Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Amtrak Accident - Non-Working Crossing Signals

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Falcon48"] With all due respect, the section of the Illinois statute on crossbucks is clearly relevant to signalized crossings, It says that a crossbuck functions as a "yield" sign only at crossings with no active crosing warning systems.  That means that the crossbuck does not mean "yield" for crossings equipped with autonmatic warning signals.  There is no ambiguity. With respect to the other provisions of the law, there is nothing that requires a motorist to slow and actively look for a train at a crossing with automated warning devices if the devices are not activated.  The most the statute requires is that if the motorist actually sees (or should have seen) an approaching train (ie., it is "plainly visible" or is "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created"), he or she should stop for it.  This is, in effect, the "last clear chance" doctrine I mentioned in an earlier post.  If the motorist truly has the "last clear chance" to avoid a collision with a train, it is his/her responsibility to avoid it.  There's a big difference between that and a duty to slow to a crawl at a signalized grade crossing to look for a train if the signals aren't actuated.  I know most of those on this thread aren't lawyers (consider yourselves lucky), but an important rule of statutory construction is that a statute has to be read in a way that doesn't negate some of its provisions.  If you read the "plainly visible" or "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created" langauge as creating a duty to treat a crossing the same as a "yield" sign, the effect is to completely negate the specific statutory provision saying that a crossbuck is only a yield sign at crossings without active signals.  That's not a permissible reading of the statute.  I would also point out that the last thing most highway engineers would want is for motorists to treat unactuated crossing signals as "yield" signs because of the danger of rear end colllisions.   [/quote] I understand what you are saying, and agree that the law does say that a crossbuck means yield at passive crossings.  However, I do not conclude that the law says that a crossbuck at active crossings does not mean yield.  The law simply does not say what the crossbuck at active crossings means.  However the law does say this about both types of crossings: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> “The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.” <o:p></o:p> The law then requires a driver to stop and wait if a train is approaching or present, etc.   <o:p></o:p> Moreover, the law requires this regardless of whether or not the signals are activated. <o:p></o:p> Therefore, if the law instructs a driver to stop and wait for a train that is approaching when the signals are not activated, would it not follow that the law expects drivers to look for trains when the signals are not activated?   <o:p></o:p> Considering the foregoing, is this not overall, a requirement for drivers to yield to trains at un-activated signalized crossings?   <o:p></o:p> The law does not say that the crossbuck at a signalized crossing means yield or even use the term, “yield,” but it does require a response that completely fulfills the definition of yielding.    <o:p></o:p> The law does not say that the crossbuck at an active crossing means yield, but it also does not say that the crossbuck at an active crossing does not mean yield.  Moreover, while the law does not say that a crossbuck at an active crossing means yield, it does nevertheless require a driver response that amounts to yielding. <o:p></o:p> I understand your point about drivers slowing down to yield and thereby creating a risk of rear end collisions.  I have heard that concern expressed many times by traffic control experts.  A lot of people think that yielding requires a driver to slow down, however, yielding does not necessarily require a driver to slow down if sight lines are long enough.  Yielding only requires a driver to know whether or not a train is approaching, and to give way if one is.  Sometimes that requires a driver to slow down, and sometimes it does not.   If I were driving in Illinois and came to an un-activated signalized crossing, and there were buildings on each side of the road blocking the view down the tracks in either direction, I would stop and make sure no trains were approaching.  The law would require me to do this.
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