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="Falcon48"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law?  The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault.  But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail.  I really would like to know the answer.  It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes.  Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree.  [/quote]  I'm having some trouble understanding why there is so much disagreement.  I have a fair amount of experience in grade crossing accident issues, and I can guarantee you that, where there is a grade crossing accident due to an "activation failure" of grade crossing warning signals, the railroad is going to end up buying the store.  That is particularly the case where railroad maintenance personnel created the condition, which may be what happened here.  That tells you what the law really is. I can't imagine a judge or jury - in Illinois or anywhere else - deciding that a railroad can avoid liability for this kind of accident because the motorist didn't look for a train, even though the grade crossing signals weren't activated. You can argue about snippets of language from the statute all you want, but this is the reality. I would venture to say that no one involved who has actually been involved in grade crossing accident litigation would dispute this.  [/quote] I have no idea what a judge or jury would decide in this Amtrak crash where the signals failed to activate.  I understand that you have experience in this area, and you may be entirely correct about what a judge and jury would decide in such a case.  But the following language of the law does conflict with your conclusion:  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>  “The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.” <o:p></o:p> Clearly, this sentence refers to signalized crossings when the signals are clear to traffic.  However, I do find it to be oddly worded and overly general.  Other language of the law strips the default yield requirement from the crossbucks at signalized crossings, and the law replaces it with the above sentence that vaguely requires due care and caution.   <o:p></o:p> I find this issue of what drivers are supposed to do when crossing an un-activated, signalized crossing to be the most interesting aspect of the overall grade crossing safety.  People who respect or like trains will always tell you that they look for trains at un-activated, signalized crossings rather than just relying on the signals.  But do they really?  It is one thing to say it, but another thing to actually do it.   I believe that the industry would rather water down the issue of why drivers need to look for trains approaching un-activated, signalized crossings rather than admit that the reason to look for trains in such circumstances is that the signals can fail to activate.  As further evidence of this, I have noticed that people in the industry will give you what apparently is the “company line” by telling you that the signals cannot fail because they are “fail safe,” However, we know that is a faulty premise.
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