The Butler Falcon48 I commented on this in response to another post. I'm not aware of any law or legal principle in Illinois requiring a motorist to treat a signalized grade crossing as a "yield" if the signals aren't indicating the approach of a train. That is the key here. It depends on how Illinois law is written. In the Missouri Driver's Guide (.pdf file found here: http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/dlguide.pdf), on page 41 it reads: A white, X-shaped sign or "crossbuck" is located at the railroad crossing. This sign has the same meaning as a "yield" sign; therefore, you must yield to trains at crossings. ...snip... When you see any of these signs [round advance warning sign, pavement markings, crossbuck], SLOW DOWN, look for a train, and be ready to stop You must STOP if the red lights are flashing or the gate is down. ...snip The way I read it, here in Missouri a driver should be prepared to stop and yield to a train whenever they encounter a crossbuck, regardless of activation of lights and/or gate. My own opinion is that the signal maintainers that were there should have flagged the crossing until they were positive the signals were working correctly.
Falcon48 I commented on this in response to another post. I'm not aware of any law or legal principle in Illinois requiring a motorist to treat a signalized grade crossing as a "yield" if the signals aren't indicating the approach of a train.
I commented on this in response to another post. I'm not aware of any law or legal principle in Illinois requiring a motorist to treat a signalized grade crossing as a "yield" if the signals aren't indicating the approach of a train.
A white, X-shaped sign or "crossbuck" is located at the railroad crossing. This sign has the same meaning as a "yield" sign; therefore, you must yield to trains at crossings. ...snip...
When you see any of these signs [round advance warning sign, pavement markings, crossbuck], SLOW DOWN, look for a train, and be ready to stop You must STOP if the red lights are flashing or the gate is down. ...snip
The way I read it, here in Missouri a driver should be prepared to stop and yield to a train whenever they encounter a crossbuck, regardless of activation of lights and/or gate.
My own opinion is that the signal maintainers that were there should have flagged the crossing until they were positive the signals were working correctly.
Well, since this accident occurred in Illinois, not Missouri, here is what Illinois law says about the obligation to "yield" at railroad crossbuck sign:
"At any railroad grade crossing provided with railroad crossbuck signs, WITHOUT AUTOMATIC, ELECTRIC, OR MECHANICAL SIGNAL DEVICES, CROSSING GATES, or a human flagman givng a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the driver of a vehicle shall in obediance to the 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 safety, at a clearly marked stopping 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. If the driver is involved in a collision at a railroad crossing or interferes with the movement of a train after driving past the railroad crossbuck sign, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right-of-way." 625 ILCS 5/11-1201(d) (emphasis supplied)
As can be seen from the above, the duty to treat a crossbuck sign as a yield sign in Illinois only applies at crossings "without automatic, electric, or mechanical signal devices, crossing gates, or a human flagman..." Since the crossing involved in this accident was equipped with gates, there was no obligation for a driver to treat the crossbuck sign at the crossing as a "yield" sign. To be sure, there are other obligations in the statute requiring a driver to stop if, for example, "an approaching train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing", but this isn't a requirement to treat a crossbuck sign at a signalized crossing as a "yield" sign.
I don't have the time or inclination to look at other states' laws, but I would make three observations. First, state drivers manuals are necessarily simplified and don't always reflect all of the intricacies of the underlying state statutes. So, the fact that the Missouri manual doesn't make a distinction between crossbucks at signalized vs non-signalized crossings isn't really surprising I haven't looked at the Illinois manual in several years but there's a good chance it similarly says that a crossbuck means "yield", without discussing the statutory provision quoted above. Second, if crossbucks at signalized crossings were meant to indicate "yield", one would expect that highway authorities would be posting "yield" signs at these crossings, the same as they have beene doing at non-signalized crossbuck crossings. Now, perhaps there is a signalized crossing somewhere with a "yield" sign, but I haven't seen it. Third, I've had indirect involvment in a number of grade crossing litigation cases. Suffice it to say that I don't think there's a single state in the US that would let a railroad off the hook for an accident caused by the failure of grade crossing signals to warn of an approaching train on a theory that the driver should have, nevertheless, treated the crossbuck at the signalized crossing as a "yield" sign and looked to see whether a train was coming before going across the crossing. Would you? The only scenario where something like this might happen would be if there was evidence that the driver actually saw (or necessarily must have seen) the approaching train and ignored it (a legal principle sometimes called "last clear chance").
