I checked into why the Illinois law seems to override the premise that a crossbuck means yield at active grade crossings. If I understand it correctly, the meaning of signage is established by the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, but they have no legal authority to enforce these meanings in states. The meaning is only given authority by state law, and state law can modify the meaning. So, while it is true that a crossbuck means yield, that meaning may have no legal effect if it is overridden by state law.
I suspect that the reason Illinois law exempts drivers from treating the crossbuck as a YIELD sign at active crossings is that they don’t want people to slow down for these crossings when they are not activated. Slowing down to yield creates a road hazard for rear end crashes, and it slows down traffic. Both of these concerns may outweigh the slight safety advantage of having drivers look for trains when the crossing signals and gates are not activated.
So, in Illinois, you don’t have to look for trains before crossing signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. Therefore, I conclude that the victim of this Amtrak grade crossing crash was 100% blameless.
EDIT: FURTHER INFORMATION INDICATES THAT MY CONCLUSION HERE IS INVALID.
Bucyrus So, in Illinois, you don’t have to look for trains before crossing signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. Therefore, I conclude that the victim of this Amtrak grade crossing crash was 100% blameless.
I disagree with that. Most of the blame, and rightly so, should fall upon the railroad but the way I read it you still have some responsiblity.
(625 ILCS 5/11-1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1201)
Sec. 11-1201. Obedience to signal indicating approach of train.
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop, 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 within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until the tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when:
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad brain 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;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing;
5. A railroad train is approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created.
There is more, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1201 including that part already cited in a previous post. Items 1 and 2 clearly connect with the operation of crossing signals and gates. Items 3, 4 and 5 deal with the train itself. In the paragraph it says when any of the circumstances (items 1 thru 5) are present, not just when the warning signals are activated.
Again, I think the railroad shoulders most of the blame in this instance. If I was on the jury, I would vote to award damages. I can't go so far though, to say you don't have a responsiblity for your own safety, no matter what the law may say, when approaching a clearly marked grade crossing with or without activated warning signals.
Jeff
In my humble opinion, every motorist who is accidently killed by a train is entitled to the presumption of innocence, if not for their sake then for the sake of their grieving families, who after all can search the web to see what is being said about their lost loved one. For that reason I urge everyone to keep in mind that this is a public website. Anything uncharitable said of the deceased might be read by their mother.
Mike
jeffhergert Bucyrus So, in Illinois, you don’t have to look for trains before crossing signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. Therefore, I conclude that the victim of this Amtrak grade crossing crash was 100% blameless. I disagree with that. Most of the blame, and rightly so, should fall upon the railroad but the way I read it you still have some responsiblity. (625 ILCS 5/11-1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1201) Sec. 11-1201. Obedience to signal indicating approach of train. (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop, 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 within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until the tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when: 1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train; 2. A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train; 3. A railroad brain 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; 4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing; 5. A railroad train is approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created. There is more, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1201 including that part already cited in a previous post. Items 1 and 2 clearly connect with the operation of crossing signals and gates. Items 3, 4 and 5 deal with the train itself. In the paragraph it says when any of the circumstances (items 1 thru 5) are present, not just when the warning signals are activated. Again, I think the railroad shoulders most of the blame in this instance. If I was on the jury, I would vote to award damages. I can't go so far though, to say you don't have a responsiblity for your own safety, no matter what the law may say, when approaching a clearly marked grade crossing with or without activated warning signals. Jeff
Jeff,
I have seen that language before, and I agree with your interpretation of it. However, I am not sure how to reconcile it with the other portion of the law as posted by Falcon48 on page 4 of this thread, as follows:
"At any railroad grade crossing provided with railroad crossbuck signs, WITHOUT AUTOMATIC, ELECTRIC, OR MECHANICAL SIGNAL DEVICES, CROSSING GATES, or a human flagman giving a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the driver of a vehicle shall in obedience 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)
In reading the whole law, I think the previous interpretation of the above portion by myself and by Falcon48 is incorrect. It seems to make the distinction between the meanings of the crossbuck only for the purpose of focusing only on passive crossings where the crossbuck conveys the yield message. This paragraph is simply not about signalized crossings.
