Why not traffic lights and crossing lights?

[Anonymous]

zugmann

Do I believe all passive crossings should have stop signs?  No.  Do I believe that some could benefit from them?  Yes.

I think passive crossings could benefit from stop signs, especially if there is limited visibility down the track, and especially if the traffic speed is low and of light density.  The degradation of the stop sign authority by applying stop signs to many more grade crossings is one theory of the traffic planning gurus.  Another worry about stop signs is an increase in read end collisions.

 

What they are going to do with all passive grade crossings is add YIELD signs to them because they have discovered that most drivers do not realize that the crossbuck means yield.  Drivers only take the crossbuck as a marker indicating the location of a grade crossing. 

 

I think that could have an unintended consequence in that yield signs are probably the most disrespected traffic sign, and adding them to grade crossings could water down the message of danger rather than clarifying it.  And besides, people may not know that a crossbuck equals a yield sign, but they know that it means trains, and they know that trains are not going to slow down or stop for road traffic.  So I would argue that adding a yield sign addresses a problem that doesn’t need fixing.

[zugmann]

 Maybe, maybe not.   They'll associate the stop sign and crossing together.  They'll still stop at the stop sign down the block.  Parking lots are filled with stop signs.  Do people stop at them all, esp. at night when no one else is around?  Does that erode respect for stop signs at intersections?  Probably not, because they are associated with parking lots.   

 

Do I believe all passive crossings should have stop signs?  No.  Do I believe that some could benefit from them?  Yes.

[Anonymous]

zugmann

Bucyrus

Traffic experts limit the use of stop signs at grade crossings because that application will drive down compliance with stop signs used in road intersections.

 

Meh.  I think the prevalence of traffic signs all over private store lots and the like is hurting compliance WAY more than at a few RR crossings.  And around here, many of the crossings that have them quite frankly, do need them.  I've seen it way too many times before - blind crossing, and by the time the person sees the train, they slow down and now foul the tracks.  At least with a stop sign, they may slow enough to see the train BEFORE the hood on their Volvo is sitting on the rail.  

 

I get sick of "experts" that always have to find someone to blame.  There are about 10x the number of traffic lights in my area than there was 10 years ago.  Do I use that as an excuse to blow through red lights?  No.  Why? Driving is a privilege, not a right.   And until certain "experts" get that through their heads, the quotation marks will remain from me.

 

I am referring only to the octagon stop signs, which some people suggest should be applied to most, if not all non-signalized grade crossings under the theory that they will force a stop, which might make people more likely to see a train approaching. 

 

However, while that may be true, there is an unintended consequence to adding stop signs to larger numbers of grade crossings.  Because people tend to try to beat a train they would tend to run a stop sign.  They might also run a stop sign if no train is seen approaching, because they rationalize that there is no reason to stop if no train is approaching.  Both circumstances would be a violation of law.

 

However, the unintended consequence I am referring to is a third problem, independent of the direct violation of the stop signs at grade crossings.   I am referring to a general loss of respect for the stop sign resulting from ignoring it at grade crossings.  That loss of respect has nothing to do with the number of stop signs being increased because of adding them to grade crossings.  The loss of respect would only result from associating stop signs with grade crossings. 

 

That loss of respect would then carry over to other non-grade crossing applications of stop signs, resulting in more crashes at road intersections protected by stop signs. 

 

I agree that there are experts who try to find someone else to blame for someone's bad behavior, but I don't see that as a part of what I am referring to about stop signs at grade crossings.  

[zugmann]

Bucyrus

Traffic experts limit the use of stop signs at grade crossings because that application will drive down compliance with stop signs used in road intersections.

 

Meh.  I think the prevalence of traffic signs all over private store lots and the like is hurting compliance WAY more than at a few RR crossings.  And around here, many of the crossings that have them quite frankly, do need them.  I've seen it way too many times before - blind crossing, and by the time the person sees the train, they slow down and now foul the tracks.  At least with a stop sign, they may slow enough to see the train BEFORE the hood on their Volvo is sitting on the rail.  

 

I get sick of "experts" that always have to find someone to blame.  There are about 10x the number of traffic lights in my area than there was 10 years ago.  Do I use that as an excuse to blow through red lights?  No.  Why? Driving is a privilege, not a right.   And until certain "experts" get that through their heads, the quotation marks will remain from me.

 

[Anonymous]

Traffic experts limit the use of stop signs at grade crossings because that application will drive down compliance with stop signs used in road intersections.

[Deggesty]

Modelcar

Deggesty

Deggesty

Modelcar

......And there are lots of locations that use a regular Highway stop sign. 