In reading the rest of 625 ILCS 5/11-1201, they don't say yield, but say to exercise due care because a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger. It gives some conditions as to when a vehicle must stop for a train. One condition mentions activiated warning lights/gates. Other conditions do not.
To me, it sounds like you are to slow down and look for a train whether the gates/lights are working or not. If a train is approaching, you are to stop. I also think it's written, like a lot of laws, just ambiguous enough to be argued either way.
Jeff
Falcon48Would you? The only scenario where something like this might happen would be if there was evidence that the driver actually saw (or necessarily must have seen) the approaching train and ignored it (a legal principle sometimes called "last clear chance
Falcon: How about heard a train. I've stopped several times at various signaled crossing when I heard a train because I roll the window down. ( train wasn't at that crossing but slowing at a very close crossing). I have no idea what I would do at the new quite zone crossings. Are they marked quite zone as I have only seen FEC tracks so marked?
Falcon48, thanks for posting the Illinois law. Just as a side note, I have noticed that here in rural Missouri most drivers slow as to yield at signaled crossings. This came as a surprise to me since I grew up and learned to drive in other states.
As to your three observations, I have no argument. Your third observation, I agree with completely.
James
Falcon 48,
Thanks for posting the Illinois law. It does indeed exclude signalized crossings from the need to treat a crossbuck as a yield sign. I don’t know how to reconcile that information with the apparently conflicting information from the FRA.
Here is my question that I submitted to the FRA:
I have a question about signalized railroad grade crossings. Does the crossbuck at these signalized crossings constitute a yield sign? If so, does that mean that a driver must slow down and make sure no trains are approaching even if the signals are not activated? Thank you.
Here the response I received from the FRA:
The crossbuck sign means yield. It is the motorist responsibility to slow down, look in both directions and determine if a train is approaching. The train always has the right of way. This is required if the grade crossing is equipped with active warning devices or only the crossbuck.
Failure to yield to a train could result in a citation or serious injury or even worse, a fatality.
I hole this answers your question.
[Contact name withheld]
Federal Railroad Administration
200 West Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60606
The factual issue would be whether the driver either knew, or must have known, that a train was approaching a crossings even though the grade crossing signals weren't functioning. Frankly, that's a pretty stiff standard and would be a hard sell to a fact finder (be it a judge or a jury). The normal assumption would be that, if the gates or lights weren't functioning, there is no train,. It would be really hard to show that the driver really should have realized a train was coming. After all, do you slow to a crawl at signalized crossings when the signals aren't actuated in order to see or hear whether there is really a train approaching. I consider myself a pretty careful person around railroads, and I don't. I doubt that any of you do either.
With respect to "new" quiet zone crossings, federal rules require that they be marked with a "no train horn" sign at the advance crossing warning sign. The only crossings where this doesn't apply is at the "old" quiet zone crossings in the 6 county Chicago metro area.
Bucyrus Falcon 48, Thanks for posting the Illinois law. It does indeed exclude signalized crossings from the need to treat a crossbuck as a yield sign. I don’t know how to reconcile that information with the apparently conflicting information from the FRA. Here is my question that I submitted to the FRA: I have a question about signalized railroad grade crossings. Does the crossbuck at these signalized crossings constitute a yield sign? If so, does that mean that a driver must slow down and make sure no trains are approaching even if the signals are not activated? Thank you. Here the response I received from the FRA: The crossbuck sign means yield. It is the motorist responsibility to slow down, look in both directions and determine if a train is approaching. The train always has the right of way. This is required if the grade crossing is equipped with active warning devices or only the crossbuck. Failure to yield to a train could result in a citation or serious injury or even worse, a fatality. I hole this answers your question. [Contact name withheld] Federal Railroad Administration 200 West Adams Street Chicago, IL 60606
FRA doesn't have authority to enforce or interpret state law. It can only enforce its own rules. FRA rules don't address whether a crossbuck has to be treated as a "yield" sign, regardless of whether a crossing has active warning devices.
