tree68 A traffic light is unequivocal. Green means go, yellow means caution (about to change to red), and red means stop. We'll skip flashing aspects here. It is still up to the driver to decide whether they choose to obey the signal, and to accept the consequences if it turns out they made the wrong decision (ie, ticket or collision).
A traffic light is unequivocal. Green means go, yellow means caution (about to change to red), and red means stop. We'll skip flashing aspects here.
It is still up to the driver to decide whether they choose to obey the signal, and to accept the consequences if it turns out they made the wrong decision (ie, ticket or collision).
Some of the comments in this thread were through my head last night when heading home during the San Diego blackout. Most of the traffic lights were out and drivers were almost always following the rule of treating an unlit stoplight as a four way stop. I didn't see any police cars manning intersections, the SDPD apparently thought drivers were being safe enough by themselves - though they would have been useful for speeding up traffic in a few places.
- Erik
Bucyrus --
I for one do see your point. We don't see the drivers handbookd saying "Red light means stop, but ultimately it is the motorist's decision whether or not it is safe to enter the intersection." Sure, there may be esoteric situations where entering the intersection against the light might be both safe & legally justified. And please, let's keep away from the religio-philosophical discussion of "free will"! Bottom line, language like the above in the handbook would cause them all to be recalled and rewritten!
On the other hand, the UP language is obviously broadly written (perhaps too much so?). Some "safety aids," such as a crossbuck, only warns and doesn't direct specific action. If they are trying to say that the motorist is ultimately responsible for the consequences of an unsafe crossing of the tracks, they should say so.
hey Bucyrus..
want to add more confusion to this whole crossing situation? Have you seen how the HAWK lights for pedestrians work?
http://wwbpa.org/tag/hawk-lights/
http://youtu.be/2GQlwg5zfSU
They are dark when no one is using them. But once a pedestrian activates the light, the yellow light first flashes. Then it goes steady (already sounding needlessly complicated), then the red lights (2 of them, just like a RR crossing) come on steady. The driver is supposed to stop. But wait, it gets BETTER! Then the red lights alternatively flash (just like a RR crossing, or school bus). And what does that mean? The driver may PROCEED if the crosswalk is clear. .
Amazing. Simply amazing.
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
Dragoman,
I am glad you see my point because the guy I spoke to at U.P. sure did not. And yet, he could not clearly tell me what the statement means. However, his very extensive explanation did center on the fact that a driver has free will to either obey the law or not. But if you are instructing someone about the rules, you generally concentrate on what the rules require. You don’ t throw in the proviso that all of us have free will, so there is nothing to prevent us from breaking the rules. I don’t think you would see that in a railroad rules class.
It is true, as you point out, that the U.P. statement could include non-signalized crossings as well as signalized crossings. And with a non-signalized crossing, a driver does have more discretion perhaps. But still, the driver has to comply with the laws, and they tend to stipulate quite clearly the need to yield when the train is in dangerous proximity or other measures of speed and distance. If it were only left up to the definition of “yield,” you could say that a driver who tries to beat the train and makes it by ten feet has yielded in that he gave way to the train as evidenced by the fact that he did not get hit. But police would regard that as reckless driving, and it would violate the crossing law’s detailed stipulations. So I would not say that it is ultimately the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks with either the signalized crossing or the non-signalized crossing.
What makes this unintended meaning to their statement so ironic is the fact that studies have shown that many drivers believe that the crossing protection system is advisory rather than regulatory. In other words, they believe they are permitted to use their own discretion in deciding if they should wait for an approaching train or not. A lot of drivers think it is safe to cross if they are pretty sure they can make it without getting hit.
So the industry and its representative organization are waging a battle to overcome that misperception on the part of drivers that the signals are merely advisory. And here you have the U.P. in a section on crossing safety inadvertently telling drivers that the crossing protection measures are safety aids, but ultimately it is driver’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.
I have formally presented this issue to U.P. in writing, and am awaiting their reply with great curiosity.
Thanks for posting that zugmann. I will have to study it. I have been a long time critic of the crosswalk law, and have looked into it more deeply than the grade crossing issues. I believe the crosswalk law falsely emboldens pedestrians to take risks because they are told they have the right of way over vehicles. You can’t have a system where pedestrians are protected from cars by signaling them with body language. The system needs signals, but signals are expensive. It will be interesting to read up on this and learn why they are using a completely unique signal.
Bucyrus Thanks for posting that zugmann. I will have to study it. I have been a long time critic of the crosswalk law, and have looked into it more deeply than the grade crossing issues. I believe the crosswalk law falsely emboldens pedestrians to take risks because they are told they have the right of way over vehicles. You can’t have a system where pedestrians are protected from cars by signaling them with body language. The system needs signals, but signals are expensive. It will be interesting to read up on this and learn why they are using a completely unique signal.
