The Butler From what I'm reading, Erik, Larry, and Henry are saying that the flashing red lights before the lowering of the gates is the railroad's version of the yellow before the red traffic light. Bucyrus is saying the motor vehicle code says the red lights are the same as a "Stop" light (red traffic light) the instant they light, gate position being irrelevant. With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law. If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
From what I'm reading, Erik, Larry, and Henry are saying that the flashing red lights before the lowering of the gates is the railroad's version of the yellow before the red traffic light. Bucyrus is saying the motor vehicle code says the red lights are the same as a "Stop" light (red traffic light) the instant they light, gate position being irrelevant.
With the discussions on other threads as to crossbucks being the same as a "Yield" sign, I get the impression that all motor vehicles should be slowing to, say, 10 mph before entering a grade crossing (regardless of the posted speed limit) in order to prevent a driver of breaking a traffic law.
If these are the facts, then, maybe having a lower speed zone prior to a grade crossing on a high speed road would be a good idea. Enforcement could be by photo radar in extreme rural areas such as this grade crossing in Nevada.
James and Paul,
You both understand the point I am making about this.
On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense.
The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law.
James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement.
Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
So "RRXing" signs alongside the road or painted in the road are not enough warning for a motorist to be cautious of a possible 'red lights and gates coming down"? I am not sure those warning are actually built into the crossing protection procedure, vis a vie, the timing versus speed, or even written into any laws. Nor am I sure those postings have any effect on the normal driver (railfans being abnormal drivers).
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Bucyrus: So short of elimination of the crossing or giving it complete separation, I fail to see what else could make it 100% "fool" proof. What would you suggest?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Bucyrus: So short of elimination of the crossing or giving it complete separation, I fail to see what else could make it 100% "fool" proof. What would you suggest?
I agree that grade separation would make the crossing 100% foolproof, so to speak. And I don’t see any other way of achieving that objective. But I think that if certain crossings can be made substantially safer at an acceptable cost, it should be done, even if it results a crossing that is less than 100% foolproof.
I believe this particular crossing is more dangerous than most others because it does not have enough warning time for the road speed. To improve its safety, I suggest either of the following:
1) In conjunction with fulltime flashing yellow warning lights and prominent signage, lower the speed limit to say 45 mph in advance of the crossing.
2) Install an active advance warning system that turns on flashing yellow warning lights in advance of the crossing that would activate with the red flashers at the crossing. Combine these advance-warning lights with prominent signage indicating what they mean.
Item #2 would cost more than item #1. But even item #2 would probably cost less than 2% of the cost of a grade separation project.
Paul_D_North_Jr [snipped] Although, someplace there are design standards for the minimum time intervals between: initial activation of the lights; the start of the descent of the gates; the end of that descent; and, the arrival of the train; and/ or combinations of the above.
Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION of the Code of Federal Regulations, PART 234 - GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SYSTEM SAFETY AND STATE ACTION PLANS, specifically:
I'll leave it to someone else to figure out the math from all this, except to note that at speeds above 35 MPH or so, a gate that starts moving right at the 3 second mark is going to snag the occasional vehicle if it can't stop at a deceleration rate of at least 0.5G = 16.1 ft./ sec.^2 = 11 MPH per second, plus reaction time, etc. . . .
Table of Contents for more info on this (not much, other than the Federal pre-emption in Sec. 234.4, see: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/part_234a.pdf ):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_10/49cfr234_10.html
- Paul North.
Bucyrus I agree that grade separation would make the crossing 100% foolproof, so to speak. And I don’t see any other way of achieving that objective. But I think that if certain crossings can be made substantially safer at an acceptable cost, it should be done, even if it results a crossing that is less than 100% foolproof. I believe this particular crossing is more dangerous than most others because it does not have enough warning time for the road speed. To improve its safety, I suggest either of the following: 1) In conjunction with fulltime flashing yellow warning lights and prominent signage, lower the speed limit to say 45 mph in advance of the crossing. 2) Install an active advance warning system that turns on flashing yellow warning lights in advance of the crossing that would activate with the red flashers at the crossing. Combine these advance-warning lights with prominent signage indicating what they mean. Item #2 would cost more than item #1. But even item #2 would probably cost less than 2% of the cost of a grade separation project.
Nothing is ever fool proof. What about pedestrians/trespassers?
My response to your suggestions:
1). More flashing yellow lights. EVERYTHING has flashing yellow lights any more. Do people even pay attention to them? They are extremely overused and over-abused. Lower the speed limits? What about enforcement? There's already laws on the Nevada books about speeds to operate at so you don't cause damage or threat to life and limb (I posted it in the other thread). If people aren't going to use their judgment to drive at a speed to be able to stop for something in their sight distance, a speed limit won't work.
2). Didn't we just add flashing yellow lights? So we have TWO sets of flashing yellow lights, but one is for all the time, and one just when a train is approaching? Confusing. I've seen one or the other done, but never both.
My question: someone is stopped on the highway (disabled, whatever). Truck hits that car. Who is at fault? Isn't the bottom line that we are supposed to have control of our vehicles?
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
I was driving to work last week and thought about this thread.
I was following a car that apparently was looking for a particular entrance to the local college we were both driving by. Out of state tags, may have been holding directions, driving slow, etc. They were about to turn into one driveway (pulling into the turn lane), changed their minds and drove up the road a bit. Then they must have found the correct driveway. They turned into it. Success!
Only problem - they turned left even though they had a red traffic light. Didn't even look, didn't even slow down. They must have been so focused on the directions, they became oblivious to everything else. Luckily no one was on the cross street, or it could have been ugly.
City street, plenty of traffic lights, no lack of sight, and the drive right through it.
Nothing is fool proof. And no amount of lights or signage will prevent all accidents/incidents/etc.
zugmann,
You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose.
As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
There are places where there are signs or lights suggesting that there is a "red" light ahead. So perhaps starting a mile from the grade crossing there should be signs and/or yellow lights, maybe even flashing, warning that there is a railroad corssing ahead. The lights would change from flashing yellow to flashing red. And if that doens't work. we should maybe place a crowd of people within a mile of each railroad grade crossing and hold the driver's hands up to and across the grade crossing. Come ON! There is only so much that can be done about driving safety but then the driver itself has to take on some responsiblity. And no matter how much is done by others, drivers will find a way around, over, under, or otherwise through it! All the safer crossings, trains, and motor vehicles can be built but nothing can improve safety more than a safe driver...and we don't seem to be able to make them!
Bucyrus zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
I could counter that the current protection is adequate. It's not foolproof either, but neither is your suggestion. So, how do we measure "foolproofiness" and how do we determine how much to spend to try to reduce it? Keeping human emotions and politics out of it, of course.
Ok, we install your flashers. Then someone hits a train yet. So do we install a 2nd pair of advanced flashers? Third? Fourth? When does it cross the line from advanced warning to silliness?
I don't think those additional measures gain enough extra safety to bother. How about this proposal?
1. A federal/state program to gradually eliminate or separate grade crossings on all roads, where the speed limit is 45 mph or higher, which cross passenger lines. The goal here is protecting the train passengers, not the careless driver.
2. In the short term, install high intensity strobe light flashers on all grade crossings where the speed limit is 45 mph or higher, including freight-only lines. I think the strobes would get attention somewhat better than a maze of flashing yellows.
Why strobes? They aren't very good in sunlight.
LEDs are the way to go. You can set them to a strobe-like pattern, if you wish, but there's something to be said for a nice simple alternating flash.
henry6 There are places where there are signs or lights suggesting that there is a "red" light ahead. So perhaps starting a mile from the grade crossing there should be signs and/or yellow lights, maybe even flashing, warning that there is a railroad corssing ahead. The lights would change from flashing yellow to flashing red. And if that doens't work. we should maybe place a crowd of people within a mile of each railroad grade crossing and hold the driver's hands up to and across the grade crossing. Come ON! There is only so much that can be done about driving safety but then the driver itself has to take on some responsiblity. And no matter how much is done by others, drivers will find a way around, over, under, or otherwise through it! All the safer crossings, trains, and motor vehicles can be built but nothing can improve safety more than a safe driver...and we don't seem to be able to make them!
I cannot imagine how anyone can be so absolutely certain that nothing could have made the crossing safer. And yet several people seem to be that certain. It almost seems to me that people are worried that what I am suggesting somehow threatens the template that all grade crossing crashes are caused exclusively by the sheer stupidity of drivers.
If, as you suggest, the crossing itself has nothing to do with safety, they why bother to put flashers and gates on crossing? If the driver obeys the law, a simple crossbuck is all you need.
