This is Very Bad

[Norm48327]

Michigan has taken to replacing unprotected crossings with stop signs. Most Michigan drivers treat yield signs to mean 'full steam ahead'.

[Convicted One]

LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO THE GROUP(all may feel invited to chime in):

 

How many here believe that the fact that the autos "violated" the sanctity of the crossing should preclude responsibility by all other parties?

[Anonymous]

zugmann

Convicted One:

LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO THE GROUP(all may feel invited to chime in):

 

How many here believe that the fact that the autos "violated" the sanctity of the crossing should preclude responsibility by all other parties?

 

 

Nice loaded question.  Esp. the use of quotation marks and the religious connotation...

I don’t think it is a loaded question.  It is the essential, fundamental question of this thread.  It is also the fundamental question of this thread about Katie Lunn being killed at a crossing in Chicago when the lights failed to activate:

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/172751.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

 

In both this thread and that thread, no clear answer was found.  Earlier in this thread, I concluded that the drivers had to be at fault.  However, in reviewing the above thread from spring of 2010, I am reminded of the conflicting language of the Illinois law.  Therefore, I must withdraw my conclusion that the drivers were at fault in either this recent double crash, or in the 4/2010 crash.  

While CO’s question does have a religious connotation, I must assume that by “sanctity,” he means in legal terms.  Although, maybe “sanctity” is more applicable because it appears that the actual legal authority is so nebulous that it takes a backseat to a more religious definition of grade crossing rules.  Perhaps we should get rid of the flashers and gates, and set up a couple of stone tablets at grade crossings.   

[Anonymous]

zugmann

"violated the sanctity". 

C'mon now.  He's setting up the question to appear that we all believe that railroads can do no wrong.  He is wording the question to get the answer he wants.

There is no clear answer because we all are only taking our best guess based on a couple of newspaper articles.

The newspaper coverage is not the issue.  Assuming that what was reported is what happened, I still cannot reach any conclusion as to who was at fault.  My inability to reach a conclusion is due to the conficting language of the Illinois law. 

[erikem]

Bucyrus

In both this thread and that thread, no clear answer was found.  Earlier in this thread, I concluded that the drivers had to be at fault.  However, in reviewing the above thread from spring of 2010, I am reminded of the conflicting language of the Illinois law.  Therefore, I must withdraw my conclusion that the drivers were at fault in either this recent double crash, or in the 4/2010 crash.  

While CO’s question does have a religious connotation, I must assume that by “sanctity,” he means in legal terms.  Although, maybe “sanctity” is more applicable because it appears that the actual legal authority is so nebulous that it takes a backseat to a more religious definition of grade crossing rules.  Perhaps we should get rid of the flashers and gates, and set up a couple of stone tablets at grade crossings.   

I had a passing thought that an auto-train collision involving non-operating flashers could be treated in the same way as an auto-auto collision involving a non-functioning traffic light. One big difference is that the traffic light operates continuously, and the status is obvious to anyone paying sufficient attention to the road (I know, that's a dangerous assumption). RR crossing flashers operate intermittently, so there is no similarly obvious way of determining their operational status.

- Erik

[Anonymous]

HERE IS THE ILLINOIS LAW:

(625 ILCS 5/11‑1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑1201)
    Sec. 11‑1201. Obedience to signal indicating approach of train or railroad track equipment.
    (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 or railroad track equipment;

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 or railroad track equipment;

3. A railroad train or railroad track equipment

approaching a highway crossing emits a warning signal and such railroad train or railroad track equipment, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard;

4. An approaching railroad train or railroad track

equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing;

5. A railroad train or railroad track equipment is

approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created.

(a‑5) Whenever a person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop but must slow down, 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 slow down within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until he or she checks that the tracks are clear of an approaching train or railroad track equipment.     (b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.     (c) The Department, and local authorities with the approval of the Department, are hereby authorized to designate particularly dangerous highway grade crossings of railroads and to erect stop signs thereat. When such stop signs are erected the driver of any vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall proceed only upon exercising due care.     (d) 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 or railroad track equipment, 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 stopped 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 a driver is involved in a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the movement of a train or railroad track equipment after driving past the railroad crossbuck sign, the collision or interference is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right‑of‑way.     (d‑1) No person shall, while driving a commercial motor vehicle, fail to negotiate a railroad‑highway grade railroad crossing because of insufficient undercarriage clearance.     (d‑5) (Blank).     (e) It is unlawful to violate any part of this Section.         (1) A violation of this Section is a petty offense

for which a fine of $250 shall be imposed for a first violation, and a fine of $500 shall be imposed for a second or subsequent violation. The court may impose 25 hours of community service in place of the $250 fine for the first violation.

