Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="zugmann"] (in blue) <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div></div> zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof.  I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof.  Read my above post again.  And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose.    As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both.  Each one would use yellow lights.  The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage.  The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers.  There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion.  The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers.  The first suggestion slows down traffic.        <div style="clear: both;"></div> </blockquote>  I could counter that the current protection is adequate.  It's not foolproof either, but neither is your suggestion.  So, how do we measure "foolproofiness" and how do we determine how much to spend to try to reduce it?  Keeping human emotions and politics out of it, of course. [/quote]  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> A big federal bureaucracy known as the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices measures the degrees of protection.  They come up will all kinds of improvements that are not foolproof.  The suggestion I made about the active advance warning is one of their ideas, and it is an option that can be applied.  It is specifically targeted for use on relatively fast highways for exactly the same reason I am advocating it for the Nevada crossing.   The people at the MUTCD are not blinded by the hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings, so they are able to see ways to improve things.  <o:p></o:p> Ok, we install your flashers.  Then someone hits a train yet.  So do we install a 2nd pair of advanced flashers?  Third?  Fourth? When does it cross the line from advanced warning to silliness? Too many people relying on everyone else doing their thinking for them.  <o:p></o:p> It's just that this crossing had gates.  Physical barriers across the road.  Flashing red lights.  Train horns.  Clear sight lines. I mean, c'mon, what else do we need?  The president of the railroad standing in the middle of the road (in his lime green SUPERVEST) handing out written invitations to stop?<o:p></o:p> You say we need lower speed limits and advanced amber flashers.  Someone else might want even lower speed limits.  Maybe we should just put a stop sign right then and there on the highway? Again: There has to be a limit to this nonsense.  Sometimes a line must be drawn.  We do not have unlimited funds in this country to protect the completely oblivious.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> And yes, your hypothetical scenario of adding a second, third, and fourth set of flashers does get silly.  You keep bringing up nonsense scenarios and equating them with what I am suggesting, and then you say we have to put an end to this nonsense.  But your examples of nonsense have nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag