Convicted One I don't think that most drivers anticipate a "stop" at a yield sign, they anticipate having to look for approaching traffic.
I don't think that most drivers anticipate a "stop" at a yield sign, they anticipate having to look for approaching traffic.
Well, that would explain the dozens of accidents at the on-ramps in the county every year....and would explain all the complete morons I almost had to pry off my grill when they decide to merge in front of my truck at 35mph.
Again... maybe if we stopped catering to the morons...
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
zugmann Again... maybe if we stopped catering to the morons...
That's an interesting topic all in itself. Just how intelligent is a 'typical" person,... AND how much of a right do you or I (or some railroad) have to expect some other person to be of at least TYPICAL specification?
If I dig a big hole in my front yard, and provide no protection, and that night someone cutting across my lawn falls in, do I really have a defense of "well judge, ANY IDIOT should have seen this hole, it was HUGE". ?
But if you provide protection, and the flashing light stops working - then you're screwed, too!
And yes, any idiot should see a hole.
We already have the bar set so low that you can trip over it. Amazing how everyone seems to be cool with that. Time for bed... let's see if any idiots can't be bothered to stop for us tonight.
And on top of that, if the hole is in your yard and someone falls in there, your yard is private property and they shouldn't have been in your yard in the first place.
sadly, the deepness of the railroad's pocket will play as much a factor as any other in the ultimate outcome here.
Jurists tend to be not wealthy, and while not all of them have contempt for people/entities that are, most Americans tend to see money as the "fix all" for most any occasion (how smart is that?).
Bucyrus There ought to be clear rules governing the use of grade crossings for both trains and motor vehicles. With clear rules, there is no way that both parties of a collision can be at fault. However, the problem is that there is some degree of muddled thinking surrounding the rules of grade crossings arising from how the rules are written and what they mean. The muddle is also partly the result of the evolving types of crossing protection over time, and evolving rules that governed them
not to mention "conflicting standards"
When a normal traffic light is functioning, you are given clear indication of Stop or Proceed (red or green), and if the light is not operational, you are to treat it like a 4-way stop.
Rail crossing guards, otoh, are (supposed to be) only operating when the stop condition is indicated, and when the guards arenot operating, this is the general "go" indication.
Convicted One When a normal traffic light is functioning, you are given clear indication of Stop or Proceed (red or green), and if the light is not operational, you are to treat it like a 4-way stop. Rail crossing guards, otoh, are (supposed to be) only operating when the stop condition is indicated, and when the guards are not operating, this is the general "go" indication.
Rail crossing guards, otoh, are (supposed to be) only operating when the stop condition is indicated, and when the guards are not operating, this is the general "go" indication.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm One of the problems on this discussion and others is a confounding of legal responsibility for rail crossing accidents with problem solving. The rail advocates' position is that they are not at fault and the responsibility is a human error on the part of drivers or pedestrians who get struck by or run into a train. Even if that is true, should that be the end of the discussion? Should the public not demand better safeguards? Or is it only about the money? Who should pay, or no one?
One of the problems on this discussion and others is a confounding of legal responsibility for rail crossing accidents with problem solving. The rail advocates' position is that they are not at fault and the responsibility is a human error on the part of drivers or pedestrians who get struck by or run into a train. Even if that is true, should that be the end of the discussion? Should the public not demand better safeguards? Or is it only about the money? Who should pay, or no one?
A yield sign is probably the most misunderstood traffic control concept. Some people believe that fundamentally, a yield sign does not require a driver to stop, and that stopping for a yield sign is therefore wrong. It is true that there is nothing about the yield concept that directly requires a driver to stop. It only requires them to give way. But sometimes the margin to give way runs out and then a driver must stop in order to give way. So there are times when a driver MUST STOP for a yield sign.
