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.
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.
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.
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.
So why wasn't that explained before?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.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.
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.So why wasn't that explained before?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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
As a minimum, the white crossarm, with or without words, should be bordered with red, so that:the fact that the semaphore signal relies on position for advice sets it apart from a static crossbuck.
* 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.
Subscribers: awsgc24, Big J, theanimal, WimbledonW
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.