The horn silencing effect of the quiet zone may or may not have played a role in the Texas crash, but the effect matters. And if the effect is found to have played a role this crash, it may be cited as part of the cause, regardless of the fact that the driver violated one or more laws. But many seem to insist that the quiet zone effect does not matter, whether it played a role in this crash or not. They say that the quiet zone effect is beside the point because crashes are always caused by drivers breaking the law. And the law violation is all that matters.
Furthermore, many would have us believe that quiet zones are just as safe as non-quiet zones. That is what I previously believed to be the case. I cannot believe they would allow quiet zones unless they were just as safe as non-quiet zones.
So it really surprises me to read this on the linked reference dated 5/18/12:
Statistics can suggest a lot but they can also conceal something that others don’t want revealed. As Aaron Levenstein said ‘Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital’. And there are two kinds of statistics. The kind you look up and the kind you make up. The second is usually used by those wishing to take the evil eye off of something they don’t want examined too closely.
Yeah, I don’t trust any statistic. Each one of them is certain to contain an unintentional math error. And they are all supporting a pretext. So I would discount the one above.
What I go by are convincing statements from credible sources such as this statement from the Union Pacific:
“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public.”
I have to agree! Trains would go through Leesville with their horns going at every single crossing no matter how insignificant. Crossing accidents were pretty low. The city council decided that since the accident rate was so low the horns weren’t needed so passed an ordinance that no horns would be used unless it was an emergency. Gee, I bet everybody (even the blind man in the corner) can see what’s coming. Crossing accidents went up over 60% in a month! The council reversed their ruling quick! In my opinion QUIET ZONES DON’T WORK!!
I would imagine the RR would have had a good case that since the increase in accidents were due to the actions of the city council, the city increased their liability for the accidents. Hence the rapid reversal. The city of Carlsbad wanted to impose quiet zones on the AT&SF a couple of decades ago, but wanted the AT&SF to assume liability, needless to say, the AT&SF said “no” to the quiet zone.
In the news so far, there has been some speculation about whether the quiet zone contributed to the Texas crash. But I have not seen any news that specifically frames the issue by placing the missing horn segment into the timeline of events leading up to the crash, as I have done here on the forum.
The NTSB has merely said they are looking into the role of the quiet zone. The lawyers have said they are concerned with the length of the warning time being too short; however, that issue is clearly outside of the role of the quiet zone.
And I would suspect that the UP’s lawyers are looking into why the parade organizers didn’t get a permit for the parade. I would also suspect that the P’s lawyers would be very interested in what instructions were issued to the divers taking part in the parade.
NCTD and Amtrak slow there trains through crossings where a special event is taking place, but only if they are informed that the event will take place beforehand.
(1) Betting the quiet zone at this location is abolished.[2c]
(2) NTSB is going to have a field day with the accident and the politicians that pushed the current program are about to get their tailfeathers scorched. Those of us that at least were involved in the initial rulemaking hearings saw the inequities of the initial programs. The railroaders, at least where I was, raised serious objections (UP’s Public Works Engineer, and for that matter BNSF’s, where I was spoke up loudly and often) but were over-ruled by the political hacks in the rulemaking process. The decicision process is weighed far too heavilly in the local, non-railroader’s favor. (as in weighed in favor of the un-educated and largely emotional…the makeup of the evaluation/decision teams has to change somehow.)
Are you saying that it was a mistake to approve this particular quiet zone in Midland, TX, or are you referring to all quiet zones? If you mean just the one in the case of this crash, what is there about it that should have prevented it from being approved?
I am familiar with the UP’s line through Midland. On the South side of the tracks are a refinery and carbon black plant. On the North are I20 and a bazilion oilfield service companies, equipment dealers, machine shops and such. NO ONE lives anywhere near the line. But there are a few hotels on I 20 that probably don’t want to upgrade their tissue paper walls and squawk about noise. Let 'em buy some insulation and let’s have a safe series of crossings.
"Fortunately, a solution exists that lowers the volume on train noise without compromising crossing safety — the quiet zone, which is a stretch of track along which trains do not routinely sound their horn at the at-grade crossings. Gated railroad crossings have a statistical risk for a train-vehicle crash. Without a horn being sounded, the crash risk increases 68 percent. [and then it goes on] To meet quiet zone requirements, transportation engineers must design and implement a variety of safety measures that reduce the risk to a level at or below the risk level associated with train horns. Various U.S. communities were able to establish quiet zones in the past. But without national standards, in some cases the number of at-grade crashes increased so dramatically that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had to reinstate the use of train horns. In April 2005, the FRA enacted national uniform rules that enab
That is interesting. I did think that second sentence starting with the word “But” did not seem quite right for the context. That is a case of bad writing in the article I linked. It really has two different meanings, but I think the meaning that you have found is the correct one.
When he talks about the danger arising from the lack of a train horn, he means that you just can’t get rid of the train horn to make the crossing quiet. You need to compensate for the lack of the train horn with the quiet crossing concept.
The other meaning would be that the lack of a train horn with the quiet crossing concept adds danger. Or in other words, the quiet zone crossing is more dangerous than a non-quiet zone crossing. But that point does seem to be the point that Union Pacific is making in their statement leading the quote. But it leaves it as being entirely the opinion of U.P. with no quantification or references for their position. I wonder what the U.P. bases their quiet zone belief on.
Yes, I see that. I wonder if the older unsafe quiet zones have been grandfathered in with their original unsafe nature.
The whole thing raises a lot of questions. One question is about what U.P. means in their statement. Another question goes to how they are able to measure crossing safety in a way that you can deduct the horn, which deducts safety; and add something that adds enough safety to make up for the safety deduction.
Several years ago, the chief of my fire department at the time tried to take a neighboring fire department off our mutual aid card for traffic accidents. A review of our responses showed that of over 80 incidents, the neighboring fire department was needed (they provide extrication tools - the “Jaws of Life”) only three times.
Small town politics being what they are, several members of the neighboring department were incensed and wrote to a fire service lawyer, asking if they were incurring a liability by not responding to all accident calls.
Anyone not guessing that the answer was yes has something to learn.
Had they asked "which incurs the larger liability - not responding the three times the rescue tools were needed (in which case they would have been requested anyhow), or responding the 80 times they weren’t (risking accidents, mostly), I’m sure the answer would have been different - much different. But it probably wouldn’t have been the answer they were looking for.
The point here is that any time someone faces a risk, they’re going to characterize it in a worst case scenario.
As noted, making a crossing (or series thereof) a quiet zone involves a lot more that just not sounding the horn. IIRC, there has to be some manner of a barrier (four-quadrant gates, median barriers, etc) to prevent motorists from entering the crossing. That there was such a drastic increase in crossing incidents sa