I ascribe to the 'Out of Sight, Out of Mind' theory.
A 60 MPH mile long train will occupy a single point along it's route for 1 minute - 60 seconds. Unless you actually see the train or live immediately adjacent to the tracks - you probably don't see or hear the train in the minute of it's passing - In your mind 'the tracks never have any trains' is floating around in your subconscious - so those flashing lights at the crossing must be a mistake. My understanding is that this particular crossing had been a Quiet Zone for the past 6 years - a lot of time for the 'community memory' to believe they don't run trains anymore because we don't hear them. Such thinking breeds complacancy when it comes to responding or not responding to activated crossing protection.
To my mind, Quiet Zones are dangerous for the complacancy that gets bred into the locals by rarely, if ever, seeing or hearing a train blowing for the crossing. This incident will get the locals attention for a period of time and they will then revert to their old beliefs that the railroad doesn't run trains anymore.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well, of course they are. That's how the legal system works. Throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACDI ascribe to the 'Out of Sight, Out of Mind' theory. My understanding is that this particular crossing had been a Quiet Zone for the past 6 years - a lot of time for the 'community memory' to believe they don't run trains anymore because we don't hear them. Such thinking breeds complacancy when it comes to responding or not responding to activated crossing protection. To my mind, Quiet Zones are dangerous for the complacancy that gets bred into the locals by rarely, if ever, seeing or hearing a train blowing for the crossing.
My understanding is that this particular crossing had been a Quiet Zone for the past 6 years - a lot of time for the 'community memory' to believe they don't run trains anymore because we don't hear them. Such thinking breeds complacancy when it comes to responding or not responding to activated crossing protection.
To my mind, Quiet Zones are dangerous for the complacancy that gets bred into the locals by rarely, if ever, seeing or hearing a train blowing for the crossing.
So it sounds like you are saying that the horn warning extends its cautionary effect beyond the individual crossing event for which it is blown. It keeps the crossing hazard in the consciousness of those who are close enough to hear it even when they are not at a crossing. I can see that point. The lack of horn signal probably also lowers the wariness of drivers not living near the quiet zone, but rather, just encountering a hornless train at a quiet zone crossing.
Bucyrus BaltACDI ascribe to the 'Out of Sight, Out of Mind' theory. My understanding is that this particular crossing had been a Quiet Zone for the past 6 years - a lot of time for the 'community memory' to believe they don't run trains anymore because we don't hear them. Such thinking breeds complacancy when it comes to responding or not responding to activated crossing protection. To my mind, Quiet Zones are dangerous for the complacancy that gets bred into the locals by rarely, if ever, seeing or hearing a train blowing for the crossing. So it sounds like you are saying that the horn warning extends its cautionary effect beyond the individual crossing event for which it is blown. It keeps the crossing hazard in the consciousness of those who are close enough to hear it even when they are not at a crossing. I can see that point. The lack of horn signal probably also lowers the wariness of drivers not living near the quiet zone, but rather, just encountering a hornless train at a quiet zone crossing.
Nailed it! When you aren't aware danger exists - you can be in danger before you know it.
BaltACD Nailed it! When you aren't aware danger exists - you can be in danger before you know it.
But can't the opposite also be true? That the train horns are used so much that many pay no heed to them anymore?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann BaltACD Nailed it! When you aren't aware danger exists - you can be in danger before you know it. But can't the opposite also be true? That the train horns are used so much that many pay no heed to them anymore?
Wait a minute. You're making it sound like there are no other "clues" to the existance of the railroad crossing.
Crossings in quiet zones have requirements - flashing lights, crossbucks, gates, barriers, approach signs, pavement markings, what-have-you. For that matter, darned few crossings are smooth as a babies, well - you know. As you drive across them at speed, you know they are there just by the ride.
So, if the lights are flashing and the gates are down, just because the horn isn't being blown drivers are somehow less aware of the very high probability of an oncoming train?
And we've already established the reasoning behind the current timing for crossing warnings, a fact reinforced by the story about ProTran safety equipment in the current issue Trains. For that system, anything less than 18 seconds is a safety issue - people can't get out of the way soon enough. Anything over 18 seconds causes complacency.
As established earlier - people who are going to run crossings are going to run crossings. And they are more likely to get hit. Until we figure out a way to weed them out of the gene pool (or eliminate all crossings), there are going to be problems.
Some people who are intent on running the crossings are going to do so, but some can be “talked out of it” with the horn blast. The horn intimidates. If a driver makes a calculation that the risk of trying to beat the trains is acceptable, the sudden introduction of the horn can add enough risk to overturn that calculation.
