Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Murphy Siding"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] Why is there such a defensive reaction to the idea that grade crossings can be made to further reduce crashes?  People who run crossings get killed, but their demise is never going to solve the problem.  There will always be more of them.     [/quote]     Because you always seem to be suggesting the idea that it is somehow always the railroads' fault that people get hit by trains.  It's a tragedy.  People get hurt and people get killed.  If only the engineer had blown his horn sooner... If only....If only.    If only the train had stayed in the railyard, maybe the truck wouldn't have been on the tracks when it shouldn't have been.  If only trains hadn't been invented..... [/quote] Well with all due respect, no I am not always suggesting the idea that it is somehow the railroads’ fault.  I think you hold that exaggerated belief about what I say rather than actually considering the points I make.  So you apply your erroneous belief to what I say, and then it sounds to you the way you believe it to be.  I think Simon and Garfunkel mentioned that in one of their songs. I am interested in this topic partly because it is such a significant problem and it seems so unsolvable.  My interest includes the strategy of warning systems, how they succeed or fail, and their often unintended consequences.  The fault of the driver is what it is.  But the warning system too is part of the picture.  It would not be what it is today had it not been for people questioning it like I do. People ought to be free to question it without being accused of blaming the railroad.  Some failures actually are the fault of the railroad.     To me, the quiet zone is a fascinating concept because it dispenses with one of the key warning elements.  And it is only able to do this under the theory that the missing horn can be compensated for by adding some new elements.   For this equalization to be possible, an array of intangible elements and their probability must be weighed.  You say I am picking on the railroads.  What I am doing here is questioning the presumption that the complex formula for a crossing warning can be made just as safe without the horn.  I doubt that premise.  Apparently so does the Union Pacific.  And from reading other forums, and comments following news articles, it seems to me that most railroaders and railfans also oppose quiet zones as being unsafe.  They see quiet zones as something being forced upon the railroads by NIMBYS.  Perhaps other railroads companies also oppose quiet zones, but refuse to say so.  The problem is that if a driver gets killed at a quiet zone crossing, a lot of people who hate quiet zones have to turn around and defend them.  Otherwise it seems like the driver is escaping blame.  But if the railroads actually oppose quiet zones, then blaming the quiet zone for the crash (if it applies) is actually defending the position of the railroads.  In some cases part of the quiet zone deal is to relieve the railroad of liability and transfer it to the local jurisdiction which has forced the quiet zone upon the railroad company.  Therefore, if a quiet zone in that jurisdiction can be shown to have caused a collision, don’t you think the railroad company would be happy to have people support them in blaming the quiet zone, and by extension, blaming the people who forced it upon the railroad company?
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