Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
ARE QUIET ZONES JUST AS SAFE AS NON-QUIET ZONES?   I divide the causes of crossing collisions into two basic categories: 1)      Risk-taking cause.  Includes trying to beat the train to avoid a delay or to seek a thrill.   2)      Non-risk-taking cause.  Includes inattention from distraction, drug or alcohol impairment, sleep, or medical emergency.    Two other minor categories of cause are stalling on the tracks; and suicide by train. Another variation of cause is the run-into-train (RIT) crash.  They can be either in the risk-taking or non-risk-taking category.    I conclude that the horn signal could have the effect of mitigating any of those causes except for the non-risk-taking RIT crash.  Other than that one exception, the horn signal would most directly affect the non-risk-taking causes, but it would affect both types of causes. With a quiet zone, they take away the train horn and add insurmountable gates.  In other words, they eliminate any passage to run around the lowered gate.  That eliminates only part of the risk-taking causes and none of the non-risk-taking causes.  And yet the train horn (where it is used) reduces the incidence of all of those causes. Therefore:   How can the extra safety resulting from the addition of insurmountable gates be said to compensate for the loss of safety resulting from the removal of the train horn?
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