Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="chatanuga"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] But I definitely want to know whether or not a driver is expected to assume all responsibility for yielding at a signalized crossing if the signals fail to activate as a train approaches.      [/quote]   As far as my way of approaching signaled crossings goes, I just know what I've read and heard about the crossbucks at crossings actually being yield signs.  Kevin [/quote]   I was able to find a reference that does indeed confirm that the crossbuck constitutes a yield sign.  I was aware of this in regard to “passive” (un-signaled) crossings, but had not given it any thought regarding “active” crossings with signals and sometimes gates.  Since these active crossings also have a crossbuck, the yield law would apply to them if a train were approaching regardless of whether the signals were activated or not.  Therefore, under the terms of the traffic laws, the Anoka crash would have been the fault of the driver for not yielding to the train even if the signals and/or gates had failed to activate.  Yet I see nothing in the news reports at the time of the crash or in the wake of this judgment that mentions this issue of failing to yield. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> But aside from that point, I would say that the principle of a crossbuck-imposed yield requirement at a signalized crossing raises some interesting issues.  On one hand, it is redundant, but the redundancy is justified as a backup measure in case the signals fail to activate.   <o:p></o:p> On the other hand, the authority of the yield message inherent with the crossbuck is diluted by its redundancy with the lighted signals and gates.  I would submit that most drivers rely on the safety system of the signals and gates and correspondingly reduce their natural wariness of the grade crossing hazard that the yield message of the crossbuck demands.  In other words, drivers are less careful in looking for trains at a signalized crossing than they are at an un-signaled crossing, even though the crossbuck in each application requires the same amount of care.  So, due to it being used as a backup in case of signal failure, a crossbuck is compromised by its redundancy to that signal when the signal is working. <o:p></o:p> But there is another, more dangerous, unintended consequence arising from the crossbuck being applied to active crossings as a backup against possible signal failure.  Because the crossbuck is compromised by its redundancy to the signals at active crossings, that compromise also carries over to the identical crossbucks that are applied to passive grade crossings.  And often with these passive crossings, a crossbuck is the only warning mechanism, so its role is crucial, and it can’t afford to be compromised.   <o:p></o:p> Drivers get comfortable relying on the seemingly infallible protection of the elaborate system of automatic electric signals and gates.   They see these systems working and probably never even expect that they could fail.  With these signalized crossings, drivers perceive the crossbuck as merely being a symbol identifying the existence of the crossing, rather than being a dire warning to look for trains in case the signals and gates fails to activate.  In other words, drivers come to associate the crossbuck as a symbol of provided protection rather than a message to protect themselves.  And they apply this association to crossbucks wherever they encounter them, no matter whether the crossing is active or passive.    My conclusion:  The diluting of the crossbuck warning that results from its use at active grade crossings raises the likelihood of train-car collisions at passive grade crossings.
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