Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tree68"]I don't think that the industry is in denial about it.  The FRA acknowledges the problem: <a href="http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_86.shtml">http://www.fra.dot.gov/rrs/pages/fp_86.shtml</a> And lists 1300 crossing incidents nationwide so far this year.  On 250,000 crossings.  The FRA says there are 300-400 annual fatalities.  One site was apparently going for the shock factor by saying there are upwards of 2400 fatilities per year...   If someone ran the crossing every single time a train was approaching, a fine of just $28 would cover the cost of a single camera. But we know that won't be the case.  In many instances, there are no cars at the crossing, due to the late hour some of the trains come through town. Installing said cameras would be tough sell here. I'm sure there are places where numerous collisions have occured, and where camera enforcement would be appropriate, just as there are places where red light cameras are appropriate. But a blanket approach (say, 200,000 crossings at a total cost in the millions just to support the cameras) isn't going to help. Besides, you're worried about that period of time that people interpret the lights as "amber," yet you're willing to give them a pass for seven seconds...  That's one third of the total warning time.[/quote] Regarding your points above: In my reference to denying the problem, I was referring only to denial of the one cause factor of drivers taking risk to avoid a train delay.  This factor I alone, I believe is what makes grade crossings like magnets for trouble compared to highway crossings.  I don't see much if any official acknowledgement of that factor.  Solving that problem would go a long ways toward eliminating crossing crashes, but I am not sure how it could be solved.  It has set in since railroading began, and is now etched in public consciousness.    I would not say that cameras should be a blanket approach, but rather, priortized according to need. The cost of the cameras would be offset by more than just the fines.  Reducing crashes would save a lot more money than the revenue from fines.  You have to give drivers a 7-second pass after signal activation to allow them to respond; depending on the road speed limit.  It is the laws of physics.  The pass is there now, but not identified as such.  But if a camera issued a ticket for a driver failing to override the laws of physics, a lawyer would get it dismissed.  And a camera would split hairs and issue a citation for violating the flashing lights for just the tiniest fraction of a second.  A cop wouldn't do that.
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