A crossbuck alone means exactly the same thing as a yield sign. But in addition to drivers not understanding the concept of yield, driver behavior studies have discovered that only a small minority of drivers realize that a crossbuck means yield. Traffic experts see this as a safety problem for non-signalized grade crossings where the only traffic control device is the crossbuck. So there is a nationwide project underway to equip all non-signalized crossings with a YIELD sign directly below the crossbuck. So then you will have at these non-signalized crossings, two signs that mean yield; one that drivers understand and one that they don’t.
Now the crossbuck at a signalized crossing also means yield, and if the signals at these crossings should fail to operate, that yield command of the crossbuck is deadly important to understand. Therefore, if it is necessary to add yield signs to non-signalized crossings because drivers do not realize that the crossbuck means yield; then it should be equally necessary to add yield signs to the crossbucks at signalized crossings. However, traffic experts do not intend to add yield signs to signalized crossings. Why?
Here is the answer in my opinion: Adding a yield sign to a signalized crossing seems redundant to drivers because they easily perceive that the flashing lights already mean yield. If traffic experts and the railroad industry went on to explain that the yield sign is needed at signalized crossings because the signals can fail to activate, they would be highlighting the possibility that signals can fail to activate. And that is something that the industry does not want to admit.
The reason they don’t want to admit it is that, with many grade crossing crashes, the driver will claim that the signals failed to activate when that was not the case. And sometimes when they actually do fail to activate, the railroad company will claim that was not the case.
Lawyers publish material claiming that signals fail to activate much more often that the railroad industry admits. This propaganda gives general credence to the belief that signals can often fail to activate, and therefore crash victims who claim that the signals failed activate are rendered more believable. So failure to activate is a hyper sensitive and controversial issue. Operation Lifesaver told me that the signals cannot possibly fail to activate because they are “fail safe.” Of course that is misleading and ill informed, if not an outright lie.
We've mentioned the value of a life multiple times in this thread - and today I happened to come across this news article where the feds and business debate what the value of a life is. As I mentioned earlier, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to safety. This is an interesting read:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41633114/ns/business-the_new_york_times/
Murphy Siding I disagree. Maybe it's that the driver's aren't learning things correctly. I seem to recall from taking my driver's license test 30+ years ago, that the crossbuck sign meant "this is a railroad crossing- look for trains". When the lights aren't flashing, the crossbuck is still there, and still means the same thing. Has that changed, or have drivers forgotten that?
I disagree. Maybe it's that the driver's aren't learning things correctly. I seem to recall from taking my driver's license test 30+ years ago, that the crossbuck sign meant "this is a railroad crossing- look for trains". When the lights aren't flashing, the crossbuck is still there, and still means the same thing. Has that changed, or have drivers forgotten that?
Well, I think that the general perception is, to treat a passive "RRX'ing" sign as you indicate, but I think that the general perception is (legal or not) if an active appliance is present and not working, then the indication is "clear"
Another earlier in this thread mentioned bagging inoperative flashers, and at least here out in the middle of Indiana when Norfolk Southern upgraded a few crossings that had flashers originally,... to one having both flashers and gates, they for the two days that the new flashers stood gateless, they bagged the inoperative ones until complete.
Sawtooth500 We've mentioned the value of a life multiple times in this thread - and today I happened to come across this news article where the feds and business debate what the value of a life is. As I mentioned earlier, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to safety. This is an interesting read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41633114/ns/business-the_new_york_times/
It is interesting. Of course, it is all subjective. For example, what value would you put on your spouse or some other family member?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Murphy Siding I see you point, but carried to the extreme, wouldn't the answer be for the railroad to have the crossings removed, that cross a rail line that was there before the road was there? Of course, that would require the railroads to build flyovers where the highway was there first. Should it come to this, who do you think would be doing the most fussing about costs involved?
I see you point, but carried to the extreme, wouldn't the answer be for the railroad to have the crossings removed, that cross a rail line that was there before the road was there? Of course, that would require the railroads to build flyovers where the highway was there first. Should it come to this, who do you think would be doing the most fussing about costs involved?