I just don't like how they are using an alternatively flashing red light aspect as a "proceed" signal. I would even prefer a simultaneously flashing red signal (like at a traffic light turned to 'flash').
I think that Operation Lifesaver (as well as the school bus industry) should be opposed vehemently to this.
zugmann,
Yes, I see what you mean. I am trying to unravel the logic of all these lights. If it were up to me, I would start out with a concept that used green, yellow, and red because it is standard and completely understood. Although railroads could have used that three color system too, and yet they ended up with quite a different concept. But aside from that, why not set up the crosswalk just like the pedestrian button works the regular traffic lights at an intersection?
I see in Minnesota, the DOT has a prototype in use. Initially, they were worried that drivers would stop for the HAWK when not in use because it is an “out” traffic light. I presume that they must intend to make a legal exception to that rule for the HAWK. But they are relieved to find that drivers are not stopping for the “out” HAWK. But it is hard to say what might develop as HAWKS show up all over the place.
A red light means stop and wait. A flashing red means stop and yield, the same as a “stop” sign. As you say, the alternate flashing red lights are only used for grade crossings and school buses. And in those applications, the alternate pair of flashing lights means the same as a constant red light; i.e. stop and wait. So even though the red lights are flashing, the fact that they are alternating in a pair changes their meaning from the meaning of a single red flashing light.
I would think that the rationale behind the alternating red flashing lights is to be more attention-getting because they are associated with events that are not routine (in the case of grade crossings), or not fixed (in the case of school buses). The not-routine aspect would apply to a pedestrian crossing, so the alternating flashing pair of red lights might make sense for pedestrian crossings. But they are not applying it as the main stop-and-wait message. Instead, they are applying it as though it were a single red flashing light. They are using it to tell drivers to stop and yield just like a single red flashing light or a “stop” sign.
Apparently the pedestrian crossing is set up to hold traffic for a certain amount of time after being activated. So there is a risk that the pedestrian will still be in the crosswalk after the time runs out. So when the time runs out, the light changes from solid red to alternating flashing red. This then places the onus on the driver to yield to anyone in the crosswalk just like a non-signalized crosswalk. BUT the timing on the alternating flashing red runs out eventually too. So what if a pedestrian is still in the crosswalk when that happens?
Since the time for crossing runs out eventually, why not just use solid red until the timing runs out? Okay, I see what they are doing. They don’t want to absolutely hold traffic for a timed interval if the pedestrian has already cleared the crosswalk. They have a provision in the current crosswalk law that allows stopped drivers to proceed once a pedestrian passes the lane of the driver.
If you come up to a crosswalk containing a pedestrian that has already passed your lane, there is great deal of official misunderstanding about what a driver is supposed to do. The language of the law says one thing, but it can easily be misinterpreted. It is no wonder that this same particular issue poses a confusing problem to the signal control of the crosswalk.
But, offhand, I would get rid of the double red light. Use a single red to mean stop and wait, and a flashing red to mean stop and yield. Otherwise it would indeed tend to water down the meaning of alternating flashing red lights for grade crossings and school buses.
You have to remember that the people who bring you HAWK also bring you traffic circles, and community painted art in the streets for traffic calming. There is so much more to this movement than just traffic control.
I would opine that the reason for the alternating flash is to differentiate it from a regular traffic device. Because it does not resemble a standard traffic light, drivers are more likely to understand that when it's dark, they can ignore it.
Lights at fire stations are usually regular traffic lights, flashing amber for the through road/street under normal circumstances. If they go dark, traffic would be required to stop, just as they would at any intersection. This would be another location where the HAWK would make sense.
I would also opine that drivers who frequent such locations will quickly get the idea, and as their use spreads, all drivers will eventually get the idea.
A steady red stoplight means stop and don't proceed, right? Unless you're making a right turn, that is. Then, unless the intersection is posted otherwise, you can stop and proceed with your turn if traffic is clear.
When I started driving, that practice was rare - maybe CA and NY. Now I'm pretty sure every state does it.
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...
"
When I started driving, that practice was rare - maybe CA and NY. Now I'm pretty sure every state does it."
