Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="zugmann"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div></div>     It seems to me that railroads should therefore extend the flagging protection to the entire occupation of the crossing by a train when signals have been taken out of service.  Obviously if drivers have lowered their guard to the possibility of getting hit by a train, they will have also lowered their guard to the possibility of running into a stopped train.    <div style="clear:both;"></div>   </blockquote>   But that doesn't that set up a dangerous precedent?  From afar, you can not tell whether a crossing is signalized or not.  So if someone flags a crossing that has the crossing protection disabled, then won't people start expecting every crossing to be flagged (esp. passive ones)?   For me, this isn't a question of whether the crossing protection should have been working or not - but it is a question of drivers having control of their vehicle. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] Well yes I think that, as you say, flagging inoperative signalized crossings would cause drivers to lower their guard if they became accustomed to the flagging and the might begin to extend this reduced wariness to passive crossings.  And that would be another harmful unintended consequence.   <o:p></o:p> However I see the flagging as being relatively rare occurrence, so maybe its effect on lowering drivers’ guard would not be significant.  On the other hand, they cross inactive, signalized crossings every day, so the frequency of the experience would be high enough to make a habit of lowering their guard.
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