Yet according to the full text, which you have provided, the law does indeed require drivers to yield to trains at signalized crossings, even if the signals are not activated. So, now I must reverse what I said about the blame for the accident and the interpretation of the law. Clearly, the driver broke the law.
When I read the bewildering language of the entire law, I can reach this conclusion:
At non-signalized grade crossings, the crossbuck means yield. At signalized grade crossings, the meaning of the crossbuck is not defined, but the yield requirement still exists on the basis of the existence of the crossing alone. And that yield requirement exists at signalized crossings whether the signals are activated or not.
Last Thursday, I had a long conversation with a person at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. He told me that it is common for drivers to be required by law to yield to trains by slowing down and looking for them at signalized crossings even when the signals are not activated. And in such cases, a driver would be found at fault for a collision with a train even if the signals had failed to activate. As has been pointed out by Jeff in an above post, the law in Illinois requires drivers to yield to trains even if the signals are not activated.
The thing to keep in mind is that a crossing with signals that happen to be inoperable is far more dangerous to drivers than if the same crossing had no signals, and was protected by only a crossbuck.
Consider a line of traffic letting out of the dance competition, all anxious to get somewhere else, all bunched up at a stop sign with a grade crossing ahead of it, and proceeding one by one over the crossing. I suspect that several of these drivers may have seen the approaching train, but disregarded it because the signals said the crossing was clear.
I think it is highly unrealistic to expect drivers to anticipate danger when the crossing gates and lights are not activated. It certainly is not intuitive. If drivers are expected to know this, the signage needs to indicate that the automatic crossing protection is not completely reliable, and therefore, drivers must slow down, look for trains, and make sure none are closely approaching before crossing when the crossing protection is not activated.
However, such a warning officially sends the message that the crossing protection is not reliable, which opens up another legal can of worms. I don’t think the industry wants to send that message.
Let's step back from the forest of statutes, regulations and liability. The important concern here seems to be, what to do when a crossing signaling mechanism has been shut off for repair. Should there be flagmen to stop road traffic as a train approaches? What is railroad practice when tracks are being worked on? Don't they have a warning device to clear workers from the tracks? What is railroad practice if a rail-rail interlocked crossing's signaling is disabled for repair?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Within the last month or so, the UP has been doing track work around the Boone area. During the day, they have disabled the crossing signals in the work area on the track affected. A track bulletin is issued stating which crossings are affected and on what track. The bulletin also says to follow the rule and procedures for an inactive crossing signal on that track. While it doesn't say it in simple words, it means trains will stop and protect the crossings unless otherwise advised by any signal department employees on the scene.
In practice, the track being worked on isn't used by trains for the duration of the work. I have noticed, that there are two flagman at each crossing anyway during the time MOW forces are working. The reasons are probably twofold. One, two protect the crossing for the MOW equipment and two, in case a train needs to be run on that track.
At the end of the day, after the signal department has restored the signals the bulletin is voided.
While this is clearly the CN's fault for running a train through at 79MPH if they weren't fully satisfied that the signals were operating as intended, there is another angle that nobody has mentioned yet that goes to personal responsibility. Even though the crossing gates were disabled, this wouldn't absolve of an operating crew of its responsibility to whistle for the crossing, and thus, motorists should make a fairly reasonable assumption that a train is in fairly close proximity to the crossing? Not trying to blame the victim as this is CN's fault, but there is a reasonable expectation that a train was there if he's blowing for the crossing, isn't there?
IIRC, I read earlier in this thread that the driver was STOPPED in traffic ON THE TRACKS, if this is true, then I don't know about the LEGAL ramifications, but in my own personal opinion, that would shift a LOT of the blame onto the driver. Signalized crossing or not, there is NEVER a good excuse for stopping on the crossing, wait 15 feet short of the nearest rail until you can safely clear the crossing.