I would say let’s not be so blinded by our hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings that we close our minds to any possible warning improvement and overlook the safety of the passengers on the train.
Bucyrus I cannot imagine how anyone can be so absolutely certain that nothing could have made the crossing safer. And yet several people seem to be that certain. It almost seems to me that people are worried that what I am suggesting somehow threatens the template that all grade crossing crashes are caused exclusively by the sheer stupidity of drivers. If, as you suggest, the crossing itself has nothing to do with safety, they why bother to put flashers and gates on crossing? If the driver obeys the law, a simple crossbuck is all you need. I would say let’s not be so blinded by our hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings that we close our minds to any possible warning improvement and overlook the safety of the passengers on the train.
Too many people relying on everyone else doing their thinking for them.
It's just that this crossing had gates. Physical barriers across the road. Flashing red lights. Train horns. Clear sight lines. I mean, c'mon, what else do we need? The president of the railroad standing in the middle of the road (in his lime green SUPERVEST) handing out written invitations to stop?
You say we need lower speed limits and advanced amber flashers. Someone else might want even lower speed limits. Maybe we should just put a stop sign right then and there on the highway?
Again: There has to be a limit to this nonsense. Sometimes a line must be drawn. We do not have unlimited funds in this country to protect the completely oblivious.
We seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think the focused sort of colored strobe that police cars around here use is effective day and night.
schlimm We seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think the focused sort of colored strobe that police cars around here use is effective day and night.
You're probably thinking LEDs.
Strobes are more of a 1990s thing that have slowly been going the way of the dodo.
1. Strobes, per se, are NOT to be used bc they can , and sadly DO, induce seizures in those so prone.
2. Most all (yes, there are exceptions, to everything!) RR crossings already have: RR and crossbucks painted in advance of the Xing on the pavement; round, yellow sign in advance of crossing; lights, gates, bells and crossbucks; train tracks at the crossing, etc etc!
IF a driver, willfully or otherwise, disregards ALL those devices, then a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on, will be a HUGE waste of money that this country does NOT have now or for the forseeable future.
Bucyrus: Perhaps your energy would be much better used to assist Operation Life Saver to educate drivers as to the dangers and to convince them to comply with the current laws and warning devices.
Nance-CCABW/LEI
“Even if you are on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.” --Will Rogers
Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right! --unknown
zugmann (in blue) Bucyrus: zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic. I could counter that the current protection is adequate. It's not foolproof either, but neither is your suggestion. So, how do we measure "foolproofiness" and how do we determine how much to spend to try to reduce it? Keeping human emotions and politics out of it, of course.
Bucyrus: zugmann, You keep saying my suggestion is invalid because it is not 100% foolproof. I never said I expected my suggestion to make everything 100% foolproof. Read my above post again. And just because there is always someone who will break a law does not mean that the law serves no useful purpose. As to my two suggestions that use yellow lights, I am suggesting one or the other, but not both. Each one would use yellow lights. The first suggestion uses them passively to get the driver’s attention focused on the speed reduction indicated by signage. The second suggestion uses them actively to be normally off and turn on with the crossing flashers. There is no speed limit reduction with the second suggestion. The second suggestion merely extends the range of the crossing flashers. The first suggestion slows down traffic.
A big federal bureaucracy known as the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices measures the degrees of protection. They come up will all kinds of improvements that are not foolproof. The suggestion I made about the active advance warning is one of their ideas, and it is an option that can be applied. It is specifically targeted for use on relatively fast highways for exactly the same reason I am advocating it for the Nevada crossing. The people at the MUTCD are not blinded by the hatred of all drivers when it comes to grade crossings, so they are able to see ways to improve things.
And yes, your hypothetical scenario of adding a second, third, and fourth set of flashers does get silly. You keep bringing up nonsense scenarios and equating them with what I am suggesting, and then you say we have to put an end to this nonsense. But your examples of nonsense have nothing whatsoever to do with my point.
MUTCD sure likes their signs and graphics. I'll give them that. There is no hatred here, Bucyrus. I'm just not impressed with adding 56,000 flashing lights and signs and graphics to, well, everything. I believe that personal responsibility has to play a bigger role that it does. Unfortunately, that belief is not shared by many anymore, it seems.