And, I was almost rear-ended by the postmaster in Reform, Ala., because I stopped at such a sign at an AT&N crossing. I think he was on his way home for lunch. He was a pretty good guy, though--when my wife-to-be was mailing books to me before we were married, he let me go into the back of the post office to pick the boxes up.

.....I wonder if he might have ignored the crossing if it was not the "stop sign", but an actual train he was about to meet.......{rushing home for lunch}.....?

He probably would have stopped for a train, even though the view of an incoming train was somewhat blocked by trees. He lived to retire from reading postcards (the last time I saw him, three years ago, he told me he had becvome tired of reading them.

I would say that 99.9% of the people crossing there completely ignored the stop signs.

[Modelcar]

Deggesty

Deggesty

Modelcar

......And there are lots of locations that use a regular Highway stop sign. 

And, I was almost rear-ended by the postmaster in Reform, Ala., because I stopped at such a sign at an AT&N crossing. I think he was on his way home for lunch. He was a pretty good guy, though--when my wife-to-be was mailing books to me before we were married, he let me go into the back of the post office to pick the boxes up.

.....I wonder if he might have ignored the crossing if it was not the "stop sign", but an actual train he was about to meet.......{rushing home for lunch}.....?

[Deggesty]

Modelcar

......And there are lots of locations that use a regular Highway stop sign. 

And, I was almost rear-ended by the postmaster in Reform, Ala., because I stopped at such a sign at an AT&N crossing. I think he was on his way home for lunch. He was a pretty good guy, though--when my wife-to-be was mailing books to me before we were married, he let me go into the back of the post office to pick the boxes up.

[Deggesty]

tree68

Traffic sensor activated 50 cal machine guns would be more effective, but the collateral damage would be unacceptable... 

On the other hand, there wouldn't be any repeat offenders.

Yes, indeed, Larry.

There is one high-traffic street crossing of Traxx (Salt Lake light rail) that I use quite often, and this intersection is just west of the tracks. The light goes to red just before the crossing gates begin to come down, and stay red until the gates are fully up. The cross-street traffic has a green light, though, and vehicles may turn onto the street that crosses the tracks.

Also, in the areas where the rails are in the middle of strests or closely parallel to streets, there are signals that warn of the approach of trains. There are some intersections there that are so marked that left-turn street traffic may share a lane with a track; I will not stop on a track. In general, people obey the signals and stop at the gates. 

[kolechovski]

Well, I have seen in #1, that the answer is a certain "NO".  People don't even acknowledge the tracks many times.  Trying to squeeze through the light, they end up stopping right on them much of the time and foul the crossing.  I have never been around to see them do it when a train was coming, so I'm curious how they'd react once they realized what was going on.  Of course, this is the kind of reason speed limits are 10 MPH through town.

As for #2, I think I've seen that in Erie, PA.  It certainly looks that way up around Girard, with that one set of rarely used tracks right on the edge on main street.  I'd imagine any kind of setup like that is very risky and would have to involve at least 1 nearby light (preferably more than 1).  I have never seen a train come through there though, so I don't know what it's actually like.

[Anonymous]

There are two completely different topics within this thread as follows:

  

1)      Since people tend to blow through activated grade crossing signals and gates more often than they violate traffic lights, would grade crossing compliance improve if traffic lights were either added to grade crossing signals or substituted for them?

 

2)      Traffic signals are sometimes coordinated with grade crossing signals because a road intersection and a grade crossing are so close to each other that a green light on the traffic signal and a stop indication from the grade crossing signals would seem to be in conflict, and could confuse drivers to take the green light and overlook the grade crossing signals saying stop.

 

I assume topic #1 was what the original poster had in mind, but it does easily lead to topic #2.

[kolechovski]

I did not get to read most replies, but I can say that here, just down the hill, is a 3-way intersection, with a crossing in the middle.  The lights are tied in with the signals, but I've never been able to make it ther at the right moment to see exactly at what point they go red.  Once, when a maintainer shut down the signal for maintenance, it shut down the light activity (they all stayed red), so the local police had to direct traffic until the maintainer figured out how to keep the traffic lights on, but the signal off.  Certainly a headache to deal with in terms of wiring...

[Anonymous]

I believe Zugman and C.T. McCullough have stated the correct interpretation of the rules regarding signalized crossings.  However, as Zugman has mentioned above, I would not conclude that the flashing red lights of grade crossing signals mean exactly the same thing as flashing red lights at road intersections just because they are flashing red lights in each case.  There are separate laws that dictate the meaning of grade crossing signals. 