jeffhergert In reading the rest of 625 ILCS 5/11-1201, they don't say yield, but say to exercise due care because a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger. It gives some conditions as to when a vehicle must stop for a train. One condition mentions activiated warning lights/gates. Other conditions do not. To me, it sounds like you are to slow down and look for a train whether the gates/lights are working or not. If a train is approaching, you are to stop. I also think it's written, like a lot of laws, just ambiguous enough to be argued either way. Jeff
Falcon48,
You may be correct that a crossbuck does not mean yield when it is applied to a signalized crossing anywhere in the U.S., or that may only be the case in Illinois. While the FRA may not have the authority to interpret or enforce state law, they have done so per my inquiry to them. They may be incorrect in their response to me. Somewhere here I have an email from Operation Lifesaver confirming what the FRA said.
I have found several references indicating that a crossbuck means the same thing as a YIELD sign. According to the language of the Illinois law, that requirement to yield per the meaning of a crossbuck is apparently suspended at signalized crossings. I do not know if that is the case with other states. However, if the meaning of a crossbuck is not intended to apply at signalized crossings, I wonder why crossbucks are installed at signalized crossings.
In an above post, you said:
“Second, if crossbucks at signalized crossings were meant to indicate "yield", one would expect that highway authorities would be posting "yield" signs at these crossings, the same as they have beene doing at non-signalized crossbuck crossings. Now, perhaps there is a signalized crossing somewhere with a "yield" sign, but I haven't seen it.”
I agree that if YIELD signs are being applied to passive crossings because it has been discovered that drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield, it follows that YIELD signs should be applied to active crossings to clarify the meaning of the crossbucks at those active crossings. When I asked the MN DOT that question, I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible. But of course, the signals can fail to activate, so the reasoning about why a YIELD sign would not be needed at active crossings does not hold up.
Maybe all states have laws that override the meaning of crossbucks at active crossings, and such crossbucks are only added as encouragement to be careful, but have no legal authority.
In any case, it does seem completely counter-intuitive to suggest that drivers should look for trains when the signals at active crossings are in-activated. It would be wise to do so because the signals can fail to activate, but if drivers are told to yield at signalized crossings because the signals can fail, spreading that knowledge might lead to even more claims of signals failing to activate in the wake of crossing crashes.
" I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible."
That doesn't make sense. All things made by man can fail given the right circumstances. What if the power has failed and the batteries have died ? And while I'm on that soapbox, whatever happened to the 'stop, look, listen' signs? Your security and safety still depends on you.
Norm
Interesting discussion. Consider and compare/ contrast with this scenario:
4-way traffic signals at the interesection of a road with a major highway - but all of the signals are completely out/ dark. What happens ? Wrecks and major carnage ? No - usually not.
Why not ? Drivers are accustomed to seeing some signal - Red, Yellow, or Green - when they approach. Absence of any of them conveys a sense of warning, and puts them on notice that something is wrong and extreme care is called for - same principle as on the railroad, really, but not to the same degree.
Now - a flashing grade crossing signal is Red only, and activates only when a train approaches. The signal being dark correlates/ corresponds to ''No train coming'' in the minds of virtually all motorists - whether it should or not, regardless of the legal status/ meaning of the crossbucks with regard to a ''Yield'' message, etc.
Suppose the crossing signals were augmented by adding smaller Yellow flashing lights - dual and alternating, as is often the case, similar to the crossbuck's Red lights. If we set it up so that the Yellow lights were flashing all the time, until and unless a train approached - at which time the usual Red lights would activate, etc. - would that not reinforce and make more valid the 'Yield' concept ? Just like at a country road crossing, the motorist can go ahead, but needs to be careful as they do so - they can't just blast through at full speed. Red would then correspond to a Red stoplight = Don't go !, something else has the Right-of-Way in the other direction until the lightS turn off. If all of the lights are completely out, that doesn't mean a train isn't coming - it means that something is wrong with the signal, and the motorist needs to take extra care, same as with the highway signal first mentioned above.