Per federal law, requiring it on any federally funded roadway, and since cash is the ultimate fungible commodity, all roads.
tdmidget tree68A steady red stoplight means stop and don't proceed, right? Unless you're making a right turn, that is. Then, unless the intersection is posted otherwise, you can stop and proceed with your turn if traffic is clear. When I started driving, that practice was rare - maybe CA and NY. Now I'm pretty sure every state does it." Per federal law, requiring it on any federally funded roadway, and since cash is the ultimate fungible commodity, all roads.
tree68A steady red stoplight means stop and don't proceed, right? Unless you're making a right turn, that is. Then, unless the intersection is posted otherwise, you can stop and proceed with your turn if traffic is clear. When I started driving, that practice was rare - maybe CA and NY. Now I'm pretty sure every state does it."
There you go - a federal law allowing us to run a red light...
Right turn on red started on the West Coast and gradually spread elsewhere. In the railroad context, it might be analogous to a "permissive" signal. The driver still HAS to stop, he MAY proceed with a right turn if it is safe to do so (no pedestrians in the crosswalk, no oncoming traffic on the cross street, etc.). In Illinois, if it is more than a four-way intersection, right turn on red is not allowed.
I talked to the DOT contact person for information on the HAWK prototype in Minnesota:
They use double red lights for redundancy, which is common practice with traffic lights.
Originally, they used double red lights that either were lit continuous meaning stop-and-wait; or flashed simultaneously meaning stop-and-yield. But they found that many drivers went through the flashing red without stopping. So, as a remedy, they changed the double simultaneously flashing red to the alternating flashing red like a grade crossing.
Here is the kicker:
The reasoning for the change was that with alternating flashing red, you always have one of the two red lights lit, so in effect, the red signal is continuous. I am not convinced that that is an accurate conclusion, but set that aside. The reason for presenting a driver with this presumed continuous red is to increase the restrictiveness of the signal in the hope that it will prevent drivers from going though without stopping.
However, if it is perceived as continuous red, a law abiding driver will stop and wait, and that is not the intention of the signal. So to convey the intention of stopping and yielding, they put up a sign that defines that meaning for the alternating flashing reds as being stop-and-yield.
So, to get people to stop for a stop-and-yield light, they made the light say stop-and-wait, and then they put up a sign that says the light really means stop-and-yield.
They are not worried about the alternating flashing reds diluting the warning at grade crossings because the HAWK installation does not look like a grade crossing signal installation. Maybe so, but the point is the meaning of the signal, and the meaning is in the driver’s mind, so it goes with the driver from HAWK to grade crossing, and vise versa.
just wondering... Bucyrus, do you spend a lot of time sitting at traffic signals wondering what to do? If so, then I guess that that explains your obstinance. If not then you must be confident that you are smarter than everyone else, whom you claim to be concerned about.
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with are a non issue.
If the rest of the world gets it, then why are you campaigning for this one loser who managed to take out 5 people with him. Absent the grief to others, this might be a good thing , a Darwin award. Why is it so hard to conclude that a professional driver, with a valid CDL,running this route regularly, has no excuse for running into a huge shiny object 13+ feet high, over a quarter mile long, plainly visible, protected by no less than 3 warning signs and devices, and blowing a horn loud enough to deafen you?
tdmidget I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
The engineer of the Amtrak train doesn’t think so. Neither does the engineer of Amtrak train that was almost hit a year ago.
tdmidget I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with
I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. Therefore these remote possibilities that you repeatedly assail us with
But the rest of the world doesn't get it. Many times I got to do the fun task of trying to shove a cut of cars over a crossing with just a set of flashers. Apparently flashing red lights do mean "go".
Every special advocacy group wants their "own" set of lights with a special meaning to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That's the only solution I can reach. Amazing how many streets I was able to cross without a HAWK light.
Bucyrus tdmidget: I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings. The engineer of the Amtrak train doesn’t think so. Neither does the engineer of Amtrak train that was almost hit a year ago.
tdmidget: I believe, however that you, I, everyone responding to this thread, and indeed virtually everyone with a drivers license, has no problem with any of the signals discussed, including grade crossings.
"Virtually everyone with a drivers license" could successfully maneuver through the streets without any signals or signs at all, by just being careful (which most people are). It seems to me that the laws, and the signals, aren't designed for the people who think, but rather for those drivers who do need to be told what to do. And for them, the message should be unequivical.
In this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HplaB7EB0L4&feature=relmfu
The NTSB representative clearly implies that the crossing signals were visible at least one mile before reaching the crossing, and should have been seen by the truck driver involved in the 6/24 crash. Forum member Falcoln48 reported being able to see activated grade crossing signals at another crossing from one mile.
Yesterday, I tried to confirm the one-mile visibility near where I live, but was unable to find any type of signal light that had an unobstructed view for over ½ mile. But my checking did make me realized just what a mile along a road looks like in terms of the visibility of objects looming into view and fading into the distance.