I work at a plant that is adjacent to Union Pacific's Kenton line into Portland, OR (and are on-line UP customers) I am a truck driver, and often cross these tracks multiple times a day, there is only room for one truck or three cars to cross the crossing and wait for the signal on Sandy Blvd to allow left turn traffic(there is no straight through route here). I see people on a sometimes daily basis either stop on the tracks, or cross, without enough distance from the nearest rail to be in the clear if a train were to come. This is a busy line with often fast moving trains. several years ago another truck driver was killed at a crossing(unsignalled) less than a mile west of us, he was talking on his cell phone to his dispatcher, when he pulled across the tracks without looking, it was the last mistake that he ever made. The dispatcher heard the train horn clearly over the phone, then some other sounds that he is not likely to forget in this lifetime.
Does anyone know, was the driver in this case actually STOPPED waiting on the tracks in this case? If so, it is a real Shame that someone who contributed so much to society was lost, but it would have been as much her own doing as the railroad's.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
There is a good chance that crossing is one of the many "quiet zones" in the Chicago metropolitan area.
James
The Butler There is a good chance that crossing is one of the many "quiet zones" in the Chicago metropolitan area.
Unlikely, this is the first grade crossing on the IC main line south out of Chicago. It is also on the edge of the metropolitan area.
.
The Illinois 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.
BucyrusWhen 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.
What does the law say about the driver's responsibilities when the three conditions stated above are not present?
Anthony V.
challenger3980 Does anyone know, was the driver in this case actually STOPPED waiting on the tracks in this case? If so, it is a real Shame that someone who contributed so much to society was lost, but it would have been as much her own doing as the railroad's.
From the articles I've read, she was following the car a friend of hers was driving. That car was slowing to stop after crossing the tracks, and she was following immediately behind.
I know that there have been a couple times in my past where I've accidentally done that. Granted, in both cases, I wasn't in the middle of the crossing, but the vehicle ahead of me would stop, either unexpectedly or sooner than I'd expect it to, and the back end of my car would be sticking out a little. In both cases, no trains were coming, and I was only stopped for a few seconds. But it is an uneasy feeling to get stopped like that.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Interestingly, I don't see anything in the Illinois law that addresses stopping on the tracks.
Bucyrus jeffhergert Bucyrus So, in Illinois, you don’t have to look for trains before crossing signalized crossings when the signals are not activated. Therefore, I conclude that the victim of this Amtrak grade crossing crash was 100% blameless. I disagree with that. Most of the blame, and rightly so, should fall upon the railroad but the way I read it you still have some responsiblity. (625 ILCS 5/11-1201) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1201) Sec. 11-1201. Obedience to signal indicating approach of train. (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing where the driver is not always required to stop, 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 within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad and shall not proceed until the tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when: 1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train; 2. A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train; 3. A railroad brain 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; 4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing; 5. A railroad train is approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created. There is more, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1201 including that part already cited in a previous post. Items 1 and 2 clearly connect with the operation of crossing signals and gates. Items 3, 4 and 5 deal with the train itself. In the paragraph it says when any of the circumstances (items 1 thru 5) are present, not just when the warning signals are activated. Again, I think the railroad shoulders most of the blame in this instance. If I was on the jury, I would vote to award damages. I can't go so far though, to say you don't have a responsiblity for your own safety, no matter what the law may say, when approaching a clearly marked grade crossing with or without activated warning signals. Jeff Jeff, I have seen that language before, and I agree with your interpretation of it. However, I am not sure how to reconcile it with the other portion of the law as posted by Falcon48 on page 4 of this thread, as follows: "At any railroad grade crossing provided with railroad crossbuck signs, WITHOUT AUTOMATIC, ELECTRIC, OR MECHANICAL SIGNAL DEVICES, CROSSING GATES, or a human flagman giving a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the driver of a vehicle shall in obedience 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) In reading the whole law, I think the previous interpretation of the above portion by myself and by Falcon48 is incorrect. It seems to make the distinction between the meanings of the crossbuck only for the purpose of focusing only on passive crossings where the crossbuck conveys the yield message. This paragraph is simply not about signalized crossings. Yet according to the full text, which you have provided, the law does indeed require drivers to yield to trains at signalized crossings, even if the signals are not activated. So, now I must reverse what I said about the blame for the accident and the interpretation of the law. Clearly, the driver broke the law. When I read the bewildering language of the entire law, I can reach this conclusion: At non-signalized grade crossings, the crossbuck means yield. At signalized grade crossings, the meaning of the crossbuck is not defined, but the yield requirement still exists on the basis of the existence of the crossing alone. And that yield requirement exists at signalized crossings whether the signals are activated or not.
