Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
In a past thread discussing the need for horn blowing, I concluded that horn blowing only contributed safety in the case of a driver approaching the crossing while not being attentive to the approaching train.  Not being attentive would be caused by distraction, impairment by drugs or alcohol, sleeping, or having a medical emergency.  An inattentive driver might be oblivious to an approaching train, so here is where the locomotive horn is critically essential. It could get the driver’s attention and prevent a collision. However if a driver had decided to try to beat the train, I concluded that the horn signal would accomplish nothing.  If the driver intends to beat the train, the driver obviously has to know the train is approaching, so what good would it do to blow the horn?    But then zugmann pointed out that the horn signal often will persuade drivers to abandon a risk that they are in the process of taking for the purpose of beating a train.  In other words, the driver has decided to make a dash to get across before a train gets to the crossing because it seems to the driver that there is time to make it.  But when the driver hears the horn, the driver apparently feels enough added intimidation to decide that the gamble to beat the train is too risky, and therefore the driver decides to stop and yield. In the case of a quiet zone, with the horn signal absent, this ability of the horn signal to stop drivers from taking a risk is also absent.  So to make up for the lack of a horn signal, quiet zones are built to prevent risk taking by making it physically impossible to go around the gate.   The theory is that the drivers will not intentionally break through the gate just to beat the train because beating the train is not worth the risk of damaging the vehicle—plus the risk of getting hit or getting a ticket.   So I gather that the quiet crossing theory holds that making the gates insurmountable eliminates the risk-taking motive for violating the crossing.  But does it entirely?  This gets to why I wondered how often drivers try to beat the train by running straight through before the gate is fully lowered, but misjudge and hit the gate.   Full width gates and/or divided medians will not prevent this type of risk-taking cause.  So eliminating the train horn leaves this type of risk-taking cause more likely to happen because the train horn will not be able to convince a driver to not attempt to beat the gate.  Furthermore, many of the crashes within the inattentive-cause category of crashes could be prevented by the train horn.  A sleeping driver who is about to run through the gate and into the side of the locomotive might be woken up in time by the horn.  Therefore overall, I do not see how a quiet zone can possibly be enhanced to compensate for the loss of safety due to the removal of the train horn.  I conclude that quiet zone crossings have to be statistically less safe than non-quiet zone crossings.  However, my general understanding is that the official position is that quiet zone crossings are no less safe than non-quiet zone crossings.  I think that is incorrect.
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