Why carry it to an extreme? Why can we not start a sensible program of gradually improved rail crossing protection, as has occurred in most other nations long since? Does the public regard the current level of accidents, injuries, deaths and property damage as OK? The Big 3 auto makers said way back when Nader pushed for auto safety that it would bankrupt them. Two of the three (and GM is repaying the government bailout with interest) did go belly up, but not because of seat belts, etc. How many crashes like Bourbonnais type crashes would it take? Is the resistance because the railroads don't want to pay for it? Probably the government would need to help.
schlimm Sawtooth500: We've mentioned the value of a life multiple times in this thread - and today I happened to come across this news article where the feds and business debate what the value of a life is. As I mentioned earlier, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to safety. This is an interesting read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41633114/ns/business-the_new_york_times/ It is interesting. Of course, it is all subjective. For example, what value would you put on your spouse or some other family member?
Sawtooth500: We've mentioned the value of a life multiple times in this thread - and today I happened to come across this news article where the feds and business debate what the value of a life is. As I mentioned earlier, there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to safety. This is an interesting read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41633114/ns/business-the_new_york_times/
Spouse? Depends on how much alimony is being awarded.
Family member? Depends on just which family member it is.
But, as you say, it is all subjective!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
An even more interesting question is how much you would pay to save the life of a complete stranger (like a RR paying for more safety). Would you pay $100? Now what if it's your life savings? Something to think about.
Convicted One When a normal traffic light is functioning, you are given clear indication of Stop or Proceed (red or green), and if the light is not operational, you are to treat it like a 4-way stop.
That may be, but any time there is a blackout you can count on numerous collisions at such intersections as drivers consider the blacked out light as "go" instead of "stop."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
We are now 14 pages into this thread, and still have not concluded who was at fault in these two run-into-train crashes.
Regarding Bucyrus' post on Yield signs.
Some counties in Iowa have for quite a while had Stop signs placed at crossings that were in their jurisdiction (outside city limits) that didn't have active warning signals. I remember seeing vehicles drive right thru without stopping. Some didn't even bother to slow down or appear to look to see if there was a train approaching. (This was observed as a railfan, before I went to work for the railroad. Back when I still lived near Cedar Rapids.) So, while I have no problem with the addition of Yield or Stop signs, I wonder if they will really make a difference.
I know I've read that some have said active railroad warning signals should be redesigned to be more like a regular intersection stop light. That motorists would obey that more than the current flashing light arrangement. I really wonder about that, too.
I think you're right on about motorists not understanding the Yield concept. As for traffic lights failing and reverting to a 4 way stop, many don't understand that concept either. Even when it is a Stop sign protected four way stop situation.
Honestly, I think even if every wheeled vehicle, on the road and rails, was restricted in some way to 10 mph, you'ld still have vehicle/train collisions.
Jeff
The Monon had green signals for some of their crossings. Green light would go out when a train was approaching.. so in case of failure, it'd be more "fail safe", I guess.
Would a move to regular traffic lights help? Probably. But many of the crossings that have a traffic light for exclusive control of the tracks (and not in combination with a road intersection) use a flashing yellow/red combo. So when people are used to seeing the flashing yellow 99% of the time - will they even notice it if it goes red?
Just trying to build a better mousetrap...
Police reports here tend to indicate that the majority of vehicle accidents are caused by people running red lights and stop signs, so installing traffic signals or stop signs at railroad crossings would probably have little impact on safety. Driver education is a miserable failure.
Will bet big time that Chicago Rail Link will give somebody a big payday for this.
Russell
I believe there are two fundamental reasons why the majority of grade crossing crashes occur:
1) Drivers want to beat the train in order to avoid a delay.
2) Drivers believe they can use their own discretion in deciding if it is safe to cross.
The basis of item #2 is the yield concept, which also governs interaction between vehicles in addition to interaction between vehicles and trains.
