So you like GPS !

Respectfully, this isn't a GPS error or a problem with GPS.

This is a problem with:

- inadequately designed navigation system software

and more importantly:

- an idiot driver who doesn't realize she's driving onto railroad tracks.


My nav system has made a couple of minor mistakes: it suggests I take a left turn on a No Left intersection...and once tried to send me West when the address was East.

But this is no more or worse than many maps: even a USGS topo map warns its user that details may have changed.

There's a bunch of directions you try with Yahoo! or MapQuest that will give an incorrect route.

There are many situations in which I had to rely on a nav system--let alone GPS--and with few exceptions it gets me there.

But I'm pretty confident that if it erred and suggested I take railroad tracks, I'd pretty much know. Even she admits there was a sign.
 
There are basicly 3 companies that make the maps and up date them. The company that makes the GPS would buy the map from one company or the other. So you might have the same mistake with diffrent GPS units. Then you have to go back to the basics... That is using common sence. If you cant figure out its the railroad and you shouldnt be there. I think the train should do Darwin work.

Sasha
 
From what I gathered of the article, the byline is very misleading.

"A 20-year-old student's car was wrecked by a train after she followed her sat nav system onto a railway track."

The byline suggests that the GPS led her down the tracks, at least to me. What the article says is that she parked her car on a railroad crossing (in order to open the far gate) and it was hit by a train. Perhaps a bit more situational awareness is in order. To me, the fact (do we know that it is a fact?) that the crossing was not marked is a non issue in my mind. If she is sufficiently clueless that she parked her car on a track with a train barrelling down upon it, while following the directions of a GPS, I do not really believe that she would not have done the same thing while reading a map.

I've yet to have a problem with my GPS. Sometimes I don't agree with the directions, but that is a matter of preferenece, not of impending death by train.
 
Seems like total stupidity on the part of the driver. How can one not notice driving on a train track???

I rely on my GPS every day, it's much safer than trying to read a map on the road and I couldn't carry all the maps I might need. It often gets it wrong, especially in cities (Blackburn springs especially to mind) where there have been developments over the last few years. If I blindly followed my GPS around Blackburn, I would (1) drive straight into a new building (2) go the wrong way on several one-way streets (3) drive over a field (4) drive on a footpath/pedestrianised area.

Needless to say, I keep my eyes open. I read somewhere that all the maps on car gps units are about 5 years old.

GPS is *great*, but only if used with common sense, like most things in life. I do carry a few maps for backup.

Rick.
 
Yes, one must know the limitations of their GPS unit. There is a stretch of State highway a little ways north of me that is about 5 years old, yet, it doesn't appear in the latest version of my Garmin software. Whenever we travel on that stretch, the little pointers glides through fields, woods, etc. The first time it happened, we stopped the car, got out to open a gate a ways away, and our car was hit by a train! Ha! No, actually, the first time it happened, we actually stopped in the midst of the stretch to eat. During the stop I recalibrated the unit. When the pointer continued to drift throught the wilderness, I figured the software was out of date. And, I think that was my Topo card, too.

Our GPS unit has helped us navigate through big cities on road trips. But our primary nav tools are usually paper maps. The GPS is handy, as it can provide more detail than some maps we carry. And it's fun to tinker with while driving and talking on the cell phone simultaneously.

:)

Sorry, it's been a long week.
 
@Foxyrick....

I understand that many rural roads in Britain are indeed gated (especially in the North), and it's not unusual for a driver to exit his or her vehicle in order to open the gate, drive forward, and re-exit the vehicle in order to close the gate behind you. If this sounds unsual to Americans or others, it's only in very rural areas where there is open animal grazing--leaving the gate open allows critters to leave the farm.

However, and here's where I look to you for advice, aren't all railroad crossings consistently and obviously marked?