Two objections come to mind, though: 1) With the Yellow lights on all the time, the power drain would be much higher, and so the signal's back-up batteries would last far shorter in the event of power outages, less than they do today; 2) More complexity, more equipment to maintain, more to go wrong - and sooner or later, the Red lights will fail to come on for some reason, and a collision will occur. But it seems to me that with this Yellow flashing light redundancy, there's always at least a cautionary 'Yield' message happening, unless a complete outage occurs, which is then its own warning.
Comments ?
- Paul North.
Norm48327 " I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible." That doesn't make sense. All things made by man can fail given the right circumstances. What if the power has failed and the batteries have died ? And while I'm on that soapbox, whatever happened to the 'stop, look, listen' signs? Your security and safety still depends on you.
Here is a message from the Minnesota DOT stating that a YIELD sign is not needed at signalized crossings because the signals cannot fail to activate:
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for all traffic signals and markings, including those for identification of highway-rail grade crossings.The MUTCD is undergoing significant revision and it is hoped that the final version will be published sometime in the fall 2009. One of the proposals in the new version is to require either a STOP or YIELD sign to be affixed to all crossbuck posts at crossings without active warning devices. This proposal is the result of a comprehensive study that concluded that motorists do not recognize the crossbuck as a YIELD sign.The design of "active" warning devices (gates and/or flashing lights) is fail safe - this is an FRA requirement and if the gates and/or flashing lights malfunction - the gates drop down and the flashing lights are activated. Thus, there really is no need to advise a motorist to yield/stop at a grade crossing with active warning devices. Adding a YIELD sign to crossings equipped with active warning devices has not been discussed - and potentially could confuse a motorist about the appropriate behavior at the crossing.I hope this answers some of your concerns. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for the final approval of the MUTCD - there is a web site if you are interested in reading some of the proposed changes - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.[Contact name removed]Manager, Rail AdministrationFreight and Commercial Vehicle Operations395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
BucyrusNorm48327 " I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible." That doesn't make sense. All things made by man can fail given the right circumstances. What if the power has failed and the batteries have died ? And while I'm on that soapbox, whatever happened to the 'stop, look, listen' signs? Your security and safety still depends on you. Here is a message from the Minnesota DOT stating that a YIELD sign is not needed at signalized crossings because the signals cannot fail to activate: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for all traffic signals and markings, including those for identification of highway-rail grade crossings.The MUTCD is undergoing significant revision and it is hoped that the final version will be published sometime in the fall 2009. One of the proposals in the new version is to require either a STOP or YIELD sign to be affixed to all crossbuck posts at crossings without active warning devices. This proposal is the result of a comprehensive study that concluded that motorists do not recognize the crossbuck as a YIELD sign.The design of "active" warning devices (gates and/or flashing lights) is fail safe - this is an FRA requirement and if the gates and/or flashing lights malfunction - the gates drop down and the flashing lights are activated. Thus, there really is no need to advise a motorist to yield/stop at a grade crossing with active warning devices. Adding a YIELD sign to crossings equipped with active warning devices has not been discussed - and potentially could confuse a motorist about the appropriate behavior at the crossing.I hope this answers some of your concerns. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for the final approval of the MUTCD - there is a web site if you are interested in reading some of the proposed changes - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.[Contact name removed]Manager, Rail AdministrationFreight and Commercial Vehicle Operations395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Maybe one additional ''Maintenance and Protection of Traffic'' = ''MPT'' measure that could be taken whenever the crossing signals are being worked on -''deranged'', per the term of art from Falcon48 (thank you, sir) - would be to equip the signal crew with a couple of highway ''Yield'' signs that they could temporarily hang on or over the flashers and crossbucks. That would be to supersede those devices to notify and emphasize the motorists that the signals might not be working properly or otherwise can't be relied upon, until they have been fully tested and found to be operating correctly.
Or an additional person could just be assigned by the railroad - and paid, of course - to flag the crossing and provide more affirmative indications of when it's safe to cross, and when it's not, until the signal work is done . . .