In general, the yield concept allows a driver to use his own discretion in deciding if it is safe to proceed. It does not require a stop or even a specific amount of clearance to a conflicting vehicle. Basically, if a driver does not collide with a conflicting vehicle, that driver has yielded. However, police do have discretion in deciding if a close call in yielding is too close, and therefore can be deemed as reckless driving. This is a gray area.
It is only the relatively recent advent of the crossing gate that has taken the yield concept entirely out of the grade crossing procedure. While all other markers and signals allow a degree of driver discretion, lowered gates mean absolute stop and wait. But old habits die hard, and the idea of yielding at grade crossings lingers on in the minds of most drivers despite the true meaning of lowered gates.
Bucyrus We are now 14 pages into this thread, and still have not concluded who was at fault in these two run-into-train crashes.
What exactly are you trying to say with that comment? it sounds "baiting". Are you serious, or are you merely venting frustration because we haven't elected your preferred outlook on the matter?
I think that it's fairly certain that the eventual outcome will find mutual fault, with a ratio of eventual responsibility based upon who presents the most convincing argument, or who is best able to tug on the heartstrings of a jury, if in fact it goes all the way to trial.
tree68 That may be, but any time there is a blackout you can count on numerous collisions at such intersections as drivers consider the blacked out light as "go" instead of "stop."
Heh, yeah that's true. There'll always be the "me first" mentality, where some believe that THEIR rights and intent have a higher priority than everyone else around them. Part of human nature I guess. You can see that mentality everywhere, including right here on this message board.
Convicted One Bucyrus: We are now 14 pages into this thread, and still have not concluded who was at fault in these two run-into-train crashes. What exactly are you trying to say with that comment? it sounds "baiting". Are you serious, or are you merely venting frustration because we haven't elected your preferred outlook on the matter? I think that it's fairly certain that the eventual outcome will find mutual fault, with a ratio of eventual responsibility based upon who presents the most convincing argument, or who is best able to tug on the heartstrings of a jury, if in fact it goes all the way to trial.
Bucyrus: We are now 14 pages into this thread, and still have not concluded who was at fault in these two run-into-train crashes.
I am serious when I say we can’t agree on the fault for the crashes. I am not trying to discredit anyone’s theory. My point is that there is no consensus. I am not even sure of my own position on this because when I read the Illinois law, it seems to conflict on the meaning of the crossbucks at signalized crossings.
I understand your point about sharing the blame as determined by a jury. But before we get to a jury trial, I expect traffic laws to completely and unequivocally define the operation of motor vehicles in a way that prevents collisions. I believe that juries sometimes split the blame because the absolute truth of how the collision occurred cannot be determined because there was no neutral witness. And in some cases, two conflicting drivers can both be breaking the law. An example would be a driver failing to yield when proceeding from a stop sign, and conflicting with another driver who is traveling at twice the speed limit.
My point in making the comment about this thread not resolving the blame is this: The failure to come to a consensus about the blame means that there is lack of consensus on the rules. To me, this illustrates a major part of the problem of grade crossing crashes.
Bucyrus My point in making the comment about this thread not resolving the blame is this: The failure to come to a consensus about the blame means that there is lack of consensus on the rules. To me, this illustrates a major part of the problem of grade crossing crashes.
I enjoy sharing thoughts with you, so I don't want the following to be construed as "combative", or negative against you personally,... in any way
But if you are looking for consensus, I think that the internet is the WRONG place to be looking. Too many different points of view, too many different motives, PLUS you have the egos of people who's primary motive is to prove to the rest of the world that they know something significant. The web is a better place (IMO) to find people who disagree with you,and try to understand why they feel the way they do. The fishing is a lot better, I assure you.
A major part of the problem here is the "big bad railroad" factor.
Had these two vehicles run into a large oak tree that had fallen across the road, there would be little question - the drivers failed to reduce speed for a hazard.
Of course, the falling of the tree would be considered an "act of God" (and you can't sue God). Unless, of course, it could somehow be found that some human intervention had caused/allowed the tree to fall, in which case we're right back where we started.
