Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Amtrak Accident - Non-Working Crossing Signals

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="jeffhergert"] [quote user="Bucyrus"]     So, in Illinois, you don’t have to look for trains before crossing signalized crossings when the signals are not activated.  Therefore, I conclude that the victim of this Amtrak grade crossing crash was 100% blameless.     [/quote] I disagree with that.  Most of the blame, and rightly so, should fall upon the railroad but the way I read it you still have some responsiblity. (625 ILCS 5/11-1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1201)  Sec. 11-1201.  Obedience to signal indicating approach of train.  (a)  Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop, the person must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger, and under any of the circumstances stated in this Section, the driver shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until the tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely.  The foregoing requirements shall apply when:   1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;   2. A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;   3. A railroad brain approaching a highway crossing emits a warning signal and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard;   4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing;   5. A railroad train is approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created. There is more, <A href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1201">http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1201</A>  including that part already cited in a previous post.  Items 1 and 2 clearly connect with the operation of crossing signals and gates.  Items 3, 4 and 5 deal with the train itself.  In the paragraph it says when any of the circumstances (items 1 thru 5) are present, not just when the warning signals are activated.   Again, I think the railroad shoulders most of the blame in this instance.  If I was on the jury, I would vote to award damages.  I can't go so far though, to say you don't have a responsiblity for your own safety, no matter what the law may say, when approaching a clearly marked grade crossing with or without activated warning signals.  Jeff  [/quote] Jeff, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> I have seen that language before, and I agree with your interpretation of it.  However, I am not sure how to reconcile it with the other portion of the law as posted by Falcon48 on page 4 of this thread, as follows: <o:p></o:p> "At any railroad grade crossing provided with railroad crossbuck signs, WITHOUT AUTOMATIC, ELECTRIC, OR MECHANICAL SIGNAL DEVICES, CROSSING GATES, or a human flagman giving a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the driver of a vehicle shall in obedience to the railroad crossbuck sign, yield the right-of-way and slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, and shall stop, if required for safety, at a clearly marked stopping line, or if no stop line, within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely. If the driver is involved in a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the movement of a train after driving past the railroad crossbuck sign, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right-of-way."  625 ILCS 5/11-1201(d) (emphasis supplied) <o:p></o:p> In reading the whole law, I think the previous interpretation of the above portion by myself and by Falcon48 is incorrect.  It seems to make the distinction between the meanings of the crossbuck only for the purpose of focusing only on passive crossings where the crossbuck conveys the yield message.  This paragraph is simply not about signalized crossings.  <o:p></o:p> Yet according to the full text, which you have provided, the law does indeed require drivers to yield to trains at signalized crossings, even if the signals are not activated.  So, now I must reverse what I said about the blame for the accident and the interpretation of the law.  Clearly, the driver broke the law. <o:p></o:p> When I read the bewildering language of the entire law, I can reach this conclusion:   At non-signalized grade crossings, the crossbuck means yield.  At signalized grade crossings, the meaning of the crossbuck is not defined, but the yield requirement still exists on the basis of the existence of the crossing alone.  And that yield requirement exists at signalized crossings whether the signals are activated or not.
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