And just because gates may be impossible to drive around, that does not prevent drivers from trying to beat the lowering gates. And as the gate fully drops, the train is only a few seconds away.
An impaired or sleeping driver might drive through the lowered gate and be struck by the train or drive into the side of the engine. The horn blast could get the driver’s attention and prevent this from happening.
Like I told of earlier, the man in the car said "I didn't thing those thing moved so quickly."
He did not get hit, but he did go into the ditch and got a free ride to the sheriff's office. Well, it really wasn't "free", bail was set at $500.00, and what it did to his license and his insurance I do not even want to know about.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Bucyrus Some people who are intent on running the crossings are going to do so, but some can be “talked out of it” with the horn blast. The horn intimidates. If a driver makes a calculation that the risk of trying to beat the trains is acceptable, the sudden introduction of the horn can add enough risk to overturn that calculation. And just because gates may be impossible to drive around, that does not prevent drivers from trying to beat the lowering gates. And as the gate fully drops, the train is only a few seconds away. An impaired or sleeping driver might drive through the lowered gate and be struck by the train or drive into the side of the engine. The horn blast could get the driver’s attention and prevent this from happening.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus Some people who are intent on running the crossings are going to do so, but some can be “talked out of it” with the horn blast. The horn intimidates. If a driver makes a calculation that the risk of trying to beat the trains is acceptable, the sudden introduction of the horn can add enough risk to overturn that calculation. And just because gates may be impossible to drive around, that does not prevent drivers from trying to beat the lowering gates. And as the gate fully drops, the train is only a few seconds away. An impaired or sleeping driver might drive through the lowered gate and be struck by the train or drive into the side of the engine. The horn blast could get the driver’s attention and prevent this from happening. Why do you continually suggest that the railroads need to do a better job of protecting careless and reckless drivers from themselves? Crossbucks, lights, bells,------------------------------------- whistles, horns, gates, guards, headlights, etc... The railroads are taking a great interest in keeping the crossing safe for wheeled traffic. Isn't it time to make the drivers responsible for their actions?
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Murphy SidingWhy do you continually suggest that the railroads need to do a better job of protecting careless and reckless drivers from themselves?
Improving crossing warning devices and making the drivers responsible are not mutually exclusive.
But neither I nor the industry can control human behavior. If the industry could control human behavior, all they would need is a sign marking a grade crossing like they started with over 100 years ago. It is silly to spend our time sticking pins into the dolls of grade crossing transgressors in an attempt solve the problem.
Apparently the industry felt the same way because they went beyond just the warning sign and added flashing lights, bells, and gates. It all helped, but never was the perfect solution. So the quest for a better solution goes on today. Are you saying that we should just stop now because perfection seems elusive?
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.
Bucyrus Murphy Siding ... Apparently the industry felt the same way because they went beyond just the warning sign and added flashing lights, bells, and gates. It all helped, but never was the perfect solution. So the quest for a better solution goes on today. Are you saying that we should just stop now because perfection seems elusive?
Murphy Siding ... Apparently the industry felt the same way because they went beyond just the warning sign and added flashing lights, bells, and gates. It all helped, but never was the perfect solution. So the quest for a better solution goes on today. Are you saying that we should just stop now because perfection seems elusive?
...
Outside of the religous world - there has never been a perfect human and there never will be. So, long as there are crossings - no matter how the are protected (and in some cases separated) the human will find itself being struck by a train. The only thing that has no limits is human stupidity! Every time you think you have seen the most stupid occurence in the universe another happening comes along to bottom it!.
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.
.
Here is a link to an update on the Texas crash including a new timeline chart:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324205404578147443600967134.html
In the article linked here, click on the timeline chart and enlarge it. Notice that conspicuously absent is the event of the driver entering the crossing 7 seconds after the activation of the lights and bells. It is surprising that such a key element of the timeline would be omitted.
I would have to go back and look, but it seems to me that this timeline is substantially different from the timeline we were originally given by the NTSB. If I recall, the original timeline counted seconds up from point of activation whereas this one counts seconds down. This adds a lot of confusion to what actually happened.
Also, the chart shows the gates starting to descend 7 seconds after the activation of the lights and bells. However, we were previously told that the driver entered the crossing at precisely this time, and we were told that the gates had not yet begun to descend.
Bucyrus Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them.
Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them.
I can't disagree with the second part of your statement, but the first part reminds me of the infamous Ford Pinto memo.
While the whole affair has been called into question, the allegation was that Ford had determined that the cost of settling claims for a supposed gas tank problem was less than the cost of fixing the problem in the first place.
This logic was apparently supported by a California Supreme Court precedent of the time.