(2) For a second or subsequent violation, the

Secretary of State may suspend the driving privileges of the offender for a minimum of 6 months.

(f) Corporate authorities of municipal corporations regulating operators of vehicles that fail to obey signals indicating the presence, approach, passage, or departure of a train or railroad track equipment shall impose fines as established in subsection (e) of this Section. (Source: P.A. 95‑331, eff. 8‑21‑07; 96‑1244, eff. 1‑1‑11.)

[zugmann]

I've read that Illinois law the first day this happened.  It is not well-written.  IT is full of loopholes for each side, such as:

(d) 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 or railroad track equipment, 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 stopped line, or if no stop line,

 

This crossing HAD crossbucks, but also electronic/mechanical devices.   In the words of someone famous: now what?

[jeffhergert]

Convicted One

  

There seemed to be a strong sentiment among many here that the car's "violation" of the crossing was as far as they wanted to go, as far as fixing the blame.  And I wanted a head count.

I don't blame the car at all.  Being a piece of machinery that needs an operator, it would just sit where it was.  Now as for the driver...

 

Jeff

      

[samfp1943]

Bucyrus

(Emphasis ADDED

HERE IS THE ILLINOIS LAW:

(625 ILCS 5/11‑1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑1201)
    Sec. 11‑1201. Obedience to signal indicating approach of train or railroad track equipment.
    (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 or railroad track equipment;

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 or railroad track equipment;

3. A railroad train or railroad track equipment

approaching a highway crossing emits a warning signal and such railroad train or railroad track equipment, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard;

4. An approaching railroad train or railroad track

equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing;

5. A railroad train or railroad track equipment is

approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created.

(a‑5) Whenever a person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop but must slow down, 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 slow down within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until he or she checks that the tracks are clear of an approaching train or railroad track equipment.     (b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.     (c) The Department, and local authorities with the approval of the Department, are hereby authorized to designate particularly dangerous highway grade crossings of railroads and to erect stop signs thereat. When such stop signs are erected the driver of any vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall proceed only upon exercising due care.     (d) 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 or railroad track equipment, 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 stopped 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 a driver is involved in a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the movement of a train or railroad track equipment after driving past the railroad crossbuck sign, the collision or interference is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right‑of‑way.     (d‑1) No person shall, while driving a commercial motor vehicle, fail to negotiate a railroad‑highway grade railroad crossing because of insufficient undercarriage clearance.     (d‑5) (Blank).     (e) It is unlawful to violate any part of this Section.         (1) A violation of this Section is a petty offense

for which a fine of $250 shall be imposed for a first violation, and a fine of $500 shall be imposed for a second or subsequent violation. The court may impose 25 hours of community service in place of the $250 fine for the first violation.

(2) For a second or subsequent violation, the

Secretary of State may suspend the driving privileges of the offender for a minimum of 6 months.

(f) Corporate authorities of municipal corporations regulating operators of vehicles that fail to obey signals indicating the presence, approach, passage, or departure of a train or railroad track equipment shall impose fines as established in subsection (e) of this Section. (Source: P.A. 95‑331, eff. 8‑21‑07; 96‑1244, eff. 1‑1‑11.)

BASED ON THIS QUOTE FROM Sec. 5 (d):

If a driver is involved in a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the movement of a train or railroad track equipment after driving past the railroad crossbuck sign, the collision or interference is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right‑of‑way

The offending drivers have gotten themselves at the least a $250.00 citatiom, for possible inattentive . driving (?). One driver was quoted as saying he thought that he was driving ,'UP hill to the crossing' the film linked shows the crossing to be relatively flat.

[RRKen]

Convicted One

LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO THE GROUP(all may feel invited to chime in):

 

How many here believe that the fact that the autos "violated" the sanctity of the crossing should preclude responsibility by all other parties?

In any case?  In a particular  case?  To what context or setting  is the question posed?   It is close to impossible for us to assign liability to an intangible.  Provide more specifics in your question.

This is why UP has armed it's locomotives with cameras.  Instant witness, end of conversation.  Any carrier who does not, is leaving themselves wide open.