With all due respect, the section of the Illinois statute on crossbucks is clearly relevant to signalized crossings, It says that a crossbuck functions as a "yield" sign only at crossings with no active crosing warning systems. That means that the crossbuck does not mean "yield" for crossings equipped with autonmatic warning signals. There is no ambiguity.
With respect to the other provisions of the law, there is nothing that requires a motorist to slow and actively look for a train at a crossing with automated warning devices if the devices are not activated. The most the statute requires is that if the motorist actually sees (or should have seen) an approaching train (ie., it is "plainly visible" or is "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created"), he or she should stop for it. This is, in effect, the "last clear chance" doctrine I mentioned in an earlier post. If the motorist truly has the "last clear chance" to avoid a collision with a train, it is his/her responsibility to avoid it. There's a big difference between that and a duty to slow to a crawl at a signalized grade crossing to look for a train if the signals aren't actuated.
I know most of those on this thread aren't lawyers (consider yourselves lucky), but an important rule of statutory construction is that a statute has to be read in a way that doesn't negate some of its provisions. If you read the "plainly visible" or "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created" langauge as creating a duty to treat a crossing the same as a "yield" sign, the effect is to completely negate the specific statutory provision saying that a crossbuck is only a yield sign at crossings without active signals. That's not a permissible reading of the statute. I would also point out that the last thing most highway engineers would want is for motorists to treat unactuated crossing signals as "yield" signs because of the danger of rear end colllisions.
CSSHEGEWISCH The Butler There is a good chance that crossing is one of the many "quiet zones" in the Chicago metropolitan area. Unlikely, this is the first grade crossing on the IC main line south out of Chicago. It is also on the edge of the metropolitan area.
I'm pretty familiar with the "quiet zone" rules applicable to the Chicago area, and you can't conclude whether a particular crossing is or is not a "quite zone" merely from its location. If you have the DOT crossing number, you should be able to determine its status from the FRA grade crossing inventory, which is available on line.
There are two types of "quiet zones" in the 6 county Chicago region. The first kind are quiet zones which are exempt from the FRA horn rule. These are crossings where the Illinois Commerce Commission excused the railroad from sounding horns, and the railroad was, in fact, not sounding the horn as of December 18, 2003 (as explanation, ILCC could "excuse" railraods from sounding horns at particular crossings, but could not prohibit them from doing so. As a result, there were a number of "excused" crossings where railroads still sounded horns). The second type are quiet zones established under teh FRA horn rule. If this is an FRA approved quiet zone, there will be a "no train horn" sign on the advance warning sign. If it is an "exempt" quiet zone, this kind of sign may not be present.