Thus it's not a far reach to figure that the railroads may see the cost of an occasional crossing incident as a cost of doing business and not worth the expense of crossing upgrades, especially those with no history of problems (until one occurs).
Pure cost vs benefit.
To put it in another context - most folks have some sort of headache remedy in their medicine chest. Odds are the whole bottle cost less than $10. If it's aspirin, the bottle probably cost about $2. Even if we don't have headaches on a regular basis (or some other condition), we keep that 100 tablet bottle available.
If the cost was $50 per pill, how many people would keep a ready supply? Many would simply suffer the headache rather then spend $50 or more trying to make it go away.
Murphy Siding 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. 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.....
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?
tree68 Bucyrus Because crashes cost them money, and we would all be better off if there were fewer of them. I can't disagree with the second part of your statement, but the first part reminds me of the infamous Ford Pinto memo.
Yes I understand your point, but I have no idea exactly where that principle stands. The cost of crossing upgrades requires that they be applied on a prioritized basis to where they will do the most good. I don’t think that the industry has made a conscious decision to limit further crossing safety development or application because it is cheaper just to accept the cost of liability. Although there may be some of that in all thinking at all levels of industry and regulation.
IMO, crossings are about as safe as they are going to get. Short of inpenetrable barriers being either raised or lowered across all lanes, exit as well as entrance to crossings, you are going to have vehicle/train incidents. Even an inpenetrable barrier wouldn't prevent auto accidents, they'll just change the nature of them as people will still run into the barriers because they think they can beat the barriers before they get into position, or more likely, they aren't thinking in the first place. You also will have a number of people who will get trapped on a crossing with literally no way out. This has happened at crossings with 4 quadrant gates, where they could drive thru them to clear the tracks. (Crossing gates usually have quite a bit of "give" to them. In my experience, they are usually broken by trucks or other large vehicles because the gate gets snagged on or between equipment, such as between the cab and trailer.)
I think a big effort needs to be made to get the public to respect railroad crossings as much as they do a regular road intersection. I'm not sure on the best way to do that. Operation Lifesaver is a start, but I wonder how effective it actually is. Many times I wonder if it isn't just "preaching to the choir" since the presentations are made to groups that have asked for it. Even then, some groups (like those at schools) may not always pay attention to the message. Maybe posting (on signs, in public media, etc. Anywhere to get the word out. ) and then enforcing stiffer penalties might help. I don't necessarily think higher monetary fines are the whole answer either. I really think maybe for all drivers, some traffic violations (not just running a railroad crossing) should lead to a 30 day suspension of their license on the first offense. (It's funny but on the railroad, certain things will get me that suspension of my engr's license, but I can do it 3 times in a motor vehicle, even though I feel the vehicle is more likely to be involved in an accident. That's just because there are so many more vehicles, your chance of colliding when rules are broken is greater.) Is that harsh? Yes, but maybe that's what it would take.
Even then you still won't eliminate the problem completely. The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
Jeff
I live in Salem, Oregon. There are 17 grade crossings in town and they are now in the process of making it a quite zone. I am now aware of a single grade crossing or pedestrain accident in the 40 years I have lived here. My concern is that the tracks pass between a high school and middle school. They also pass between two universities. I often see students taking "a short cut." I fear that the lack of warning that is heard for 5 mins. before a train arrives will surprise some kids.
In the realm of operating a motor vehicle - where else in a normal driving (i.e. non emergency) situation are we provided with regular audible warnings?
I can't think of one besides railroad crossings. Somehow people heed traffic lights, where all we have is a little illuminated light fixture way up in the air. We have stop signs and 18-wheelers come at us from the cross streets - yet most of the time people don't get squished. Only other thing I can think of are some automatic gates for driveways and such that do beep but that is similar to the crossing bell on a RR gate.
I can’t think of any audible warning on vehicles that is used as a preemptive, non-emergency warning like a train horn is. Vehicles have horns, but they are only used for an emergency development or to tell the guy ahead that the light has turned green. Probably the closest analogy to a train horn for a vehicle is the backup alarm used on some vehicles.
But your question raises two more questions:
1) Does the fact that vehicles don’t seem to need preemptive horn warnings mean that trains probably don’t need them either?
2) If not, then why can vehicles get along without them while trains cannot?
I would answer question #1 as NO.
I have an answer for question #2, but I will wait to say it.
Do you have an answer for either or both of the two questions?
My answer is 42.
jeffhergert The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
The next step is to eliminate at-grade crossings completely. Even that won't do it. I know of a few train/vehicle collisions that happened at crossings that were closed, a couple where there wasn't, nor had ever been, a crossing of any kind, ever. (The vehicles missed a turn or a T intersection and drove right thru the ditch and up onto the tracks.)