[RRKen]

In Iowa, we use stop signs on all passive public crossings.  It means to stop, and proceed when the way is known to be clear.   It reflects (pun intended)  the Iowa Code on a vehicle  drivers responsibility at a railroad crossing, no matter the situation.

[RRKen]

Bucyrus

I expect litigation in this double crash, and I expect the car reflectors to play a large role in the trials.  Maybe the plaintiffs’ lawyers will bring in the FRA and the fire chief to tell the jury that trains are hard for drivers to see at night, and the railroad industry knows this to be a fact.  And yet they did not do enough to prevent crashes.    

And I can provide you with a video tape showing that with the light from a Luxor LED 3 watt flashlight, the reflective tape on the sides of the cars as shown, project very  bright from 200 feet away.   In a rural setting, they will reflect light from standard headlights over 750 feet away, and are more visable than street markings.   From all angles, and on all types of cars.

 

[Anonymous]

RRKen

Bucyrus:

I expect litigation in this double crash, and I expect the car reflectors to play a large role in the trials.  Maybe the plaintiffs’ lawyers will bring in the FRA and the fire chief to tell the jury that trains are hard for drivers to see at night, and the railroad industry knows this to be a fact.  And yet they did not do enough to prevent crashes.    

 

And I can provide you with a video tape showing that with the light from a Luxor LED 3 watt flashlight, the reflective tape on the sides of the cars as shown, project very  bright from 200 feet away.   In a rural setting, they will reflect light from standard headlights over 750 feet away, and are more visable than street markings.   From all angles, and on all types of cars.

 

I am not disputing the effect of the reflectors, but I might not have made that clear.  My point is that the fire chief indicated that the cars were hard to see and that is why the drivers hit them.  And the FRA says that freight cars are hard to see at night, and that is why reflectors are needed.  Plaintiff's lawyers might cite these authority figures to bolster their case that the drivers hit the cars because the cars were hard to see, and therefore it was the fault of the railroad. 

If the reflectors themselves enter into the case, it might be to establish that black tank cars are so hard to see at night that even reflectors were not enough to make them visible to drivers. 

[Convicted One]

RRKen

 

 

 

In any case?  In a particular  case?  To what context or setting  is the question posed?   It is close to impossible for us to assign liability to an intangible.  Provide more specifics in your question.

 

 

How about in the example(s) that this thread is based upon....Crossing protection inoperable, taken out of service by the RR due to maintenance issues,  night time, car fails to yield at the crossing, auto hits a dark rr car stopped across the crossing,  where should the blame rest?

[samfp1943]

Convicted One, said:

"...How about in the example(s) that this thread is based upon....Crossing protection inoperable, taken out of service by the RR due to maintenance issues,  night time, car fails to yield at the crossing, auto hits a dark rr car stopped across the crossing,  where should the blame rest?"

Might not the case be made that the RR liiuminated crossing lights and their standards on which the signage is affixed (even with the lights inoperable)  still signify that there is a RR cossing present there; much in the fashion of the ubiquitous Rail Road Crossing Bucks at less traveled crossings? 

The film also showed the remnants of the burned fusees as well.   The above information wil the final satement of the Ill Law (sec. 5 (d) (paraphrsed, here)  which states that the motorists failure to stop is a prima facie  admission of a failure to yeild Right of Way (?) 

[Anonymous]

The law clearly stipulates that the crossbuck means yield at a non-signalized crossing, but in that stipulation, it clearly excludes signalized crossings.  In the thread I cited earlier about the 4/2010 crash, forum member Falcon48 argued extensively that the yield requirement does not apply to crossbucks at signalized crossings because of the abovementioned stipulation that seems to exclude it from signalized crossings.  However, I am not convinced that the law intends that meaning.  The language in paragraph (d) may just be confining its focus to non-signalized crossings, rather than intending exclude signalized crossings.

 

In paragraph (a), the law does describe the requirement to use due care and caution at grade crossings because a railroad crossing a highway is a warning of danger.  This language would have to apply to any type of grade crossing. 

 

But then at the end of that statement, it goes on to say:  “The foregoing requirement shall apply when:”

 

And it goes on to list five conditions when the foregoing requirement shall apply.  All five conditions are either that a train is approaching or that signals or a flagman are indicating stop or yield.   The one possibility that is not part of the five conditions would be if all indications were that the crossing is clear.  So does that mean than if a crossing is clear, a driver is not required to use due care, etc.?  If so, how could a driver know the crossing is clear without using due care etc. to find out if it is clear?  

