Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia. As an aside, I'd suspect that a big factor here is lack of concern in these countries about people who do not speak the dominant language.

Fifth, there is no reason why *removing* the text would make the sign more effective. My reference is very clear that there is already a significant national variation that road users must cope with. I don't see any point changing for changes sake.

However, I would note that Victoria has recently changed to dashed lines within intersections, just to be nationally consistent. IMHO just as pointless as removing the text from level crossing signs, and with no obvious safety benefits. But someone made the decision to do it. Ralph Waldo Emerson's quote springs to mind.

Before I give any benefit, I would like to hear from someone who does know why it was done with other signs and/or someone who has personal experience with the linguistically neutral, textless signs.

In other words, you're advocating letterless signs without having the slightest idea why you're doing it. Can we please can this idiotic topic?

I think that we should replace the current meaningful text with a heap of meaningless acronyms.

Seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem.

Traffic lights originally had the words "Stop" and "Go" enscribed on the red and green lenses respectively.

Traffic lights originally had the words "Stop" and "Go" enscribed on the red and green lenses respectively.

These words were eventually removed later

myrtone,

what would be the cost benefit from the change, please no pictures, I bunderstand you are on the spectrum, but just a succint response please.

Road traffic lights originally had text:
Stop (Red)
Caution (Yellow)
Go (Green)

But the text has long gone.

As a minimum, the white crossarm, with or without words, should be bordered with red, so that:
* the white is visible against a dark background, and
* the red is visible against a light background.

Similarly a Home signal semaphore has some white and some red, so that the arm is visible no matter what the background.

Similarly a Distant signal semaphore (except for NSW) has some light yellow and some dark black.

As a minimum, the white crossarm, with or without words, should be bordered with red, so that:
* the white is visible against a dark background, and
* the red is visible against a light background.

Similarly a Home signal semaphore has some white and some red, so that the arm is visible no matter what the background.

Similarly a Distant signal semaphore (except for NSW) has some light yellow and some dark black.

the fact that the semaphore signal relies on position for advice sets it apart from a static crossbuck.


Still waiting for Myrtone to provide a justification other than "I am from the me generation"