On the face of it, methinks the fault falls directly on the drivers involved for failing to make sure that the road ahead of them was clear, regardless of the form of the obstruction. And the traffic portion of this case may go that way.
The tort portion is another story. Now it's some poor, defenseless drivers against the big bad railroad and the outcome before a jury is anyone's guess.
Convicted One Bucyrus: My point in making the comment about this thread not resolving the blame is this: The failure to come to a consensus about the blame means that there is lack of consensus on the rules. To me, this illustrates a major part of the problem of grade crossing crashes. I enjoy sharing thoughts with you, so I don't want the following to be construed as "combative", or negative against you personally,... in any way But if you are looking for consensus, I think that the internet is the WRONG place to be looking. Too many different points of view, too many different motives, PLUS you have the egos of people who's primary motive is to prove to the rest of the world that they know something significant. The web is a better place (IMO) to find people who disagree with you,and try to understand why they feel the way they do. The fishing is a lot better, I assure you.
Bucyrus: My point in making the comment about this thread not resolving the blame is this: The failure to come to a consensus about the blame means that there is lack of consensus on the rules. To me, this illustrates a major part of the problem of grade crossing crashes.
I understand what you are saying about not finding consensus on the Internet. I don’t expect to solve anything here. But the confusion over conflicting rules that surround grade crossings is not just confined to the Internet. It also exists within state law, law enforcement, and within groups such as Operation Lifesaver and the FRA.
Here is that thread I mentioned earlier about the crash that killed Katie Lunn in Chicago last April:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/172751.aspx?PageIndex=1
You can see that the Illinois law describes the yield requirement of the crossbuck for non-signalized crossings, but also includes language that appears to exclude signalized crossings from the crossbuck meaning being yield. Falcon48 contended that the crossbuck at signalized crossings does not mean yield, and therefore, if the signals failed to activate, it would be the fault of the railroad company if a vehicle were struck.
However, elsewhere in the Illinois law it says that when approaching a railroad crossing a person must exercise due care and caution because the existence of a railroad across a highway is a warning of danger.
While that is not referred to as a requirement to “yield,” it seems to be equivalent to such a requirement. So which way is it? It may be a matter of legalese, but somewhere in the grand scheme of things, a driver must be informed of the rules if he or she is expected to follow them
Also in that thread, I asked the FRA what the crossbuck means and they told me that it means yield with both active and passive crossings. Operation Lifesaver told me the same thing.
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motorist/railcrossings/warning.htm
In Wisconsin they are adding Yield signs to the crossbucks to emphasize that you must yield to the train.
schlimm http://www.dot.state.wi.us/safety/motorist/railcrossings/warning.htm In Wisconsin they are adding Yield signs to the crossbucks to emphasize that you must yield to the train.
Yes, I understand that this will be done nationwide. The reason is that driver surveys have shown that most drivers understand that a crossbuck marks the existence of a railroad grade crossing, but most drivers do not know that the crossbuck means the same thing as a yield sign.
However, I believe that adding yield signs to the crossbucks at passive crossings is a response to a problem that does not actually exist. Who cares if drivers do not know that a crossbuck means yield? They know it means the existence of a railroad crossing, and they know that they are supposed to yield to trains. You could make the case that drivers know less about the meaning of a yield sign than they know about the meaning of crossbucks.
I think a yield sign is the most misunderstood of all road signs, and the most abused sign in terms of compliance. The message of a yield sign is perceived to be very weak in the minds of most drivers. It is perceived as warning of a situation that is not dangerous enough to justify a stop sign or a traffic light. And it is hopelessly confused with merge signs.
So while yield is technically the correct control concept to govern a grade crossing, the yield sign itself is weak. It waters down the inherent danger message that should be associated with a grade crossing. Therefore, adding yield signs to passive grade crossings is not only unnecessary, but it also adds to the danger. It is another one of those great, unintended consequences.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.