Falcon48 With all due respect, the section of the Illinois statute on crossbucks is clearly relevant to signalized crossings, It says that a crossbuck functions as a "yield" sign only at crossings with no active crosing warning systems. That means that the crossbuck does not mean "yield" for crossings equipped with autonmatic warning signals. There is no ambiguity. With respect to the other provisions of the law, there is nothing that requires a motorist to slow and actively look for a train at a crossing with automated warning devices if the devices are not activated. The most the statute requires is that if the motorist actually sees (or should have seen) an approaching train (ie., it is "plainly visible" or is "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created"), he or she should stop for it. This is, in effect, the "last clear chance" doctrine I mentioned in an earlier post. If the motorist truly has the "last clear chance" to avoid a collision with a train, it is his/her responsibility to avoid it. There's a big difference between that and a duty to slow to a crawl at a signalized grade crossing to look for a train if the signals aren't actuated. I know most of those on this thread aren't lawyers (consider yourselves lucky), but an important rule of statutory construction is that a statute has to be read in a way that doesn't negate some of its provisions. If you read the "plainly visible" or "approaching so closely that an immediate hazard is created" langauge as creating a duty to treat a crossing the same as a "yield" sign, the effect is to completely negate the specific statutory provision saying that a crossbuck is only a yield sign at crossings without active signals. That's not a permissible reading of the statute. I would also point out that the last thing most highway engineers would want is for motorists to treat unactuated crossing signals as "yield" signs because of the danger of rear end colllisions.
I understand what you are saying, and agree that the law does say that a crossbuck means yield at passive crossings. However, I do not conclude that the law says that a crossbuck at active crossings does not mean yield. The law simply does not say what the crossbuck at active crossings means. However the law does say this about both types of crossings:
“The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.”
The law then requires a driver to stop and wait if a train is approaching or present, etc.
Moreover, the law requires this regardless of whether or not the signals are activated.
Therefore, if the law instructs a driver to stop and wait for a train that is approaching when the signals are not activated, would it not follow that the law expects drivers to look for trains when the signals are not activated?
Considering the foregoing, is this not overall, a requirement for drivers to yield to trains at un-activated signalized crossings?
The law does not say that the crossbuck at a signalized crossing means yield or even use the term, “yield,” but it does require a response that completely fulfills the definition of yielding.
The law does not say that the crossbuck at an active crossing means yield, but it also does not say that the crossbuck at an active crossing does not mean yield. Moreover, while the law does not say that a crossbuck at an active crossing means yield, it does nevertheless require a driver response that amounts to yielding.
I understand your point about drivers slowing down to yield and thereby creating a risk of rear end collisions. I have heard that concern expressed many times by traffic control experts. A lot of people think that yielding requires a driver to slow down, however, yielding does not necessarily require a driver to slow down if sight lines are long enough. Yielding only requires a driver to know whether or not a train is approaching, and to give way if one is. Sometimes that requires a driver to slow down, and sometimes it does not.
If I were driving in Illinois and came to an un-activated signalized crossing, and there were buildings on each side of the road blocking the view down the tracks in either direction, I would stop and make sure no trains were approaching. The law would require me to do this.
It would be interesting to research and compare the annual compilations of crash statistics - if such statistics even exist, as you'll appreciate in a moment - to compare:
Deaths, injuries, and property damage from collisions of vehicles with trains at grade crossings of all kinds, with -
Deaths, injuries, and property damage from rear-end collisions of following vehicles with preceding vehicles that stop at grade crossings of all kinds to look and listen as Bucyrus suggests - although it might be even more interesting if there is a break-out of those figures for signalized as opposed to non-signalized crossings.
I suspect that the former exceed the latter by several orders of magnitude (= 'powers of 10') - because hardly anyone does it. It would be a fair comparison only if many people did the ''Stop, Look & Listen'' precaution at all kinds of crossings, and someone kept track of that data, so that there would be a consistent and comparable basis to compute the results using the same 'metric'. In the meantime, I believe it's safe to say that many, many more people would have to do that before the rear-end collisions become a significant safety hazard.
And then there's the very valid argument that the driver of the following vehicle should be paying enough attention to - and following at the proper safe braking/ stopping distance from - the vehicle in front of him/her, to be able to stop anytime that the preceding vehicle does, for whatever reason or even for no apparent reason - such as at a signalized railroad crossing . . .
