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="AnthonyV"] [quote user="Bucyrus"]When I read the Illinois law, I must conclude that the driver was at fault.  Moreover, I cannot imagine any circumstance where a driver could be struck by a train on a grade crossing, and not be at fault. .   The law says this:   Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing… 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… and shall not proceed until the tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely.   The forgoing requirements shall apply when:   A railroad train approaching a highway crossing emits a warning signal and such    railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard;   An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and in hazardous proximity to such crossing;   A railroad train is approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created.[/quote]      What does the law say about the driver's responsibilities when the three conditions stated above are not present?   Anthony V. [/quote] The law is not clear about that.  There are two other conditions that can apply, which are listed along with the three conditions I posted.  The two other conditions involve the existence of activated crossing signals and gates. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> So, aside from those five conditions, I assume your questions is this: <o:p></o:p> What does the law say about a driver’s responsibility when no train is visible or approaching, and there is no STOP sign at the crossing? <o:p></o:p> For this behavior, the law makes a distinction between signalized crossings and non-signalized crossing.   <o:p></o:p> First, for both types of crossings, the law says: <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> Second, for just the non-signalized crossings, the law says:  <o:p></o:p> “The driver of a vehicle shall, in obedience to a 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 the safety, at a clearly marked stop 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.” <o:p></o:p> So the law specifies the proper driver response that applies to both types of crossings (signalized and non-signalized).  Then the law specifies the proper driver response for only the non-signalized crossings.  However, that response is essentially the same as the response that the law calls for at both types of crossings.  So why make the distinction? <o:p></o:p> For both types of crossings, when no train is approaching, the law basically calls for drivers to yield.  However for non-signalized crossings, the law spells out the procedure for yielding and says that it is required by the crossbuck.   <o:p></o:p> For signalized crossings, the law makes no mention of the crossbuck meaning yield.  This suggests (but does not state) that a crossbuck does not mean yield at signalized crossings, but the point is left unresolved.  Clearly, the law says that a crossbuck means yield at non-signalized crossings, and those crossbucks are the same as the crossbucks at signalized crossings. <o:p></o:p> Obviously, the law is trying to “have it both ways” so to speak, at signalized crossings.  The law wants drivers to yield at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated, but rather than spell out the terms of yielding, the law just whispers that drivers should exercise due care and caution.  <o:p></o:p> So, why is the law trying to have it both ways?   <o:p></o:p> According to the law, the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger, and drivers must act accordingly.  However, if a crossing is protected by automatic signals and gates, how much due care and caution must a driver exercise when the automatic protection indicates that the crossing is clear?  How is the driver supposed to know the answer to that question? <o:p></o:p> In my opinion, the reason the law dances around this question is that it does not want to officially admit that the automatic protection can fail.  However, the failure to admit this contributes to the occurrence of crashes such as this one that killed Ms. Katie Lunn. <o:p></o:p>   <o:p></o:p>
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