 

If the gates are down, it is an absolute stop and wait until they rise.  If the crossing only has flashing lights without gates, drivers must stop if the lights are flashing, but can then proceed if it is safe to do so.  And being “safe to do so” does not necessarily mean that the train must have passed over the crossing and cleared it.  There is quite a bit of variation in the language of the state laws regarding this point.  One circumstance where it would be safe to cross against the flashing lights if a train were present is if the train has stopped short of the crossing and no other trains are approaching.

 

But my larger point is that drivers are allowed to use their discretion, at least so some degree, in whether or not to wait for approaching trains, even with crossing signals flashing.  I believe that this contributes to the risk-taking of trying to beat the train, and it also helps explain why drivers comply with traffic lights at a better rate than their compliance with grade crossing signals.

[zugmann]

 But flashing red lights at an intersection flash simultaneously, while RR crossings flash alternatively.  A more fair comparison would be to school bus lights.  They flash alternatively and mean "STOP".  While the 4-ways of a car (or the flashing stop light) flash simultaneously and merely serve as a warning...

[Semper Vaporo]

I cannot quote the exact legal language, nor should my comments here be regarded as representing such, but I have always considered flashing RR lights to be like a flashing single light at street/road intersections.  You have to stop and can proceed when the cross traffic permits it to be done safely.

The only difference with a RR crossing is that when there are gates, there are three lights (in my experience, anyway) on the gate arm and only two of them are flashing.  The red light on the END of the gate arm does not flash, but is always On solid and that means you cannot proceed until it goes out.  This is the same as a street/road intersection where there is a red light that is not flashing.

I have always assumed that the use of double flashing red lights at a RR crossing is to indicate the special nature of the situation (the same as the non-illuminated crossbucks)... That being the fact that the train cannot stop as quickly as usual street/road traffic could (if you were so stupid as to drive into the path of the cross traffic).

To reiterate: A flashing red light means you must come to a complete stop and only proceed when you can do so safely, and a solid ON red light means you must stop and remain until the red light is no longer illuminated. At a RR crossing if there are gates, the solid ON red light on the end of the arm indicates you cannot pass that point until it is no longer illuminated.

You should also know that if the red light on the end of the arm is broken it would be a solid ON light and so you must stop and wait until the gate arm is raised.

 

[zugmann]

Pa vehicle code (chapter 33, subchapter D, sec. 3341) :

§ 3341.  Obedience to signal indicating approach of train.
(a)  General rule.--Whenever any person driving a vehicle
approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the
circumstances stated in this section, the driver of the vehicle
shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the
nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until it can
be done safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply upon the
occurrence of any of the following circumstances:
(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 flagman gives or
continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a
railroad train.
(3)  A railroad train approaching within approximately
1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible
from that distance and the railroad train, by reason of its
speed or nearness to the crossing, is a hazard.
(4)  An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and
is in hazardous proximity to the crossing.
(b)  Compliance with crossing gate or barrier.--
(1)  No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or
under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing
while the gate or barrier is closed.
(2)  No person shall start to drive a vehicle through,
around or under a gate or barrier at the entrance to a
railroad crossing while the gate or barrier is being opened
or closed. 

 

I'm not a lawyer, just a dumb RRer, but it sounds like you have to stop for flashing lights, but can then go through them unl;ess the train is a hazard in regards to its closeness or speed.

 

Clear as mud.   

 

 

[The Butler]

Bucyrus

snip...

Most, if not all, state laws stipulate that the lowered gates do require drivers to stop and wait unconditionally, but that is not the case with the flashing lights. ...snip

That's an interesting statement. I can not recall ever hearing anything but stop and wait when the lights are activated at a railroad crossing.

    As to the idea of a traffic "stop and go" light at a rail crossing, I believe Bucyrus is correct about it not making a difference and/or causing a change in attitude towards traffic lights an road intersections.  I have encountered a traffic light at a pedestrian crossing in the middle of a town's shopping district, no cross street.  When I waited for the light to change to green, the locals honked at me once the crossing was clear.  Sitting on the bench on the sidewalk, I watched as drivers treated this three color light as a stop sign when red.  They stopped and waited for the crosswalk to clear then drove through the red. 

    What reason is there to believe this wouldn't happen at a non-gated railroad crossing?

[The Butler]

Bucyrus

James, 

I make left turns the way you were taught.  I would not necessarily assume the highway patrol has it right.

  Tell it to the judge and my lighter wallet. 

[Anonymous]

James, 

I make left turns the way you were taught.  I would not necessarily assume the highway patrol has it right.

[The Butler]

Bucyrus

snip...