Query: Suppose there's a signalized - or non-signalized - crossing, but with the R15-3 'EXEMPT' placard that allows school buses and trucks carrying haz-mat, etc. to proceed without the mandatory stop that they would otherwise have to perform because of the special nature of their cargos. What effect on this analysis and what result then - and why, in your view ?
Here's an excerpt from the US FHWA MUTCD on this, from -
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part8/part8b.htm#section8B05
"These supplemental signs inform drivers of vehicles carrying passengers for hire, school buses carrying students, or vehicles carrying hazardous materials that a stop is not required at certain designated highway-rail grade crossings, except when a train, locomotive, or other railroad equipment is approaching or occupying the highway-rail grade crossing, or the driver's view is blocked."
Just 'stirrin' the big pot of crazy' here, that's all.
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Deaths, injuries, and property damage from rear-end collisions of following vehicles with preceding vehicles that stop at grade crossings of all kinds to look and listen as Bucyrus suggests - although it might be even more interesting if there is a break-out of those figures for signalized as opposed to non-signalized crossings.
Paul; Maybe i'm just not aware but I have never heard of a bus (anybus required here),school bus or Haz-Mat truck rear ended at a RR crosing. Must happen but so few because people are paying attention. Do remember an incident a few weeks ago where a car stopped for a train was rear ended by a drunk and pushed into the train.
AnthonyV BucyrusWhen 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. What does the law say about the driver's responsibilities when the three conditions stated above are not present? Anthony V.
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.
So, aside from those five conditions, I assume your questions is this:
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?
For this behavior, the law makes a distinction between signalized crossings and non-signalized crossing.
First, for both types of crossings, the law says:
Second, for just the non-signalized crossings, the law says:
“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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
So, why is the law trying to have it both ways?
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?
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.
blue streak 1 Paul; Maybe i'm just not aware but I have never heard of a bus (anybus required here),school bus or Haz-Mat truck rear ended at a RR crosing. Must happen but so few because people are paying attention. Do remember an incident a few weeks ago where a car stopped for a train was rear ended by a drunk and pushed into the train.
They should really equip vehicles with some sort of illuminated warning device that lets people behind them know that they are slowing down and/or stopping...save a lot of hassle!
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
But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law? The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault. But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail. I really would like to know the answer. It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes. Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree.
Bucyrus But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law? The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault. But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail. I really would like to know the answer. It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes. Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree.
Falcon48 Bucyrus But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law? The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault. But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail. I really would like to know the answer. It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes. Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree. I'm having some trouble understanding why there is so much disagreement. I have a fair amount of experience in grade crossing accident issues, and I can guarantee you that, where there is a grade crossing accident due to an "activation failure" of grade crossing warning signals, the railroad is going to end up buying the store. That is particularly the case where railroad maintenance personnel created the condition, which may be what happened here. That tells you what the law really is. I can't imagine a judge or jury - in Illinois or anywhere else - deciding that a railroad can avoid liability for this kind of accident because the motorist didn't look for a train, even though the grade crossing signals weren't activated. You can argue about snippets of language from the statute all you want, but this is the reality. I would venture to say that no one involved who has actually been involved in grade crossing accident litigation would dispute this.
I have no idea what a judge or jury would decide in this Amtrak crash where the signals failed to activate. I understand that you have experience in this area, and you may be entirely correct about what a judge and jury would decide in such a case. But the following language of the law does conflict with your conclusion:
Clearly, this sentence refers to signalized crossings when the signals are clear to traffic. However, I do find it to be oddly worded and overly general. Other language of the law strips the default yield requirement from the crossbucks at signalized crossings, and the law replaces it with the above sentence that vaguely requires due care and caution.