They are here in the States--and while quite a few railroad crossings don't have red-and-white-striped vehicle gates, they do have a standardized flashing red strobe that loudly and visibly indicates when a train is less than a quarter-mile away. Gates and strobe shown below:

images


In her case, there were gates...and they were down. Is it even remotely conceivable for a person of average competence to have mistaken them for road gates? And here, at least, they're pretty tough to lift when functioning correctly.
 
Watchful said:
They are here in the States--and while quite a few railroad crossings don't have red-and-white-striped vehicle gates, they do have a standardized flashing red strobe that loudly and visibly indicates when a train is less than a quarter-mile away. Gates and strobe shown below:
Click to expand...

When I lived in middle Georgia in the rural areas they have RR crossing signs. No lights or anything like that.
 
We have them here, too, but there's only at private railroad crossings (such as within a manufacturing facility's private roadways) or at long-abandoned ones.

I'm reasonably sure--but no doubt our community will correct me--that FDOT pretty much provides lights at a minimum now.

However, given that local counties also like to wrestle control away on crossings, I've seen a LOT of variation on that basic theme... but usually adding more warnings and bells and claxons, especially if there's been an accident there.
 
Airhead combined with being inexperienced with the limitations of a GPS. The GPS did what it was supposed to do, she didn't.

Let's take the GPS out of the scenario and assume she arrived at the gate by following a map; now what? She'd have opened the gate and driven onto the tracks just like she did with the GPS.
 
I use GPS for boat navigation. We had a man overboard in fog once and were able to use the back track feature to get close enough to hear the persons' calls. Couldn't do that with map. That said it is essential to have a nav. chart and compass on board as the failsafe.
 
I Love using Gps, it is very acurate and as reliable as any technology can be, it is not however a substitute for good map and compas skills.

If someone cant tell a railroad crossing from a parking spot, the are gonna get hit by a train sooner or later.


Some years ago when Gps was new we had some genius college student take one and a cell phone into a state forest, he kept calling the ranger station saying, " I am at coordinates xyz. Where am I?" after the tenth call the reangers went in and removed the genius from the park, as he was obviously a danger to himself.
 
From the article:
"I put my complete trust in the sat nav and it led me right into the path of a speeding train," she said.

The problem is with the first 9 words in that quote.
 
Uh, did you guys read the entire article?

"The crossing wasn't shown on the sat nav, there were no signs at all and it wasn't lit up to warn of an oncoming train.

...

"I came to this crossing at Ffynongain and there was like a metal gate, which looked like just a normal farmers' gate with a red circle on it

"I thought it was a dead end at first and then there was a little sign saying, if the light is green, open the gates and drive through.

"So I opened the gate, drove forward, closed the gate behind me and then went to go and open the gate in front of me.
Click to expand...

My gosh there's an awful lot of things the news article isn't telling me.

How far away from the tracks were the gates? That could explain why she didn't immediately notice they were there.

Also, if the tracks were embedded in asphalt, as they are in most intersections here in the US, and it was dark enough out, she might easily have not noticed them at first.

No mention of how much alchohol was in use at the time, if any.

I also assume the light was green before she opened the gate. The article is silent on that subject.

But that said, it sounds like the train gates were unusual in her experience, unusual enough that she didn't immediately recognize that she was about to cross train tracks.

Without more information, I don't think I can safely call Ms. Ceely an idiot. Although she is apparently guilty of not being sufficiently tuned into her environment.

The more interesting angle to this story is how the newspaper is clearly attempting to blame the object, a GPS navigation system in this case, for some number of small things going wrong, all strung together. Blaming the object is a favorite pass time in Britain. Just look at their knife and gun laws.

I'm also guessing someone is trying to avoid a lawsuit. If the light was green and the train came anyway, then whoever is responsible for that light is guilty of some kind of negligence. If the situation can be spun to blame the GPS unit instead of the people responsible for the gate, then someone is off the hook.

I don't automatically think Ms. Ceely is an idiot here. However, I do think that whoever wrote this BBC article has an agenda, and it's a clear one at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top