Certainly it is possible to project a light to be visible from one mile. Locomotive headlights can be easily seen from one mile. And I do not know the light intensity of projection capability of the Nevada crossing, nor that of the crossing that Falcon48 was looking at. But generally, grade crossing signals seem to be roughly equivalent in projection to traffic lights. I find it impossible to believe that lights of that intensity would be visible from one mile in the bright sun of midday. At a distance of just ¼-mile, traffic signal lights I was looking at were barely visible.
Here is a link showing a highway view of the Nevada crossing at different distances. In the view showing the advance warning signs, those signs are 897 feet from the crossing, according to what the NTSB has stated:
http://misterhippity.tumblr.com/post/6946429634/ive-been-using-google-street-view-to-conduct-my
Photo quality is not the greatest, and there may be a little haze in the air, but it does give an idea of what the view looks like at about 900 feet in full sun, at midday. Granted, the lights are not activated, but you can see how small the crossing signals appear to be. A mile is almost 6 times further.
I have taken note of what I do at this sort of crossing. I drove through here recently and when I see the pavement markings or yellow warning sign, I look right and left to see if there are any trains. It doesn't occure to me to look at the grade crossing lights to see if they are activated. I only rely on them if there are obstructions and that is kind of spooky sometimes. I kind of trust the lack of train horn even over the lights to convince me it is safe. I would think it is rarer for an engineer to forget the horn than to have messed up lights. I even turn the radio down for a moment. Maybe this is all because I'm a railfan.
Regarding the U.P. website saying this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.”
As I mentioned, I initially contacted U.P. and talked with somebody in their public communications department. He gave me a baffling explanation of what the statement on their website means that seemed to boil down to the fact that everybody has free will, so they are free to decide what rules they will follow.
I don’t believe the U.P. statement is actually intended to convey that free will point. It probably was the only explanation he could think of, but it is not convincing. There are ten commandments. Why would you want to add an eleventh commandment saying that ultimately it is everyone’s decision whether or not to obey the first ten? Wouldn’t it go without saying and wouldn’t it sort of water down the authoritative gravity of the Ten Commandments?
It is rather obvious that what U.P. was actually trying to say is something like this:
Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids that impose legal requirements on motorists, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with those requirements.
But, whatever they were trying to say, the statement conveys another meaning that suggests that the crossing protection system is advisory rather than regulatory. To me, that meaning is obvious. It is far more obvious and fitting than the free will interpretation. Yet, I simply could not get the U.P. rep to understand my advisory/regulatory interpretation of their website statement. I was surprised that he found it so hard to grasp.
So I wrote an explanation of my point in the clearest manner that I could, and sent it to another contact person at U.P. I have been told by that person that she understands my point about the second meaning, and that another individual has been tasked with reviewing the matter and presenting it to the owners of the webpage to see if they understand it and want to revise the language.
Call me dense, but I fail to see how the UP language implies that crossings are merely an advisory.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Before you beat yourself up, read the whole thread and see if you still feel dense.
LOL!!
schlimm Call me dense, but I fail to see how the UP language implies that crossings are merely an advisory.
In the above sentence, the word, ultimately seems to set forth a premise that rises above the preceding stipulations about the importance of the crossing signals, and other warning system components and their indication of whether or not it is safe to cross. And that premise that rises above the importance of the signals is that it is the motorist’s decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross. That suggests that the motorist gets to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of what the signals say. That interpretation would mean that the signals are advisory rather than regulatory.
Yet the fact is that the law compels a motorist to obey the signals. So if a motorist is required to obey the signals, he or she cannot possibly get to decide whether it is safe to cross. So which way is it? Does a driver get to decide whether it is safe to cross regardless of the signals; or does a driver have to set aside his or her personal discretion and obey the signals?
People try to beat trains to the crossing every day because they decide that they can make it without getting hit by the train. Some of these people know this is illegal, but studies have shown that many people do not know it is illegal. This is because they believe that the signals are just meant to inform them that a train is coming, but they get to decide whether it is safe to cross. In other words, they believe the signals are only advisory.
This false belief that the signals are only advisory has become inculcated due to a variety of factors. Part of the cause is switching operations that activate signals even though no train intends to occupy the crossing. Another part is trains moving very slowly and obviously giving plenty of time to cross even though the signals are activated. Another factor is false activations that are obviously not associated with a train. These occurrences all tell drivers that the signals do not properly cover all conditions, and that therefore, a driver must use his or her personal judgment to sometimes override the advice of the signals. Another big factor in this misunderstanding is the long tradition of crossings protected only by crossbucks where drivers had to rely more on their judgment as to whether it was safe to cross.