 

So drivers are not likely to adhere to the letter of the law.  Instead, they behave by tradition, even if the tradition is at odds with certain points in the law.  ...snip

An example of this is what I was taught in state required, public school driver's education class.  When making a left turn from a "left turn" lane at a traffic light controlled intersection during a green light (not arrow), pull part way in to the intersection and wait for a safe time to complete the turn.  If the light changes before you can complete the turn, complete the turn and clear the intersection as soon as safety permits during the yellow or red light.

Fifteen or more years later, a state trooper informed me that the law states a driver is not to enter the intersection prior to safely being able to complete the left turn.

The way the driver's ed. class taught was the way I had observed my parents, friends and relatives drove.  Here the "traditional" left turn was at odds with the law.  It was, also, believed to be the reason for numerous "left on red" tickets issued by the new "Red Light Cameras." 

[Anonymous]

There is another element that is woven into the culture of grade crossing behavior besides the worry about being excessively delayed by the train.  That is the general belief by drivers that the signals are merely advisory to indicate the approach of a train, and that drivers are permitted to use their own discretion as to whether to stop and wait for the train.  When you couple this belief with the worry about being delayed, you get extreme risk taking in trying to beat the train. 

 

With the three-color traffic lights, most drivers understand that the red light means absolute stop and wait.  But that is not necessarily how they interpret the meaning of the grade crossing flashers.  With grade crossings, drivers often believe that the flashers indicate an approaching train, and that they (the drivers) can then assess the nature of the train event, and then base their response on that assessment.  This belief is a carryover from the passive (non-signalized) grade crossings that were once universal throughout the country, and are still widely used. 

 

Passive crossings simply require drivers to yield to trains, and all that yielding requires is that they do not get hit by a train.  If a car gets over a crossing just a few feet ahead of a train without getting hit, the driver has yielded to the train.  At some point, however, such a near miss might be considered reckless driving, but that determination will vary between police officers that happen to observe it.  Yielding does not necessarily even require a driver to slow down for the crossing. 

 

Adding more to the ambiguity arises from the long use of the Griswold signals with the STOP sign that rotates to face traffic when the signals activate.  That is the conventional octagon stop sign that means stop and yield, not stop and wait.  Furthermore, some grade crossing laws do permit drivers to proceed against the flashing grade crossing signals under certain conditions. 

 

Most, if not all, state laws stipulate that the lowered gates do require drivers to stop and wait unconditionally, but that is not the case with the flashing lights.  And no driver is going to unravel the meaning of the state laws on grade crossings and make distinctions between the fine points.    In parsing the words of the Illinois law on grade crossings, for instance, I am not able to interpret its meaning as it applies to the Amtrak crash that killed Katie Lunn. 

 

So drivers are not likely to adhere to the letter of the law.  Instead, they behave by tradition, even if the tradition is at odds with certain points in the law.  Therefore, it is understandable that drivers might believe they are permitted to use their own discretion in going around lowered gates as well as in passing the red flashing lights, just as they use their discretion at non-signalized grade crossings.

[Fat Man]

I was raised on a farm in Indiana and the railroad crossing just down from our farm did not have any lights but it did have the X railroad sigh on bot sides., All that was used and may still be is the train driver blew his wistle at the wistle marker some yards up the track. In all the years I lived there there were no mishaps at this crossing. So I don't think it makes any difference if a crossing gate or light or what have you will make any difference. If the people are not trained bad, things will happen.

 Fatman

[Modelcar]

......And there are lots of locations that use a regular Highway stop sign. 

[rrnut282]

While not exactly what the original poster had in mind, the MONON used to use green lights at some of their grade crossings.  When the green light was on, it was OK to go through, just light a regular stop light.  When the green light was off, stop, look and listen.  IIRC there was a sign next to the signal to clue in drivers from out of state.

[mudchicken]

Sorry:

The railroads want the barrier gates. The public road owner who pays for the initial installation under most rules, administered by a public utility agency, RR Commission or DOT does not want the expense. There is an awful lot of whining by smaller municipalities about PUC orders to upgrade to 4-Quad gates with train horn rule stipulations (The mother of all stupid government regulations).

Railroads absorb the cost of maintaining the gates and testing the system which more than offsets the cost of installation.Once the crossing is in, you cannot change the crossing or signal system without another PUC/RRC/DOT application and hearing. Any change with out the PUC Decision is breach of contract and all the liability falls on the entity that changed the crossing. (this really ticks off highway engineers and municipal engineers when their road widening upgrades approach a crossing.)

