Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Kiwigerd"] Hello, I have read this thread thoroughly and then done some research as to what has happened here in comparable cases. Also, I wondered what the road codes say and my findings so far were quite interesting. They may not apply to the U.S. but are general enough so I share them with you: In most european countries rr crossings with roads are usually protected by (in ascending order): a) Andreas' Crosses only b) Andreas' Crosses plus red flashing lights c) Andreas Crosses plus lights plus arms - arms are mostly covering the entire width of roads als long as they are not wider than 2 spurs. If that is the case you normally have quad arms, anyway in most cases the full widht of the roads are covered. Where there are no flashlights drivers are expected to heed the rr crossing by slowing down in a manner that they could stop in the event of a train approaching. Quite often there is a speed limit of as low as 20 or 25 mph posted 300 ft before the crossing. Also overtaking is prohibited within this distance to the rail tracks. The train in turn has to horn or whistle at least 3 times. The distance of the whistlepost to such a crossing usually is between 600 to 950 ft at secondary lines, less on light rail lines, the maximum speed on such lines usually is 50 mph and trains tend to be short (one or 2 RDC or loco plus 2 or 3 cars or 2 EMUs), so they can also stop rather quickly. At level crossings where there are no arms, additional STOP signs are mounted directly on the same post that carries the Andreas' Cross. This means an unconditional stop for all road traffic regardless of uncoming rail traffic. Failure to stop there will be fined when witnessed by a police officer (rather rarely) but if somebody runs a rail crossing and gets hit the fault is always with the road user.      [/quote] Much of your traffic laws, protective devices, and signage pertaining to grade crossings sound quite similar to what we have in the U.S.  You mention the need to slow down and be prepared to yield to a train at crossings marked only with an Andreas Cross, which I assume to be the equivalent of our “crossbuck.”  Our crossbuck is equivalent in meaning to our YIELD sign, which is used in other traffic conflict situations.  At our crossings marked only with crossbucks, motorists must look for approaching trains and be prepared to yield.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> We also use the crossbuck at crossings with signals, and also at crossings with signals and gates.  As some have pointed out in this thread, the crossbuck at signalized crossings still requires motorists to slow down, look for trains, and be prepared to yield to an approaching train.  I confirmed this with the FRA and Operation Lifesaver.  I guess the point of adding the redundancy of a full time yield requirement to a signalized crossing is to provide a backup in case the signals fail to activate.  However, it does raise some interesting points and questions.  <o:p></o:p> First point: <o:p></o:p> In order to yield, if a driver is to slow down enough to be able to stop short of an approaching train, the driver must know how fast the train is expected to be moving and reconcile that speed against the amount of visibility down the track the driver has while approaching the crossing.  For example, if a driver somehow knows that a train on a given track will never exceed 20 mph, and the driver approaches a grade crossing on that track with a mile of visibility in either direction when the driver is a quarter-mile away from the crossing, then that driver can yield even while traveling at 65 mph.   <o:p></o:p> But many crossings have quite limited track visibility for an approaching driver, and a driver has absolutely know way of knowing how fast a train might be approaching a grade crossing.  So, a driver must anticipate the fastest possible train at every grade crossing, and be prepared to yield to it, even at crossings with automatic signals and gates.   <o:p></o:p> That is why I asked the question earlier in this thread about the maximum speed of passenger trains in the U.S. that cross grade crossings.  I understand the answer is 109 mph.  At least that knowledge of practical top speed for trains would give drivers an idea of what to plan for.   Many signalized crossings, in particular, have limited track visibility for an approaching driver.  With these, in order for a driver to yield to an anticipated 109 mph train, the driver would have to slow down, pull up to the crossing, and stop to look as far down the track as possible.  Yet, on a busy four-lane with closely spaced cars traveling at 40-50 mph, I wonder what the State Patrol would think about a driver who slows down and stops at an un-activated, signalized crossing with gates.   <o:p></o:p> Second point: <o:p></o:p> With non-signalized crossings that happen to have limited visibility and/or see fast trains, planners compensate for the extra danger by adding stop signs to the crossbucks and/or adding LOOK FOR TRAINS signs in advance of the crossing to reinforce the need for the driver to yield to trains.  Yet, I have never seen these signs added to signalized crossings that pose the same danger and yield requirement to drivers regardless of whether or not the signals are activated.  That seems inconsistent to me. <o:p></o:p> Third point:   <o:p></o:p> Stop signs added to non-signalized crossings impose a stop requirement that goes beyond a yield requirement, which might or might not require a driver to stop.  However, sometimes a YIELD sign alone is added to the crossbuck at a non-signalized crossing.  This is completely redundant because the YIELD sign means exactly the same thing as the crossbuck.  So why do it?  It almost seems like an acknowledgement that drivers often do not realize that a crossbuck means yield.  Yet, if they don’t realize that a crossbuck means yield at a non-signalized crossing, they are certainly not going to realize that a crossbuck is telling them to look for trains and yield at a signalized crossing where they feel completely protected by the automatic warning system.  <o:p></o:p> Fourth point: <o:p></o:p> Some have suggested that every non-signalized crossing should have a stop sign.  Certainly this would reduce the possibility of a car-train collision by forcing the first element of the yield command, so why not do it?  Planners will tell you that the reason they don’t do it is because any stop raises the danger of a rear end collision from a following vehicle, and they feel that extra risk exceeds the reduction of risk from getting hit by a train.   The fact that stop signs are never applied to signalized crossings, even ones with short visibility, suggests to me that planners feel that the extra protection of the automatic warning system lowers the train collision risk to the extent that the addition of stop signs would create more risk from a rear end collision than the amount of risk they would reduce from a car-train collision.  I have seen some non-signalized crossings with limited track visibility preceded with LOOK FOR TRAINS signs.  I cannot see any reason why the same signs should not be applied to limited visibility signalized crossings.  In fact, one could make the argument that all signalized crossings should be preceded by LOOK FOR TRAINS signs, because the legal requirement to yield at an un-activated signalized crossing is far from obvious to drivers. <o:p></o:p> Fifth point:   The Anoka crash occurred at a signalized crossing with gates and crossbucks.  The crossbucks require a driver to look for trains and yield to any train that happens to be approaching, regardless of whether the signals are activated or not.  The trial assigned most of the blame to the BNSF for an alleged signal failure, and yet apparently ignored the fact the driver broke the law by not yielding to the train.
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