The following text is taken from a discussion on the Facebook page of ČT24, where people unanimously condemned the excuse of the driver who argued in court that the lights were indeed flashing, but the barriers were up. As a student of design theory who has read
The Design of Everyday Things
by Don Norman several times, I attempted something absurd in the discussion: to defend the driver. Below is my full comment from the discussion:
The driver belongs in prison, yet we could think about his argument, namely that the barriers and the lights were not “synchronised”. In my opinion, the main culprit here is the faulty DESIGN of the whole system of railway level crossings. Even a very superficial analysis of what the barriers and the lights communicate makes it clear that they symbolise a prohibition. While the light has only a visual, communicative function, the barrier is a means that also has a mechanical function: it either gives you the possibility to drive through, or, on the contrary, makes driving through impossible. So far, everything at the level of common sense. But from psychology and design theory we know that a barrier provides a so-called “affordance”, that is, through its appearance and shape it communicates what the barrier means and what a person (the driver) can do with it. If we set aside all laws, we must conclude that the “affordance” of the barrier, when it is up, is the possibility to drive through; when it is down, the “affordance” is the impossibility of driving through. From psychology and design theory we know that if the light proclaims “do not go”, but the “affordance” of the barrier allows you to “drive through”, confusion arises, a cognitive dissonance. It is certain that when a person is at home at their PC, sipping Coca-Cola, their thinking works differently than when they have a whole day of driving and concentrating behind them. What I want to say is that, on the one hand, we can have laws that order something, but a law is an idea on paper only. A railway crossing cannot rely on people respecting these ideas under all circumstances. True, ex post, whoever breaks them can go to prison, but that will not save human lives. So I am of the opinion that what matters is prevention: a railway crossing should provide the right “affordances”, and do so immediately, when it is necessary. Immediately after the light starts flashing, it should not be possible to drive onto the crossing. Immediately. The law is one thing, but faulty design and engineering are another. We do not need better laws, but smarter designers and engineers whose designs will prevent problems. The DESIGN of railway crossings is bad; the DESIGN of railway crossings is costing people their lives. Don Norman, the design theorist, says: do not blame the user (the driver) for their faulty behaviour, the culprit is ALWAYS the designer. Whoever designed the system of railway crossings shares in the deaths of these people. I rest my case.