But what makes a 3rd set of flashers any more silly than your additional set? I'd like to know.
And yes, they have everything to do with the point.
WMNB4THRTL 2. Most all (yes, there are exceptions, to everything!) RR crossings already have: RR and crossbucks painted in advance of the Xing on the pavement; round, yellow sign in advance of crossing; lights, gates, bells and crossbucks; train tracks at the crossing, etc etc! IF a driver, willfully or otherwise, disregards ALL those devices, then a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on, will be a HUGE waste of money that this country does NOT have now or for the forseeable future.
If the truck was traveling at the speed limit, this Nevada crash began to unfold when the truck was 3000 feet from the crossing. The standard advance warning RXR signs and the crossbuck painted on the road are much closer to the crossing. I am not sure where they are in relation to the Nevada crossing, but it is likely that the truck was already skidding when it went by them. An extended warning feature is available for crossings on relatively fast highways.
And nobody is advocating “a great big load of lights, sirens, and on and on and on,” as you say. That sounds like something zugmann would say. He says he is not impressed with adding 56,000 flashing lights and signs and graphics to, well, everything.
A late post here made me think: What was the truck driver's visual status? That is did he require glasses?? Macular degeneration?? etc??
Let me ask you something, Bucyrus.
Let's say you are driving and get a flat tire along a road with no decent shoulder. So you stop as far off the road as you can, but are still fouling the travel lane. You even put your 4-ways on. I come up behind you at 55 mph (posted speed limit) and plow right into you.
You only had 2 little lights blinking back there. No advanced warning. This is a 55 mph road. So, who is at fault?
Bottom line is that one is supposed to have control of his vehicle at all times. If there is a situation where you may have to slow down, then you slow down. Like restricted speed. On steroids. That railroad crossing didn't just jump out in front of the driver.
We had gates and an advanced warning sign. Now, we need ANOTHER advanced warning sign. Oh, and throw some lights on it too. Lights are pretty. Better have two sets of flashing lights. Someone may miss the first ones.
zugmann Let me ask you something, Bucyrus. Let's say you are driving and get a flat tire along a road with no decent shoulder. So you stop as far off the road as you can, but are still fouling the travel lane. You even put your 4-ways on. I come up behind you at 55 mph (posted speed limit) and plow right into you. You only had 2 little lights blinking back there. No advanced warning. This is a 55 mph road. So, who is at fault? Bottom line is that one is supposed to have control of his vehicle at all times. If there is a situation where you may have to slow down, then you slow down. Like restricted speed. On steroids. That railroad crossing didn't just jump out in front of the driver. We had gates and an advanced warning sign. Now, we need ANOTHER advanced warning sign. Oh, and throw some lights on it too. Lights are pretty. Better have two sets of flashing lights. Someone may miss the first ones.
I don’t think your example is as clear-cut as you seem to believe. Yes, a driver is supposed to have their car under control to be able to stop short of obstructions. But if they can’t see the obstruction, or if it is difficult to see it, they may not necessarily be at fault for hitting it. In your example, I would not change the tire or even wait in the car if it was not well off the travel lane. And if you came along and ran into my car, I don’t believe it would necessarily be 100% your fault.
But I am only going by some stories that I have heard. So I really don’t have an answer to your question. What if I did not have any flashers or lights on and you hit me? Would that mean that you did not have your car under control because you were over-driving your headlights? Or would it be partly my fault for not having any warning lights on?
Now let me ask you something. Suppose you are driving a commercial truck and you get a flat tire. You pull completely off of the travel lane and well onto the shoulder, and turn on your emergency flashers. Then a cop comes along and gives you a ticket because you don’t have the proper array of flagging triangles set up behind your truck. Why should you be required to set up flagging equipment? Isn’t the responsibility resting completely on the other drivers to have their vehicles under control and not run into you? You are off the travel lane, and your flashers are visible. What is the point of flagging equipment?
Beats me about the triangles. I didn't write the law.
Bucyrus On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing.
- Erik
zugmann Beats me about the triangles. I didn't write the law.
The triangles are an extra precaution to prevent drivers from running into a vehicle. Even though the law requires drivers to have their cars under control, as you rightly point out, traffic authorities want to prevent crashes should those drivers happen to not have their cars completely under control. So they came up with a little extra measure of safety. And they did not come up with a scheme of 56,000 extra flashing lights and sirens; just some little reflectorized triangles.