Big Bend Ken

Many places in Europe uses crossing gates that completely block the road on both sides of the yellow line, leaving no path for a driver to go around.  Our railroads still want to use old-fashion gates which barely block one lane and are easy to break if somone drives through it.  Although most trains in Europe are shorter and faster, some still try to "Beat the Clock" and either get hung up in the gate or get close enough to shake the engineer's hand as he wizzes by.  One of our late-night radio announcers said, "You can't fix stupid."  Human nature is built on curiosity and you know how the cat ended up.

 

Ken Rimmel

[Big Bend Ken]

Many places in Europe uses crossing gates that completely block the road on both sides of the yellow line, leaving no path for a driver to go around.  Our railroads still want to use old-fashion gates which barely block one lane and are easy to break if somone drives through it.  Although most trains in Europe are shorter and faster, some still try to "Beat the Clock" and either get hung up in the gate or get close enough to shake the engineer's hand as he wizzes by.  One of our late-night radio announcers said, "You can't fix stupid."  Human nature is built on curiosity and you know how the cat ended up.

 

Ken Rimmel

[zugmann]

 Is it personal experience, or societal (or even media) experience, though?

 

I can think of few places (and I can only speak about personal experience here) where there isn't another way around the tracks.  Even if it takes 3 mins to fully complete the detour, it would be better than having to wait for that 20 minute train the driver has never personally experienced.  

 

It's not just railroads.  I'm sure trash collectors, mailmen, oil delivery guys, and a host of other professions get to deal with impatience more and more in our current times.  Culture we live in, I guess.  Always in a rush, otherwise we wouldn't look important (even if we aren't).

[Anonymous]

zugmann

The convenience store carries less that 100 bucks in the register at any one time, but they probably get robbed 100x more than the bank up the street.  Why?  Enforcement.

 I'm not blaming you per se, but the assumption that if trains block crossings less, that grade crossing compliance would improve.  So if you get the average time a train takes to clear the crossing down to 2 mins from 3,  then people will blow the crossings because 2 is too much.  Drop it down to one.  That will still be too much.  We live in an age of instant everything - from breakfast to communication.  People will run red lights and crossings even if they think it will delay them 10 seconds.   Trying to speed trains through crossings isn't the answer.  How about we try some better enforcement of the laws?  I bet red light cameras cut down on people blowing the traffic lights...

 

The only crossings around here that get blocked for more than a minute or two, are those that are located near an industry.  Now, unless we build a $10 billion overpass, or shut down the industry, there is really no way to avoid those delays.  But people are still going to run in front of trains, even at crossings that never are blocked for long periods of times (unless in an emergency).   People just have to pull their big boy britches on and deal with it. 

I agree with your point about convenience stores getting robbed more than banks, but my analogy to the bank robber is only to show that there is a connection between the money and the motivation of bank robbers. 

 

The motivation to beat trains because of fear of a delay runs deep in the driving culture, and it has developed over a long period of time.  That is why I suggested you would need a century to undo the mindset.  But nevertheless, I stand by my assumption that the unusually strong motivation in many drivers to beat trains is directly the result of the their experience with trains blocking crossings. 

 

It makes no difference that trains block crossing only 2-3 minutes on average.  The unusually strong motivation to beat the train comes from drivers who have experienced crossing delays of 15-30 minutes.  And they worry about that possibility every time they encounter activated crossing signals and an approaching train.    

 

[tomikawaTT]

zugmann

....snip....  How about we try some better enforcement of the laws?  I bet red light cameras cut down on people blowing the traffic lights...

Can't say about fewer people blowing red lights, but it sure does improve the township's bottom line!

Here in Clark County the local sheriff declared a one-day war on railroad crossing runners, and that was announced on the local tube news.  Since there's noplace to hide in the Dessicated Desert the patrol cars were in plain view.  IIRC, they issued 160 tickets (and would have issued more if they had had enough officers to catch and write up the multiple-vehicle blow-bys.)

OTOH, in Japan rail traffic is much heavier - and the non-compliance rate is a lot lower.  Seems that law enforcement started early (like in the 19th century) and the habit of stopping at rail crossings is pretty much ingrained in the Japanese public.  Here, we're trying to change mind sets that have had a LONG time to solidify.  IMHO, nothing short of moving armor-plate barriers will keep motor vehicles off grade crossings when the track circuit is triggered by a train.

Note that I said, "Keep motor vehicles off grade crossings."  Anyone care to bet that there won't be a lot of cellphone users and text messagers, and just plain inattentive car pilots, splattering their vehicles and themselves across the barriers?  All that would happen is that the barrier would replace the locomotive as the Darwin enforcer.

Chuck