Have any of you other rails ever notice how irrational some drivers can be in regards to whether or not to cross in front of a train? During my 20 years of running, I have come to two unofficial and undocumented observations:
In territory where the normal train speed is high (suburban territory comes to mind), there are less drivers ON AVERAGE that run the gates. Perhaps if the area residents are fairly confident that a lowered gate is not going to cause them a 10 to 20 minute delay, they may be less likely to try.
Which leads to my second observation, which is that the main (but of course not the only) reason to run the gates is simple impatience. Unless the entire ROW is inaccessible to the public, there is no way you are going to stop someone who is highly motivated to make their appointment.
When you say drivers are impatient, are they impatient to wait just the two minutes that it takes for the train to clear?
My answer to that question would be NO.
Bucyrus When you say drivers are impatient, are they impatient to wait just the two minutes that it takes for the train to clear? My answer to that question would be NO.
Yes, but considering how many people will run stop lights (instead of waiting 2 minutes at the most), I would answer YES.
Bucyrus 1) Does the fact that vehicles don’t seem to need preemptive horn warnings mean that trains probably don’t need them either?
http://www.railcam.nl/rc1.php
No horn, no four quadrant gates. Yet people seem to get along fine, and the trains over that crossing number near 100 on a daily basis, including some "express" trains that fly through at a pretty good clip.
The Brits don't sound a 15-20 warning at crossings either. Just a quick blat, which, IIRC, occurs just before they hit the crossing.
I take it you've never pulled out of a driveway or other restricted vision situation that had a sign "Sound Horn?"
By and large, people follow the "rules of the road." They usually stop at red lights and stop signs, yield at yield signs, etc, and so on.
I'd wager than many more highway intersection incursions occur than railway crossing incursions, even on a percentage basis. I see it daily right across from my house, ranging from almost coming to a complete stop before proceeding to "totally pausing" (thanks Clueless).
Sometimes those incursions result in a collision - as a firefighter and EMT, I've seen everything from virtually no damage to horrific wrecks with serious injuries and deaths.
Rail-auto crashes usually lean toward the horrific.
Why do people run railroad crossings? I think we've covered most all of the reasons in the course of our various discussions:
Risk takers
Impatience (which partially includes the next item)
Fear of getting stuck for a long time (long train)
And maybe a few who figure the rules don't apply to them.
Cure? Obviously grade seperation is the ultimate (if impractical) solution. As noted a few posts ago, people seem to find their way onto the tracks with their vehicles even where there aren't crossings. Perhaps Darwin is the only one that will make a difference.
tree68Risk takers Impatience (which partially includes the next item) Fear of getting stuck for a long time (long train)
Well as I have said here and in other threads, I think this plays a very large part in the risk-taking/impatience factor. It is not just the fear of a delay from a long train. It includes the fear of delay 5-20 times that long from train switching movements. I know of no attempt ever being made to measure and quantify the actual cause of the impatience. I think that extensive driver surveys would reveal the information. But if the cause is as I suspect, I am not sure if the industry wants it publicized. They might feel that it works against their position on crossing compliance.
I have thought that one way to measure the impatience is to compare driver compliance with grade crossing signals compared to traffic lights where there is no potential for an unexpected prolonged delay. But as Zugmann points out, drivers do run red lights often. I would say that 95% of that red light running is done as the light changes from yellow to red. They don’t want to stop for the short cycle of the light. However, I am not exactly sure how one would correlate the behavior of traffic light response to grade crossing response. The two might not be comparable.
One point to consider is that when drivers run the red light just after it begins, there is a bit of grace in the delay for the opposing green light to start. Drivers know that, so they account for that in their calculation to beat the red light. Whereas, if you are applying the same kind of calculation to beating a train, there is no grace period.
So in that sense, drivers are taking a bigger risk to beat the train than they do to beat the red traffic light. There is also a strong tendency for drivers to underestimate the speed of a train. And there is a considerable difference between the cycle of events at grade crossings compared to traffic signals. The meanings and types of signal indications are different. There is also a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of grade crossing signals that has no corollary with traffic signals.
I am sure that many drivers don’t want to wait for even a relatively short train delay. But the point I see is that no driver can know how long a train delay will be, and a delay has the potential to be extremely long.
Yes, but here is where I make my comparison.
You were talking about drivers don't want long delays. Fine. But most traffic light cycles are well under 2 minutes. Yet drivers don't want to wait even that long. So even if you waved a magic wand and only had train crossings occupied a maximum of 2 minutes every single time - people would still run the crossings.
Impatience will be the end of us all.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.