Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It has been widely observed that many drivers believe the crossing protection devices are advisory as opposed to regulatory.  I believe this mistake plays a significant role in many crossing crashes.  Of course, the signals and gates are mostly regulatory, but it is not too hard to see how this driver misinterpretation comes about.   <o:p></o:p> When a driver stops at a red traffic signal, he or she knows that the signal is not controlled by the traffic.  Instead, the signal operates on its own predetermined cycle, completely oblivious to the passing traffic.  So drivers know that the signals will change their aspect on a predictable interval regardless of traffic conditions.  So the driver feels control of the situation by surrendering control to the signals.  The driver knows that the signals will change every few minutes no matter what traffic is doing.    <o:p></o:p> On the contrary, grade crossing signals are activated by the approaching trains.  And it is possible for trains to activate the signals when they do not intend to cross, or will take a lot more time approaching than would be needed to warn drivers to yield.  So, because a driver cannot predict what a train will do, he or she cannot know when the signals will clear.  Sometimes the signals are prohibiting traffic when no train is present.  That can go on for hours.  So drivers naturally feel a need to decide for themselves whether an activated crossing signal is actually indicating a danger from an approaching train.   <o:p></o:p> While the vast majority of drivers approaching an activated grade crossing will stop, I believe that most of those drivers will also consider whether or not they should stop. And yet, I suspect that hardly any drivers approach a red traffic signal and consider whether they should stop or not.  Approaching a grade crossing with the mindset of deciding whether it is safe to cross is looking at grade crossing protection through the advisory lens.  That does not mean that these drivers think the warning does not need to be heeded if there is danger.  It is just that they believe it is up to them to decide if there is danger.  <o:p></o:p> Indeed, crossings without gates are advisory, at least on a conditional basis.  A passive (non-signalized) crossing tells a driver that a crossing exists, and that he or she must yield to trains.   But that action is not that easy to define.  The law stipulates that it means to stop and wait for an approaching train if it poses a danger.  So again, the driver is placed in the position of deciding whether an approaching train meets the criteria of constituting a danger.  So, for all practical purposes, passive crossings are advisory.  <o:p></o:p> Signalized crossings without gates require vehicles to stop if the signals are flashing.  But then the law permits them to proceed against the flashing lights if it is safe to do so.  So after stopping, the signals are advisory.  In the case of these non-gated, signalized crossings and of passive crossings, it is not just that drivers mistakenly believe they are advisory.  The crossings actually are advisory in an actual legal sense.  <o:p></o:p> It is only the gates that are 100% regulatory.  If the gates are down, you cannot pass them under any circumstance.  But many drivers do not realize that the gates are sacrosanct.  So they approach activated, gated crossings still with the conscious consideration of whether or not they should stop.  If they think there is time to get across, they may go around the gates.  In their minds, they might very well be proceeding when it is safe to do so.  If they don’t get hit by the train, they assume they were correct.
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