I find this issue of what drivers are supposed to do when crossing an un-activated, signalized crossing to be the most interesting aspect of the overall grade crossing safety. People who respect or like trains will always tell you that they look for trains at un-activated, signalized crossings rather than just relying on the signals. But do they really? It is one thing to say it, but another thing to actually do it.
I believe that the industry would rather water down the issue of why drivers need to look for trains approaching un-activated, signalized crossings rather than admit that the reason to look for trains in such circumstances is that the signals can fail to activate. As further evidence of this, I have noticed that people in the industry will give you what apparently is the “company line” by telling you that the signals cannot fail because they are “fail safe,” However, we know that is a faulty premise.
There's an aphorism in the practice of law that has a lot of validity - "Hard cases make bad law". Stated another way - when a point or principle gets pushed too far in a particular situation, and/ or there are competing good but irreconciliable principles at stake, one of them is going to lose, even though it might not deserve to in a more general application. This seems to be of like kind - so I think that aphorism does or would apply here.
It seems to me that these kinds of things often come to a head in either a personal injury suit or a bankruptcy context. In the former, the plaintiff's attorney is out to maximize the client's recovery - and not incidentially, his/ her share of the judgment; in the latter, the bankruptcy trustee is out to maximize the dollar value of all potential claims for a debtor or his/ her/ its estate. In both contexts, the claimant and/ or legal counsel often feels unconstrained by other considerations such as the future of the relationship, fairness, the prior course of dealings between the parties, etc. Sometimes that's when novel claims or new theories get tried out - and either fail, or succeed, and then the rest of us find out that what we thought was accepted and 'settled law' wasn't really so solid after all, at least until it gets to an appeals court.
One example, as best as I can remember it: Sometime during the NorthEast Railroad Reorganization, a trustee or legal counsel for the Lehigh Valley Railroad filed suit against Bethlehem Steel on a breach of warranty claim for a broken rail that caused a major derailment and hence significant damages and costs, and hence a loss to the railroad's estate. The rail that was at the center of this suit was manufactured decades earlier, and it wasn't until after many years in track and in service under traffic that it broke and a hidden internal or 'latent' flaw was discovered - evidently a defect that the regular Sperry rail test detector car runs hadn't found either, though I can't remember the exact nature of it. Anyway, the theory of the suit was that the hidden flaw was a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability and suitability for a particular purpose - i.e., for safe use as a rail in mainline track. What was novel here - as I recall it - is that the warranty was based on the provisions of the later-enacted Uniform Commercial Code's Article 2 on Sales of goods - a Code that didn't exist at all when that rail was manufactured and installed. And who knows what the terms and conditions of the original contract or purchase order were on that point, if either corporation even still had them or could prove that.
At the time this was a little unsettling, because it took a relationship that had been was pretty much understood and accepted between the rail mills and the railroads for years and threatened to make the steel mills liable for any and all defects in the rails, regardless of type, cause, or fault - kind of a 'products liability' theory for rails, as well as applying a newly invented body of law long after the relevant events. I don't recall how ithis particular case turned out - not being of much help here, am I ? - but if you can appreciate how much this seemed to throw the relationships and other aspects of those businesses into a tizzy, then perhaps you can understand why it is unlikely that a judge or jury will be asked to - or will even decide to - apply the actual 'black letter' of the particular law as quoted above by Bucyrus, unless one of those extreme personal injury or bankruptcy cases attempts to do that. Since application of that provision would likely defeat a claim by an injured person who has filed a suit or is in bankruptcy, I don't see that class of plaintiff doing so; and since no railroads of any size are in bankruptcy, I don't see that happening either. Perhaps the only scenario where it might occur is one that involves a non-railroad 3rd party - such as another motorist or a truck driver in a multi-vehicle accident at a grade crossing, etc. - who desperately attempts to evade being held liable by invoking that provision against the suing motorist who is the injured party. But I'm not holding my breath for that one to succeed, either . . .
