This reads like the author sees trains as some sort of upper class luxury, describing the leather seats and steak dinner. In reality trains are much more safe and economically accessible than cars.
Besides, no mention of the much more dangerous car infrastructure and statistically #3 most dangerous state in the country for total car deaths.
> WHY DOES FLORIDA’S BEAUTIFUL TRAIN KEEP HITTING PEOPLE?
Why do Floridians think they can drive around activated railroad barriers and cross the tracks fast enough to beat oncoming trains?
Seriously, it seems like we have a news story about a train hitting a car every few days, and in every case I've seen, Florida (wo)man drives around the descended barrier.
Grade crossings are inherently unsafe at those speeds. It was a known bad design from the start, as the article points out. And several of the deaths were *not" of the type you mention.
Crossing gates should come down 20-30 seconds before the train gets there, pretty much regardless of train speed.
I suppose that the difference may be that, at higher speeds, the train is further away when the gates come down, and people don't realize how soon it's going to get there, and so decide to go around the gates. (And, I suppose, when there is an accident, it's more likely to be fatal because of the speed.) If you meant anything other than those two options, though, I'm not sure why you think that "grade crossings are inherently unsafe at those speeds".
Do they? It seems like Japan recognizes that it's a major safety issue that causes a significant portion of fatalities, and is working hard to eliminate them entirely.
Obviously level crossings are riskier, but comparing the stats in this article to the OP makes it pretty clear that Florida has it's own set of issues.
I've always wondered, and maybe this is the place to ask, why not tunnel under the existing tracks (with a leading and following slope) and re-enforce the roof, that would no doubt be cheaper than lawsuits and elevating the whole line, no?
Brightline, in particular, runs on literally the first train tracks in Florida, set down by Henry Flagler. The urban economic development (ie: number of people) around those tracks in the last 100 years simply has to be seen to be believed. That's what makes it unsafe and also nearly impossible to change.
The author made a point to mention the 300+ at-grade crossings as a contributor to the deaths, but didn't compare it to the previously mentioned Long Island Railroad that also has nearly 300 at-grade crossings and only single-digit deaths per year.
As much sympathy as the author has for Floridians, I don't see this problem being more than a "florida man" issue.
I have lived on Long Island my whole life near an intersection of 3 separate railways and have never had a problem walking farther in order to cross traintracks at a designated intersection. Neither have I been inclined to drive around the gates when there is a train approaching.
I wonder if another factor in the "curse" of that line is the extension with the second track.
At least the incident with the elderly couple reads as if they were aware of the track in general but were believing they were out of danger once they left the track with the freight train, not realizing they just drove the car from the one onto the other track.
If the line was a single track for so long, people living nearby might have developed a sort of "muscle memory" - if a train aporoaches, just walk aside - and because of this easy way to evade trains might not have remembered the line as "safe" enough that it could be crossed away from the crossings. However, with two tracks, this way to evade trains can become deadly.
Coming from Europe, I think the combination of at-grade + no fencing + high-speed trains + multiple tracks is at least unusual. I've seen some unfenced, at-grade tracks in Switzerland that crossed right through a meadow, but as far as I remember those were all single-track.
Devil's take: let them die. Having drivers on the road who are not capable of following basic and obvious posted safety rules, is a hazard to everyone. They need to be "not driving" at whatever cost. Its probably not that expensive to let them get steamrolled once, and since its clearly their own fault theres no public liability. Since the safety of cars has increased dramatically over the last few decades, many more bad drivers are not being forcibly removed from the roads. People survive, and frequently without injuries, more than ever before. People have to learn how to behave on public roads, sometimes the hard way is the only way.
Some of these crossing pictures and videos show two quadrant gates, which only block traffic on the side of the right side of the road, but leave the left side open, so an impatient driver could presumably enter the crossing from the wrong side of the road. It is possible that adding quad gates that block all entrances to the train crossing would stop some confused or impatient drivers.
Of course, it's not free to retrofit all the existing gates, and drivers would find new ways to put themselves in danger.
