Illinois State Supreme Court Strikes Down law on Blocked Grade Crossings

[Anonymous]

 

Hog&Tow,

You make a good point.  There is no reason to take a large risk to beat a train that will clear in a few seconds.  However, a motorist does not know what is coming when the signals activate.  They only have their memories of being blocked by a train for an insufferable amount of time, and they are bound and determined to not let it happen again.

Railroaders shake their collective heads in bewilderment at the risks drivers take.  Yet the reason for it is obvious.

[Poppa_Zit]

These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies -- the ones that are often risking their lives trying to save lives -- and are typically designed to ensure that the public highways have a minimum access window for emergency services -- police, fire and ambulance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court, the suggestion that public officials under these circumstances are not attempting to reasonably regulate a legitimate safety concern -- and that it comes instead from "ego" and "greed", "arrogance" and "stupidity" -- is pretty far over the top, even for these forums.

When a railroad has owned and used its right-of-way for longer than a town existed in any great size on both sides of the tracks, who then assumes the liability to protect the public on the opposite side of the tracks from where the emergency services are based?

To alleviate this problem, many towns along the railroads in the Chicago suburbs built fire stations on both sides of the tracks, which intersect most towns. Most towns make sure they always have an available police patrol car on each size of the tracks. 

But you cannot offer 100 percent guaranteed protection. What happens when all of the emergency services in a town are tied up with, say, a major fire and a second alarm comes in for another large fire?  

What's the difference from living on the "unprotected" side of the tracks and living in a rural area 6-10 miles from the closest town and emergency services?

However, I agree with MC. Many towns in the Chicago area -- especially LaGrange Park in the 1960s and 1970s-- virtually "count" on fines from ticketing railroads for blocking crossings as an active revenue stream. LaGrange Park used to ticket the Indiana Harbor Belt several times a week in those days.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how many times I have been on a light power move & seen these impatient people  back up & turn around only to realize I am clear of the crossing before they get 20 ft. down the road...it's comical really they just think "oh hell, here comes another train"

[Anonymous]

this has been going on for a hundred years...to want to beat the train is probably a natural reaction, but remember in a collision "the TRAIN ALWAYS WINS" when a mother driving a mini van kills innocent children because of her impatience she should rot in hell!! these crossings being blocked are a fact of life....actually life or death. 

Blocking grade crossings with a stopped train is directly related to the beat-the-train, risk taking cause of grade crossing crashes.

[Anonymous]

Blocking grade crossings with a stopped train is directly related to the beat-the-train, risk taking cause of grade crossing crashes.

[Anonymous]

train crews generally feel they have a responsibilty to the public when it comes to blocking crossings & will do their best not to block them any longer than neccessary...sooner or later it's going to happen though.some [not all] dispatchers have the attitude that "the R.R.'s were here long before motorists were & the crews can cut the crossings if need be, they're just sitting there anyway" arrogance has long been a fact when it comes to the railroads.I guess when you have the monopoly that comes with the industry these attitudes are enevitable.  

[MichaelSol]

fairness doctrine wins out over local ego/greed...everybody plays by the same rules.

as it should be.

I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair."

These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies -- the ones that are often risking their lives trying to save lives -- and are typically designed to ensure that the public highways have a minimum access window for emergency services -- police, fire and ambulance. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court, the suggestion that public officials under these circumstances are not attempting to reasonably regulate a legitimate safety concern -- and that it comes instead from "ego" and "greed", "arrogance" and "stupidity" -- is pretty far over the top, even for these forums.

 

[mudchicken]

 

 

   Are quiet zones next?

Some place will find out that local arrogance (or stupidity) will get the local quiet zone revoked by the FRA. Word has it that Illinois has a prime candidate just out of the numbers department.

[doghouse]

 

 

   Are quiet zones next?

[mudchicken]

fairness doctrine wins out over local ego/greed...everybody plays by the same rules.

 

as it should be.

[JWhite]

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the state law and a Mundlein municpal ordinance barring trains from blocking grade crossings for more then 10 minutes invalid because the federal government has jurisidiction.

I find it an odd decision because states have supplemented the federal law since the beginning of railroads.

 

No more large fines for blocked grade crossings.

 

Jeff