Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="tree68"] <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> Bucyrus:</div> <div>But the zone itself is not floating, as you have interpreted me to say.  Its beginning is fixed at the RXR sign.  And if the zone begins at that fixed point, then the driver’s responsibility to recognize the crossing begins there.  It makes no difference if a driver is able to recognize the crossing or the RXR sign earlier. </div> </blockquote> Chapter and verse from Vehicle and Traffic Law would be really handy right now - links preferred. Otherwise it's just your opinion. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] Larry,  <o:p></o:p> I can’t find anything that clearly states the law about when a driver must comply with a warning sign.  The RXR sign is always described in a way similar to the Berkeley link you posted in which it says that the sign “Informs roadway users that they are about to encounter a railroad at-grade crossing.”  <o:p></o:p> From a practical standpoint, a driver that complies will probably begin complying before reaching the sign.  Compliance does require a short process of recognition, assimilation, and the decision to comply.  Traffic control designers talk about that process and the time it requires.  That process does have to begin before passing the sign.  So, the 250 ft. of legibility distance you mention would allow for the recognition-assimilation-decision process, and maybe leave some distance left over.     <o:p></o:p> In any case, as a practical matter, there is no way to legally enforce or even measure how or when a driver reacts to the RXR sign.  The only indicator is whether or not a driver collides with a train or has a close call.  If either happens, it would require a witness to determine whether the driver did not comply with the sign or if something was wrong with the sign.  At that time, if it were determined that the sign was too close to the crossing, they would have to get into the issue of where drivers are when the sign takes effect.  Generally, I suspect these signs are placed with a lot of care and study, and therefore would not expect a problem with their placement.     <o:p></o:p> With the Nevada crossing, I think the problem with the placement of the RXR sign, if there is one, only applies to the class of the heaviest trucks being allowed to approach the crossing at 70 mph.  That speed limit is right on the edge of grade crossing acceptability from the advice of the authorities.  Likewise, double trailer trucks running 70 mph are probably also on the edge of reasonableness.  It may be that where the two intersect, they overlap in a way that eliminates all margin of safety.  The circumstance is probably limited to only a handful of grade crossings in the country, so there is not a wide body of evidence to support their safety statistically.   <o:p></o:p> If it is a problem, I don’t see the solution as being to simply move the RXR signs further out.  I suspect human nature is to take the RXR sign for granted without thinking further, no matter how far from the crossing it is.  So the issue is not so much whether drivers are adequately warned to the letter of the law, but whether or not Amtrak passengers want to risk dying from being broadsided by heavy trucks.
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