And let’s not forget that the FRA says freight cars are hard for drivers to see at night, so we have to add reflectors to them to help prevent drivers from running into them should they happen to not have their cars under control.
Bucyrus And let’s not forget that the FRA says freight cars are hard for drivers to see at night, so we have to add reflectors to them to help prevent drivers from running into them should they happen to not have their cars under control.
Wait.. weren't you against the reflectors?
erikem Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. To brush up a bit on the law, I checked the California Drivers handbook with respect to RR crossings. The basic law is that drivers must not exceed 15 MPH when approaching a RR crossing unless the visibility of the tracks is greater than 400 feet or the crossing is protected by crossing signals. The handbook says the driver must stop when the lights are flashing. I would argue that in the case of where the lights started flashing as the driver was approaching the crossing, the driver would need to stop if it was safe to stop (same as the strict reading of the law with respect to yellow traffic lights). Given that a car being too close to the crossing to stop would clear the crossing in less than five seconds, this still gives on the order of 20 seconds before the train reaches the crossing. - Erik
Bucyrus: On one hand, you could say that the timed interval between the activation and the arrival of the train at the crossing is the grade-crossing equivalent of the yellow aspect of a traffic light. However, the crossing flashers mean absolute stop. So comparing a grade crossing to a traffic light, the proper analogy would be a traffic light that changes from green to red and yellow on at the same time. It would make no sense. The reason that this convoluted issue does not seem like a problem to drivers is that it is a conflict between the signals and the law, and most people do not know the grade crossing law. James, you bring up a good point about the crossbucks meaning yield. That yield requirement might correspond to the requirement to be prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate. However, the yield requirement imposed by the crossbucks is a requirement to yield to trains, not a warning that the lights are about to activate. Once the lights activate, the yield requirement changes to a stop requirement. Look at this way: The yield requirement does not necessarily require a driver to slow down. If a driver has enough visibility to cross while knowing that he or she is not on a collision course with an approaching train, then that driver can cross at the speed limit and still be properly yielding to trains. However, it would be impossible to cross at the speed limit while being prepared to stop short of the flashers if they should happen to activate.
The 15 mph requirement is interesting, but that is for passive (non-signalized) crossings. I suppose that is to help enforce the yield requirement. Authorities are most concerned with the yield requirement of passive crossings although it does apply to signalized crossings as well.
You are right that the 25-second crossing warning interval will protect the driver from a train. So if the driver happens to run the lights as they start, he will be clear before the interval runs out. But running the lights under any circumstances is strictly forbidden, whether the train is near or far, or even if there is no train, and the signals false activate. Today, I have posed a question about this conundrum to someone at the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
A related question is this: If a driver encounters a signalized crossing on a fast highway, and the crossing has limited sight lines down the tracks, the driver must slow down in order to properly yield. There are a couple signalized crossings where I drive across Wisconsin that only offer maybe fifty feet of visibility down the tracks for approaching drivers. They would require drivers to stop in order to properly yield. Remember, that in order to yield, a driver has to know the speed of the vehicle he is yielding to. Since a driver has no way of knowing how fast a train might be running, he has to anticipate the highest possible train speed in order to safely yield. So the driver has to yield on those terms, and with a zero visibility crossing, that means stopping. Stopping in the middle of a 60 mph highway with following traffic that might have no knowledge of the counter-intuitive yield requirement could be disastrous.
So I asked the MN State Patrol. The first officer I spoke to said he was unaware of a requirement to yield to a non-activated, signalized grade crossing. He did not believe that is required. Operation Lifesaver and the FRA says it is required. I took the question further up the chain of command at the MN State Patrol. On more than one occasion, they would not respond to the question that I posed to them in writing.
My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot).
The other thing that might work is say timing the lites to flashin shorter increments as a train gets closer to the crossing.
I will remark that with both vehicles traveling at speeds in excess of 60mph (a closing speed very likely in excess of 130mph) it is all too easy to misjudge.
Thx IGN
narig01 My 2 cents worth: What about a timed indication indicating the number of seconds until the train is at the crossing? In numerous places I see the pedestrian crosswalk lites with a timed indication showing pedestrians how long they have to cross the street. When driving I use these to gauge how long before the lite starts to change(believe me it helps a lot). [snipped]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.