Paul_D_North_JrMaybe one additional ''Maintenance and Protection of Traffic'' = ''MPT'' measure that could be taken whenever the crossing signals are being worked on -''deranged'', per the term of art from Falcon48 (thank you, sir) - would be to equip the signal crew with a couple of highway ''Yield'' signs that they could temporarily hang on or over the flashers and crossbucks. That would be to supersede those devices to notify and emphasize the motorists that the signals might not be working properly or otherwise can't be relied upon, until they have been fully tested and found to be operating correctly. Or an additional person could just be assigned by the railroad - and paid, of course - to flag the crossing and provide more affirmative indications of when it's safe to cross, and when it's not, until the signal work is done . . . - Paul North.
They would only need a Stop/Slow sign like the highway crews have.
Paul_D_North_Jr Maybe one additional ''Maintenance and Protection of Traffic'' = ''MPT'' measure that could be taken whenever the crossing signals are being worked on -''deranged'', per the term of art from Falcon48 (thank you, sir) - would be to equip the signal crew with a couple of highway ''Yield'' signs that they could temporarily hang on or over the flashers and crossbucks. That would be to supersede those devices to notify and emphasize the motorists that the signals might not be working properly or otherwise can't be relied upon, until they have been fully tested and found to be operating correctly. Or an additional person could just be assigned by the railroad - and paid, of course - to flag the crossing and provide more affirmative indications of when it's safe to cross, and when it's not, until the signal work is done . . . - Paul North.
Why not just add permanent YIELD signs to signalized crossings? It would protect the crossing if the signals fail to activate, or if they are disabled for repair work. A fixed YIELD sign at a signalized crossing would not conflict with any other laws pertaining to the crossing.
oltmannd"Fail safe" <> "cannot fail". They are entirely different things. Railway track circuits are "fail safe", yet there are false clears that occur each year.
I still remember the incident shortly after I moved to Bowling Green, Ohio back in 1996. I was watching a northbound Conrail freight come through town. It was at night, and I could clearly see the signals at the crossing just to the north. About mid-train, the gates went up, and the lights turned off. The train cleared the crossing, and signals came back on, lowering the gates for about a minute before turning back off again. I called the police, and they obviously called Conrail about it since the next train through eased up to the crossing and waited until the gates were down before throttling up and heading through the crossing. Never saw the signals do that again. I've always been cautious at all crossings, but after that, I never go by the signals to determine if a train is approaching.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
An earlier post considered the example of a rural intersection with a flashing red light in one direction with a flashing yellow light in the other direction. My experience with such an arrangement is that most drivers do not slow down for a flashing yellow light in that situation so adding flashing yellow lights to grade crossing signals would not be of much help.
So why spend the monies on signs? What would be accomplished by installing a "yield" sign on a signalized crossing when ninety-nine times out of one hundred the signals work and the public becomes numb to the "yield" sign?
No malice, an honest question.
Simply to notify the public to look before they cross blindly, and to maybe give the railroad an 'out' or at least better legal footing in the event of a collision.
Actually, I suspect the signals are better than the proverbial ''99 and 44/100 per cent'' reliable.
So upon reconsideration of that idea, it might be better to not waste spend the money on the signs - instead, spend it on better training of the signal personnel, more of them, etc., and maybe the occasional damages that will be assessed as a result of the random failure or human error such as this one, instead of trying to dodge that liability altogether. Falcon48 above had the refreshing - seriously - idea of the railroad just 'facing the music' when such events occur, and that might be a better result for the industry* and society.
*''A few fleas are good for a dog; otherwise, he forgets he is a dog.'' - Japanese proverb, quoted by Ian Fleming in his James Bond novel You Only Live Twice.
The Butler So why spend the monies on signs? What would be accomplished by installing a "yield" sign on a signalized crossing when ninety-nine times out of one hundred the signals work and the public becomes numb to the "yield" sign? No malice, an honest question.
The reason YIELD signs are being added to non-signalized crossings is that it has been found the most drivers do not understand that the crossbuck means yield. I am not sure that point is particularly relevant, however, because drivers do recognize the crossbuck as indicating a grade crossing, and most drivers do understand that they are to yield to trains. So I think that adding a yield sign is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist for practical purposes.
