As has been mentioned by several people here, adding stop signs to un-signaled grade crossings seems like a good idea. And this is being proposed by some in the traffic community, but nevertheless, the experts are divided on the stop sign solution. The reason is rather surprising.
Studies have found that driver compliance with a stop sign is less at grade crossings than it is at highway intersections. Opinions vary as to why this is so. It may be that drivers assume that the stop sign just reinforces the requirement to stop for trains. So when they see no trains approaching, they think they don’t have to stop for the sign.
Whatever the reason is, traffic experts worry that applying stop signs to grade crossings will undermine the authority of stop signs used in non-grade crossing applications. They worry about the same side effect with the use of yield signs at grade crossings.
So the bottom line of the traffic experts’ concern is that applying stop signs to grade crossings might reduce train / car crashes, but it might increase traffic accidents everywhere else stop signs are used.
Here is a comprehensive study of the problems and solutions to passive (non-signalized) grade crossing protection by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). It is called, “Report 470.”
This is a deep exploration of the issues including the driver psychology and unintended consequences of various traffic control measures. It even includes focus group findings to determine how drivers react to various signs, and traffic control situations. It shows that there is a lot of driver confusion about non-signalized grade crossings in particular.
Report 470:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_470-a.pdf
Perhaps the report’s most important finding is that drivers are less cautious when approaching a signalized crossing than they are when approaching a non-signalized crossing. So drivers face a risk of mistaking a non-signalized crossing from one that is signalized. So the conclusion is that these two types or crossings need to be distinguished from each other, either in the signage at the crossing or in the advance warning. The report shows many examples of signs being used and signs being proposed, along with focus group reactions to the signs.
In a summary on page 20, the report says this:
“…drivers need to know and fully understand that when approaching a passively protected rail-highway crossing, the responsibility for accident avoidance rests entirely with them. Unlike at actively protected crossings, drivers need to be made aware that they are approaching a passive crossing and that the decision to stop or proceed rests in their hands.
Drivers need to know when the onus is on them to make a decision. This distinction in driver responsibility according to crossing type is currently not very apparent, nor well understood by all drivers.”
Perhaps the distinction in responsibility would be better understood if Operation Lifesaver and the railroads were not telling drivers that there is no distinction. Operation Lifesaver says that signalized and non-signalized crossings require exactly the same response from drivers. If that is so, then the concern of this Report 470 seems misguided. There would be no reason to make sure a driver knows whether a crossing is signalized or not, if the required response is the same for both types of crossings.
If the railroad industry and the MUTCD cannot agree on what the signs mean, how can we expect drivers to know?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.