Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
The only explanation that a driver can give for running into the side of a train is that he did not see it.  So either it is the driver’s fault for not paying attention or it is the railroad’s fault for putting the train in the driver’s way.  It can’t be both.  <o:p></o:p> Look at it this way:  At night, a driver is suppose to have his headlights on, and not exceed the speed limit.  In clear weather, if the driver complies with those requirements, and pays attention, the driver will be able to stop short of any obstruction that lies ahead.  In limited visibility, the driver is supposed to drive slower than the speed limit to compensate for the lack of forward visibility.  In such cases the proper legal speed must be slow enough to prevent the driver from over-driving his headlights.  These rules are intended to prevent drivers from running into objects that lie ahead on the open road, such as boulders, trees, stopped vehicles with no lights, etc.  <o:p></o:p> Now consider a passive grade crossing with just a pair of unlighted crossbucks.  They require a driver to yield, and their presence alerts the driver that there may be a train either fouling the crossing or about to foul it.  The driver has to look for trains in order to yield.  The driver has to know that no trains are present in order to yield.  Even if a train is not there, if the driver does not look and verify that the crossing is clear, the driver did not yield.  If a driver runs into a standing train, the driver did not yield.  No matter how dark a train is, the driver’s headlights will illuminate it sufficiently for a driver to see it in time to yield to it.  There is simply no excuse for running into the side of a train at night.   <o:p></o:p> That is there was no excuse until the FRA declared that trains can be hard to see at night, so the railroads must make them easier to see.  Hard to see?  Only if the driver is distracted, asleep, or impaired.  Why should that be the railroad’s responsibility?  <o:p></o:p> It is true that actively warning drivers of a train blocking a crossing will cut down on crashes that do result from drivers being distracted, asleep, or impaired.  And there is great benefit in preventing a crash.  Certainly that benefit would justify much stronger measures than just reflectors.  For that matter, the FRA could just as well conclude that locomotives are hard to see at night, their horns can be hard to hear when drivers have their windows up and music playing, and locomotive headlights can be mistaken for fixed lighting.  So by the logic of the FRA, motorists might be excused from the blame of getting hit by a train at a passive crossing.
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