Furthermore, the YIELD sign and its concept of yield is one of the most misunderstood and most violated of traffic controls. One could argue that adding a YIELD sign to grade crossings might have the unintended consequence of causing drivers to be less cautious than they would have been with the crossbuck alone. In many cases, the only driver response required by a YIELD sign is to look for conflicting traffic. It is perceived as a weaker alternative to the STOP sign. So whatever drivers think about a crossbuck, a YIELD sign might water it down.
Crossbucks are also provided at signalized crossings where they mean the same thing as a YIELD sign. As a requirement to yield, crossbucks are redundant at signalized crossings unless the signal happens to fail to activate. Even though most drivers know that they are to yield to trains, even if they don’t know that crossbucks mean yield, I doubt many drivers consider the need to yield in case of failure of the automatic protection at signalized crossings.
To address that issue, perhaps a new sign is needed that somehow warns drivers to always look for trains, and not rely exclusively on the automatic protection. I am not so sure that a YIELD sign is the best sign to use for such a warning. One could argue that the prospect of signals failing to activate is far more dangerous to drivers than their misunderstanding of literal meaning of crossbucks at non-signalized crossings. Although signal failure to activate is relatively rare.
However, since signalized crossings do have crossbucks that mean yield, and it has been found that drivers do not understand that meaning, and it is therefore necessary to add YIELD signs to non-signalized crossings, it follows that they should also be added to clarify the meaning of crossbucks at signalized crossings. Either that or remove the crossbucks at signalized crossings.
Doesn't YIELD mean "pull out in front of me without even looking"? That's how most people around here interpret that sign (or maybe they never took trigonometry?)
I've seen many localities putting stop signs up between the crossbucks and the tracks. A stop sign is a little stronger than a yield sign, while the latter might as well be made of silly putty.
I wonder if maybe we ought to put the little <---LOOK---> sign on the crossings?
Nah, people will still get squished.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Bumper sticker: ''STOP - It's not just a suggestion.''
Paul_D_North_Jr Bumper sticker: ''STOP - It's not just a suggestion.''
Or how about a sign on the gates/crossbucks/whatever saying, "In case of a tie, you lose"? Perhaps accompanied by a choice photo.
oltmanndBucyrus Norm48327 " I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible." That doesn't make sense. All things made by man can fail given the right circumstances. What if the power has failed and the batteries have died ? And while I'm on that soapbox, whatever happened to the 'stop, look, listen' signs? Your security and safety still depends on you. Here is a message from the Minnesota DOT stating that a YIELD sign is not needed at signalized crossings because the signals cannot fail to activate: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for all traffic signals and markings, including those for identification of highway-rail grade crossings.The MUTCD is undergoing significant revision and it is hoped that the final version will be published sometime in the fall 2009. One of the proposals in the new version is to require either a STOP or YIELD sign to be affixed to all crossbuck posts at crossings without active warning devices. This proposal is the result of a comprehensive study that concluded that motorists do not recognize the crossbuck as a YIELD sign.The design of "active" warning devices (gates and/or flashing lights) is fail safe - this is an FRA requirement and if the gates and/or flashing lights malfunction - the gates drop down and the flashing lights are activated. Thus, there really is no need to advise a motorist to yield/stop at a grade crossing with active warning devices. Adding a YIELD sign to crossings equipped with active warning devices has not been discussed - and potentially could confuse a motorist about the appropriate behavior at the crossing.I hope this answers some of your concerns. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for the final approval of the MUTCD - there is a web site if you are interested in reading some of the proposed changes - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.[Contact name removed]Manager, Rail AdministrationFreight and Commercial Vehicle Operations395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 "Fail safe" <> "cannot fail". They are entirely different things. Railway track circuits are "fail safe", yet there are false clears that occur each year.
