Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Railway Man"][quote user="Bucyrus"][quote user="n012944"][quote user="Bucyrus"] People run into trains for different reasons, and with some of those reasons, roadside lighting would not help.  And with some of those reasons, reflectors would not help.  Considering what probably occurred with the Friendship, WI crash, I believe that either roadside lighting or reflectors may have prevented it, whereas the stop sign did not.  In fact, I would say that roadside lighting would have contributed far more crash prevention than the stop sign.[/quote]And at what point does the driver have to take some responsibility?  We could light up every crossing like the Vegas strip, but at some point people need to learn how to protect themselves.  Maybe we should have crash netting come up anytime a train comes near, just in case a careless driver thinks that the rules of the road don't apply to them.[banghead][/quote]The drivers have been expected to take all the responsibility up until the point where the FRA said that freight trains can be hard to see at night.  Why would the FRA tell us that trains can be hard to see at night, and add reflectors to light them up instead of just telling drivers to live up to their responsibility to make sure the crossing is clear? I believe the money spent on installing and maintaining reflectors would buy more safety if it were spent on roadside lighting for passive grade crossings without stop signs, that are in un-illuminated areas.[/quote]Bucyrus:  You raise many valid points here and in other posts.  I have some comments.There is no system that cannot be defeated by anyone, any time.  No one can assert, unless they're a liar or a fool, that a crossbuck can always be seen under all conditions at all times, and is always sufficient warning to motorists.  Stating that the motorist is at fault when they slam into the side of a train, might be true but completely misses the point of safety measures, which is that every person will eventually be careless, inattentive, foolish, or reckless, and up to a point it's worthwhile devising efficient and inexpensive ways to protect each person from their folly.  This is not only to protect the individual who commits the folly but everyone else.  The cost of an inattentive motorist running into a train is not just born by the motorist but by the railroad and the public.It's always a question of cost-benefit.  The FRA rule requiring reflectorized tape on the side of trains was an acknowledgement of public determination that the cost to the public of adding the tape was less than the value to the public of reducing the rate of vehicle-train collisions.  The public pays for everything.One polar end of the argument is that people who are careless should bear 100% of the cost of their carelessness and only basic warning devices such as crossbucks are all the public should pay for.  The other polar end is that the system should be 100% guaranteed to keep the careless from harming themselves.  Those seem like good positions for a lawyer advocating for the plaintiff or the defendant, but otherwise these strike me as political positions, not practical choices.  Choosing either end will cost the public a great deal more than a balance between the two.RWM[/quote]Railway Man,I agree with your analysis, and what you say about the polar opposites.  Saying almost the same thing, I would put it this way:  There is a system of laws and signage, and then there is driver response.  The system of laws and signage is expected to be 100% infallible in preventing collisions, but the driver response is always subject to error that can defeat the system of laws and signage.  In laws and signage, you have crossbucks to warn motorists of the conflict of train traffic, coupled with the admonition for drivers to keep a constant lookout to make sure they have an unobstructed right of way.  If it is too foggy to easily see the crossbuck, the driver must slow down to accommodate that shortened sight distance.  That is part of the system of laws and signage.  So I would say that the situation is covered, in so far as the system of laws and signage, simply by a crossbuck that tells a driver of the existence of a grade crossing and the requirement to yield to trains.However, the driver response component is subject to all kinds of failure, so there is no end to the amount of additional warning that can be layered onto the basic system of laws and signage.  Additional warning will save lives, so it is only a question of where to draw the line.  We seem to be living in an era where the point to draw the line is shifting toward, the more safety warning, the better.  The trend seems to correspond with a prominent, growing societal refusal to accept personal responsibility.Personally, I think reflectors are a bad idea because, while their benefit is obvious, they contain many hidden costs that I believe have not been recognized or acknowledged.  And I believe the true tally of costs outweighs the benefits.  But this not my point in mentioning them in this thread. I brought up reflectors in this thread to make a specific point that is not related to their cost/benefit.  That point is the sea-change brought about by the official admission that there is a flaw in the basic system of laws and signage.  Previously, the law to keep a constant lookout for obstruction was deemed sufficient to prevent drivers from running into trains.  Now there is an FRA admission that trains can be hard to see at night.  Perhaps this change is justified.  After all, you cannot be expected to yield to something you can't see.  So here is my point:  Many on this forum have indicated that they believe there is simply no excuse for a driver running into the side of a train.  I am sure most of the railroad industry feels that way as well.  They have the undisputed right-of-way, after all, and they naturally defer to the basic system of laws and signage just as they do to their own operating rules.  But the FRA disagrees.  They say there is indeed an excuse for a driver to run into the side of a train.
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