Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="zugmann"] [quote user="Bucyrus"]However, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn.  I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies.        [/quote] But you are adding a physical barrier instead of just an audible one.  Most people aren't going to jump a curb or smash a gate to beat a train.  But they will ignore a horn.  Again, no empirical statistics, just what I've witnessed. I think in the end, we are just trying to idiot proof the crossing devices, and to that effect there is no perfect crossing.  It's just a matter of how many regulations and how much money we want to throw away at the problem (for both sides - road and railroad). [/quote] I agree that if you prevent drivers from going around the lowered gate, they will not bust through it as an alternative. So yes, adding the features to prevent going around the gate does fully compensate for removing whatever role the horn had in preventing drivers from going around the lowered gate. In fact, it might more than compensate for removing the horn. But as I have said, there are more crash causes besides a driver going around the lowered gate. And the horn also plays a role in preventing those crash causes. And yet, there are no extra features added to a quiet zone that compensate for the removing the role of the horn in those crash causes. So there has to be a loss of safety for taking the role of the horn away from those crash causes. HOWEVER, it may be that adding the barrier to driving around the gate adds more safety than the amount of safety that is lost due to eliminating the role of the horn in preventing those other types of crash causes. In considering that, I guess there is no way to logically deduce an answer to the thread title question. One would have to quantify the risk and danger of all the causes as well as their frequency. One cannot just tally which risk causes have been removed or remain, because they produce differing quantities of risk and the quantities are practically undiscoverable. Furthermore, I don’t think the question could be answered even by empirical data from actual crossings. I can’t see how one could practically collect the data on an apples-to-apples basis. It would require a grand experiment of comparing identical crossings; one quiet and one not; with identical train traffic and road traffic. And even then, it would have to be a massive sampling to get a clean average. So, to the question: Are quiet zone crossings more dangerous than regular crossings? I conclude that the answer is: Nobody knows. The Union Pacific answer is: They believe quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than regular crossings. The FRA answer is: Quiet zone crossings may be more dangerous than regular crossings. Other than that, I find no authoritative assertion whether the two crossing types pose equal danger, or that one is more dangerous than the other. To me, it is an obvious question to ask whether quiet zones compromise safety because the quiet zone removes the preeminent train warning safety device while implicitly at least, assuring us that it is safe to do so. It is kind of like one of those high-tech systems that can purify sewer water for drinking. While the authorities do not seem to provide a direct answer to the question, I find it hard to believe that they have not made that determination by some sort of magnificent mathematical/statistical model. And if they have, I don’t believe it would be possible for an independent party to confirm or refute that conclusion. But it would at least provide a fallback position in case anybody challenges them on the issue. The following link goes to the FRA analysis of the data from the train horn ban studies we were talking about earlier. This is where the math and science comes in. I would like to see lawyers argue this in court: <a href="https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02685">Analysis of the Safety Impact of Train Horn Bans at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings: An Update Using 1997-2001 Data</a>
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