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?
...
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!.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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
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?
BaltACD Nailed it! When you aren't aware danger exists - you can be in danger before you know it.
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.
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...
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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.
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.
Well, of course they are. That's how the legal system works. Throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.
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.
Bucyrus How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
Don't know if it reduces it, but it probably can't hurt.
Dangerous must be the word of the day.
Yes I can understand that point, and the public is the ones demanding the quiet zones. I think they are more dangerous. And I can understand that maybe U.P. is setting a back fire to take that position that they are more dangerous in case they are. Altogether, it suggests to me that they may in fact be more dangerous. I believe they are more dangerous for the reasons I stated. Do you think they are more dangerous?
Bucyrus zugmann BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true. How does it reduce your liability to publically announce that you are doing something that endangers the public?
zugmann BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
BucyrusUnion Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion.
They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
Because THE PUBLIC in the form of their governmental bodies that have implemented the Quiet Zones has demanded that it be endangered. If you are demanding to be endangered how can you claim you were endangered against your wishes.
zugmann Bucyrus Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it. They are covering the rears for liability reasons. Of course they are against anything that can be perceived (esp. by lawyers) to be "less safe", even if it isn't actually true.
Bucyrus Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it.
Union Pacific says quiet zones endanger the public, and the U.P. customers and employees. I wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe they did the same thing I am doing by looking at the role the train horn, and principle of eliminating it.
Exactly!! The FRA has precise guidelines revised in 2005 for quiet zone crossings and does not label them as less safe than crossings with train horns. So you can believe whomever you want, but the FRA position has less of a vested interest and thus is probably more accurate than that of the UP.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
My conclusion is not based on empirical evidence of quiet zone statistics on crashes.
My conclusion is only based on my analysis of the logic behind the quiet zone principle.
However, it would be interesting to see the empirical evidence. But as you say, if there are not many quiet zones, it may not yet be possible to draw any conclusion.
Bucyrus Well that is the justification for removing the horn from a crossing to make it quiet. But what I am saying is that the justification is not adequate. The insurmountable gate only eliminates driving around it in order to beat the train. But as I have pointed out, there are far more crash causes that are not affected by making the gate insurmountable. And yet all of those other cause factors are mitigated by the train horn. So I think the quiet crossing boosters are wearing blinders to reach the conclusion that quiet zones are not more dangerous than non-quite zones.
Well that is the justification for removing the horn from a crossing to make it quiet. But what I am saying is that the justification is not adequate.
The insurmountable gate only eliminates driving around it in order to beat the train. But as I have pointed out, there are far more crash causes that are not affected by making the gate insurmountable.
And yet all of those other cause factors are mitigated by the train horn. So I think the quiet crossing boosters are wearing blinders to reach the conclusion that quiet zones are not more dangerous than non-quite zones.
Your conclusion is a stretch when you consider how many people get hit at non-quiet crossings. Once again, I have to ask the all important question: a collision at a quiet zone: is the absence of horn a cause or just a correlation?
Quiet zones are still a rarity, so when something happens at one, of course people are going to jump all over that as the cause. We as a people are scared of the unusual and different and instantly put blame upon it. Whether that is justified or not, I think is yet to be seen. But at the crossing of interest in Texas, the horn was sounded almost the same time it would have been sounded if the crossing was a non-quiet one, and you can see the results.
Bucyrus 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?
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?
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.
Sir Madog Are we now down to playing "tit for tat"? Time to move on, folks!
Are we now down to playing "tit for tat"?
Time to move on, folks!
Are we expecting Carl the lion to actually go vegan?
Bucyrus Tell me how it changed the point you made about horn signals changing drivers minds about trying to beat the train.
Tell me how it changed the point you made about horn signals changing drivers minds about trying to beat the train.
Forget it. Too late at night to play games with you.
To your other point: I think cameras would work fine with crossings just haveing lights and gates. The routine hand flagging would complicate a camera application. But I see the camera being applied selectively to the most needy crossings, and those would probably not have much flagging. But basically, I think the camera technology could be made to work with any kind of crossing including ones with a lot of flagging. But that might require some buttons and levers.
Regarding the horn signal comment, I did not say it had to apply to crossings with gates, but it does. It applies to all types of crossings. You may have cited an example of a crossing without gates. I never said otherwise. I don't see how it conflicts with what you said.
My main point is that when you remove the horn signal, it removes safety. I don't think the saftey they add is enough to make up for the loss of the horn. The safety they add is the insurmountable gates. They add nothing that makes up for losing the horn for getting the attention of inattentive drivers. They also add nothing to make up for losing the horn for discouraging drivers from trying to get under the gate before it is down.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.