Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="schlimm"] Call me dense, but I fail to see how the UP language implies that crossings are merely an advisory. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] Regarding the U.P. website saying this:  <o:p></o:p> “Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.”  <o:p></o:p> In the above sentence, the word, ultimately seems to set forth a premise that rises above the preceding stipulations about the importance of the crossing signals, and other warning system components and their indication of whether or not it is safe to cross.  And that premise that rises above the importance of the signals is that it is the motorist’s decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross.  That suggests that the motorist gets to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of what the signals say.  That interpretation would mean that the signals are advisory rather than regulatory.     <o:p></o:p> Yet the fact is that the law compels a motorist to obey the signals.  So if a motorist is required to obey the signals, he or she cannot possibly get to decide whether it is safe to cross.  So which way is it?  Does a driver get to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of the signals; or does a driver have to set aside his or her personal discretion and obey the signals?   <o:p></o:p> People try to beat trains to the crossing every day because they decide that they can make it without getting hit by the train.  Some of these people know this is illegal, but studies have shown that many people do not know it is illegal.  This is because they believe that the signals are just meant to inform them that a train is coming, but they get to decide whether it is safe to cross.  In other words, they believe the signals are only advisory.   <o:p></o:p> This false belief that the signals are only advisory has become inculcated due to a variety of factors.  Part of the cause is switching operations that activate signals even though no train intends to occupy the crossing.  Another part is trains moving very slowly and obviously giving plenty of time to cross even though the signals are activated.  Another factor is false activations that are obviously not associated with a train.  These occurrences all tell drivers that the signals do not properly cover all conditions, and that therefore, a driver must use his or her personal judgment to sometimes override the advice of the signals.  Another big factor in this misunderstanding is the long tradition of crossings protected only by crossbucks where drivers had to rely more on their judgment as to whether it was safe to cross.    <o:p></o:p> So many drivers have simply become habituated to recognize a grade crossing, look for train hazards, and make a decision whether or not to cross based on those factors alone.  They regard the purpose of the signals as being only to tell them to look for a train.  Once they accept the belief that they are allowed to use their own discretion in this way, it is very easy to “push the envelope” when they are in a hurry and don’t want to be delayed.  So you find them running around the lowered gates in front of a fast train that is only a couple hundred feet away.  Sometimes, when they cut it too close, their luck runs out.
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