Bucyrus Norm48327 " I was told that YIELD signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect the crossings and those signals are infallible." That doesn't make sense. All things made by man can fail given the right circumstances. What if the power has failed and the batteries have died ? And while I'm on that soapbox, whatever happened to the 'stop, look, listen' signs? Your security and safety still depends on you. Here is a message from the Minnesota DOT stating that a YIELD sign is not needed at signalized crossings because the signals cannot fail to activate: The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is the national standard for all traffic signals and markings, including those for identification of highway-rail grade crossings.The MUTCD is undergoing significant revision and it is hoped that the final version will be published sometime in the fall 2009. One of the proposals in the new version is to require either a STOP or YIELD sign to be affixed to all crossbuck posts at crossings without active warning devices. This proposal is the result of a comprehensive study that concluded that motorists do not recognize the crossbuck as a YIELD sign.The design of "active" warning devices (gates and/or flashing lights) is fail safe - this is an FRA requirement and if the gates and/or flashing lights malfunction - the gates drop down and the flashing lights are activated. Thus, there really is no need to advise a motorist to yield/stop at a grade crossing with active warning devices. Adding a YIELD sign to crossings equipped with active warning devices has not been discussed - and potentially could confuse a motorist about the appropriate behavior at the crossing.I hope this answers some of your concerns. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for the final approval of the MUTCD - there is a web site if you are interested in reading some of the proposed changes - http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me.[Contact name removed]Manager, Rail AdministrationFreight and Commercial Vehicle Operations395 John Ireland Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
In this particular incident, couldn't it be said the signals didn't really fail, they were deactivated. Turned off in simple turns.
One question about placing yield signs or stop signs, as some locations have, will motorists obey them? I've seen motorists drive past a crossing with cross bucks and a stop sign and not even slow down. One was a utility truck from a local co-op with hazmat placards.
I think the biggest problem is that too many drivers disengage their brain when engaging their transmissions. And not only around railroad crossings, either.
Jeff (from Iowa where turn signals seem to be optional and speed limit signs mere suggestions)
Well, getting drivers to obey the law is one problem, but the issue with this thread is about the railroad industry and the traffic control sector getting the flaws out of its crossing protection.
There are bound to be unintended consequences when you have such complex rules and devices that you cannot get consistent interpretations from the very people who create and enforce them.
For example, I would submit that the use of crossbucks at signalized crossings makes non-signalized crossings more dangerous. When signalized crossings are not activated, drivers go through without looking for trains because they have faith in the automatic protection. Every time they do this, they drive past a crossbuck that means nothing to them because the signals are not activated. Then when they drive through a non-signalized crossing where the only protection is the crossbuck, drivers might tend to dismiss it because they do that routinely at non-activated, signalized crossings.
The lack of meaning of a crossbuck at signalized crossings compromises the meaning of the crossbuck at non-signalized crossings.
BucyrusFor example, I would submit that the use of crossbucks at signalized crossings makes non-signalized crossings more dangerous.
Exactly. How many people (of this forum or not) come to a stop or running stop at a signalized, crossbuck-equipped crossing? Almost no one, of course. It would be dangerous to do so b/c the drivers behind may well not notice. Most folks don't slow down enough at crossbucks only crossings, either. There needs to be a fail-safe, interlocked mechanism at the crossing. If the road signaling is turned off or inoperable, rail traffic should be halted as well.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Fail-safe does not exist. And it isn't worth the money (IMO) to try to achieve that impossible dream.
I understand that fail-safe is only a term of art for control devices, but nothing is truly guaranteed not to fail. The issue with this crash is that the signal workers used the Amtrak train as the final test to see if the signals worked or not.
However, this was not a proper test because if it happened to show that the signals were not working, the test itself would pose the very real-world hazard that the signals were intended to prevent. I cannot imagine the thought process in the minds of the individual(s) who decided to test the signals with an actual train running at top speed.
The use of the term, “fail-safe” in the discussion of this crash refers to the need for a “fail-safe” backup in case the final test proved that the signals failed to activate. Perhaps it is not the best use of the term, “fail-safe.”
Here is a quote from the article:
"Where was the fail-safe to prevent this tragedy? That's where the problem lies," an investigator said. "(CN) didn't do it right. There is speculation as to why they did what they did, but an accurate picture will emerge at the end of our investigation.''
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.