 

So, the way I interpret the law is that a driver must do the following: 

 

1)      At a non-signalized crossing, a driver must yield to the crossbuck.

 

2)      At a signalized crossing, a driver must yield to the general hazard of a train because a railroad crosses the highway.

 

I do not see any practical difference between the two.

 

The FRA and Operation Lifesaver both say that a crossbuck means yield whether it is at a signalized or non-signalized crossing. 

 

So, overall, I tend to conclude that a crossbuck means yield with both types of crossings.

 

But here is something else to consider:

 

Condition #4 of paragraph (a) says:

 

“A approaching railroad train or railroad track equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.”

 

Although the tank cars standing on the crossing when this crash occurred were not an “approaching railroad train,” one would think that they would qualify for this condition.  They were certainly in “hazardous proximity” to the crossing.  HOWEVER, were the tank cars “plainly visible” as condition #4 stipulates?  The FRA says that freight cars on crossings can be hard for drivers to see at night.  And two drivers did fail to see these tank cars, giving evidence that they were indeed hard to see.    

 

[schlimm]

Hate to burst your bubble, but interpretation of statutes is what is done by the judiciary, through case law in the courts.  Your thoughts, mine, or anyone else's on the matter are interesting, perhaps, but as they say, moot.

[edbenton]

We had a case were  someone blew around a set of lights that wer enot working sometime ago on the old NYC line here in town.  She was hit by the NS local hauling Ethanol and other products.  Well she ticketed for Failure to yeild at the RR Crossing the Officer stated that even though the Lights did not work YOU are Still Required to Stop for a TRAIn it is that Simple. 

[tree68]

There was an obstruction in the road.

They both hit it.

Their own darned fault.

Case closed.

[Sawtooth500]

This thread is a horse that has not only been beat into the ground, but crushed and pulverized as well. There are no right answers here!

[selector]

I get the sense that this is probably a good point at which to end the discussion.  We can always revisit it later when we find out what takes place in the courts.

Crandell

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Hate to burst your bubble, but interpretation of statutes is what is done by the judiciary, through case law in the courts.  Your thoughts, mine, or anyone else's on the matter are interesting, perhaps, but as they say, moot.

Well sure, the laws are interpreted by the judiciary, but I don't think that means that we are not supposed to understand them.   Laws are written to govern our activities.  If they are written in a way that we cannot interpret, then how can we be expected to adhere to them?     

[Anonymous]

What is the reason for locking this thread?

It is on topic.  Nobody is flaming anyone.  There are slight disagreements here and there, but debate is often part of discussion.  Is there something offensive about questioning grade crossing law?  Apparently so. 

[Anonymous]

Kindly euthanize this thread now before this gaggle of  backroom lawyers posting here go in to a complete fit of apoplexy.

[Anonymous]

Bucyrus

Is there something offensive about questioning grade crossing law?

Last time I checked this was a RAILROAD forum...not a law forum.

[blue streak 1]

Although I have found the discussions here enlightning there are several points loacking.

1. It was a dark night and moon had not yet risen.

2. I have had the unfortunate happening on being on an unfamiliar road on a dark night and busting thru an inopereative traffic light luckily not being hit. Went back and still couldn't see light. Was I ever scared!

3.A short time solution for a inoperative crossing has not been proposed.

4. Why not have one of the many traffic alert blinking sigs say something like " caution RR crosssing signals not working"

5. I still maintain that tank cars are much less visible in the dark than any other RR car with reflectors. That needs to be changed!!

6. Again the NTSB needs to make recommendations that may use the above.

[zugmann]

Even if the railroad gates were not operating - from the photos, it appears there were 2 reflective crossbucks per direction.  I don't think just because i is dark should absolve someone of their responsibility to not hit stuff.  I'm sure 56 kabillion mailboxes would agree...

There's many traffic lights that don't even have a reflective approach sign. 

 

 

[jeffhergert]

zugmann

Even if the railroad gates were not operating - from the photos, it appears there were 2 reflective crossbucks per direction.  I don't think just because i is dark should absolve someone of their responsibility to not hit stuff.  I'm sure 56 kabillion mailboxes would agree...

There's many traffic lights that don't even have a reflective approach sign. 

 

 

Looking at the pictures, it also appears that the street has street lights along it.  I'm sure there's a lot of extra lighting in place for the emergency crews and probably flash from the camera, but still it would appear for at least one of the vehicles there would've been sufficient light to see that something was ahead of them.  

Jeff