Bucyrus Falcon48 Bucyrus But again, going back to a question I asked earlier, who is at fault for this crash under the Illinois law? The way I read the law, the driver has to be at fault. But to many, it must appear that the railroad is at fault for allowing its automatic warning system to fail. I really would like to know the answer. It often seems so clear-cut who is at fault in grade crossing crashes. Yet, in this case, the posters do not seem to agree. I'm having some trouble understanding why there is so much disagreement. I have a fair amount of experience in grade crossing accident issues, and I can guarantee you that, where there is a grade crossing accident due to an "activation failure" of grade crossing warning signals, the railroad is going to end up buying the store. That is particularly the case where railroad maintenance personnel created the condition, which may be what happened here. That tells you what the law really is. I can't imagine a judge or jury - in Illinois or anywhere else - deciding that a railroad can avoid liability for this kind of accident because the motorist didn't look for a train, even though the grade crossing signals weren't activated. You can argue about snippets of language from the statute all you want, but this is the reality. I would venture to say that no one involved who has actually been involved in grade crossing accident litigation would dispute this. I have no idea what a judge or jury would decide in this Amtrak crash where the signals failed to activate. I understand that you have experience in this area, and you may be entirely correct about what a judge and jury would decide in such a case. But the following language of the law does conflict with your conclusion: “The person [driver] must exercise due care and caution as the existence of a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger.” Clearly, this sentence refers to signalized crossings when the signals are clear to traffic. However, I do find it to be oddly worded and overly general. Other language of the law strips the default yield requirement from the crossbucks at signalized crossings, and the law replaces it with the above sentence that vaguely requires due care and caution. I find this issue of what drivers are supposed to do when crossing an un-activated, signalized crossing to be the most interesting aspect of the overall grade crossing safety. People who respect or like trains will always tell you that they look for trains at un-activated, signalized crossings rather than just relying on the signals. But do they really? It is one thing to say it, but another thing to actually do it. I believe that the industry would rather water down the issue of why drivers need to look for trains approaching un-activated, signalized crossings rather than admit that the reason to look for trains in such circumstances is that the signals can fail to activate. As further evidence of this, I have noticed that people in the industry will give you what apparently is the “company line” by telling you that the signals cannot fail because they are “fail safe,” However, we know that is a faulty premise.
I hate to keep repeating myself but, when you read a statute, you have to read it as a whole and give effect to all of its provisions. This is a fundamental principle of statutory construction. You don't take one sentence out of a statute and read it in a way that negates some of the statute's other provisions.
What you are saying is that the language you've quoted in blue requires a driver to look for and yield for a train even at crossings with active warning systems where the signals are not indicating the approach of a train. That is contrary to the other part of the statute that says that crossbuck signs are to be treated at yield signs only at crossings that don't have active warning systems. Your reading would effectively negate the latter langauge. You have to read the statute in a way that gives effect to BOTH provisions. The reading that does that is a reading which treats the above language as saying that, if a person actually is aware of the approach a train, he/she should do swhat is necessary to avoid an accident. This is the "last clear chance" doctrine I've mentioned in other posts. If your reading of the statute were correct, a railroad could never be held liable for a grade crossing accident in Illinois. I absolutely guarantee you that this is NOT the law in Illinois. You would be laughed out of court if you made such an argument to an Illinois judge.
Crossing gates and lights are the airbags of grade crossings. You're still supposed to wear your seatbelts, just like you're still supposed to "stop, look, listen" at all grade crossings.
As for the allegation that the crossing gates did not function, you can file that story under "did not actually happen."
aegrotatio Crossing gates and lights are the airbags of grade crossings. You're still supposed to wear your seatbelts, just like you're still supposed to "stop, look, listen" at all grade crossings. As for the allegation that the crossing gates did not function, you can file that story under "did not actually happen."
What is your basis for saying it did not actually happen? The news account I read said it did indeed actually happen.
Your contention that drivers are supposed to "stop, look, and listen" at all grade crossings is not true.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.