So many drivers have simply become habituated to recognize a grade crossing, look for train hazards, and make a decision whether or not to cross based on those factors alone. They regard the purpose of the signals as being only to tell them to look for a train. Once they accept the belief that they are allowed to use their own discretion in this way, it is very easy to “push the envelope” when they are in a hurry and don’t want to be delayed. So you find them running around the lowered gates in front of a fast train that is only a couple hundred feet away. Sometimes, when they cut it too close, their luck runs out.
Ultimately, every law, rule, command, edict or regulation is subject to the decision of the affected party as to whether to obey or not. An advisory is just that. It gives you advice and/or information. The key difference is that a regulation carries an enforceable legal/criminal penalty if disregarded. An advisory (such as a NWS's severe weather advisory) does not.
Schlimm,
Yes I realize that the signals are not advisory and are regulatory. My point is that the U.P. statement makes it sound as though the signals are advisory. The director of Operation Lifesaver thought so too. So does the second U.P. contact I spoke to.
I understand your point that ultimately every law, rule, command, edict or regulation is subject to the will of a person to obey it. That was the interpretation by the first U.P. contact I spoke to. However, the sentence does not say that there is a law or rule of any kind regarding grade crossings that an individual has the choice to obey or not. It does not mention any duty whatsoever regarding the signals. It calls them safety aides. It says that ultimately it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.
So I don't believe that an uninformed driver hearing that would conclude that it means that running the red flashing lights is illegal, but they can break the law if they want to. Who ever tells people that?
If, in fact that sentence were actually describing a different scenario in which the signals were actually advisory, the sentence could not be worded any better than it is.
UP's statement is just that - UP's statement.
It does not carry the force of law and would get laughed out of court if someone tried to use it as a defense for running a crossing.
I'd bet that something well less than 1% of the driving public is even aware that said statement is even on UP's website. Probably much less than that, for that matter. I'd be amazed if one person in a thousand was even aware of UP's website, and particularly the statement in question.
I can put something on a website that says it's OK to totally ignore all warning signs and devices at a railroad crossing, and it wouldn't mean a thing.
What matters is what the law says. So what does Nevada law say about railroad crossings? It's all you need to know.
Methinks you're trying to find issues where there are none.
The driver of the truck didn't see the warning signs, flashing lights, gates across the road, or the big silver train. We don't know why, and probably never will.
A reasonable, attentive driver would have seen all of the above indicators and would have stopped.
End of story.
I don’t intend to suggest that this faulty statement on the U.P. website has anything to do with excusing the truck driver in the Nevada crash. The U.P. website issue is only obliquely related to the Nevada crash by the fact that both involve grade crossings. I stumbled across the website in researching the Nevada crash.
I also happened to find a very interesting study by the state of North Carolina concerning the discovery of patterns of driver misunderstanding of the law and what leads to that misunderstanding. That NC study is actually closely related to the faulty statement on the U.P. website.
The NC study finds that crossings pose many variables that accustom drivers to deal directly with those variables rather than consulting their copy of the crossing law. The study finds that many drivers are following their own belief system without realizing that it is contrary to the law. The study explores the crossing contingencies that lead to such beliefs.
The centerpiece of this errant belief system is the drivers’ assumption that the crossing protection system is merely advisory rather than regulatory as the law says. Based on the discovery of this misinterpretation, groups such as Operation Lifesaver and railroad companies such as the U.P. are focusing effort on dispelling this driver misconception about the signals being advisory.
I realize that the U.P. website does not have the force of law, but the U.P. dedicates part of their website to this effort to educate drivers. So it hardly seems irrelevant that their website makes a statement that conveys information that directly conflicts with their effort to inform drivers about the meaning of the crossing protection system.
I agree that the website will not reach many people, but U.P.’s point of it is to reach as many people as they can. So, I would think they would not want to accidentally say something on the site that conflicts with their basic purpose in having the site.
Well, I am quite pleasantly surprised to hear back from U.P. that they agreed with my point about that one sentence on their website conveying the wrong message. That was this sentence at the end of the page entitled, Rail Crossing Warning Systems:
I explained my concern to them, as I have here, about their statement conveying the message that the crossing signals and gates are merely advisory rather than regulatory; and suggested that they change the wording to this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids that impose legal requirements on motorists, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with those requirements.”
I think that is actually what they meant to say in the first place, and today I learned that they agree, as they have changed their site to say this:
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but they can do no good if motorists do not comply with the law.”
Waterboarding would have been easier for both of you.
I think it was worth the effort, even if only one person gets the right message!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.