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.
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."
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.
There you go - a federal law allowing us to run a red light...
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...
"
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.
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.
When I started driving, that practice was rare - maybe CA and NY. Now I'm pretty sure every state does it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
zugmannEver think maybe just some computer lackey wrote up that grade crossing bit and we are all looking for some deep-rooted meaning that just ain't there?
I am not looking for any deep meaning. U.P. told me what they meant by the statement. It is a case of intending to say something, but conveying something else by accident. It happens all the time.
Bucyrus That is true that the driver has free will. That is one of the two meanings to the U.P. sentence in blue at the top of this page. I don’t see the point of telling drivers that, however. It goes without saying, and saying it leads to the other meaning. And that other meaning is a perfect confirmation of one of the most significant and most common misunderstandings that many drivers have. That misunderstanding is the belief that the lights and gates are only advisory to tell a driver a train is coming, and beyond that, a driver is legally free to decide whether or not it is safe to cross. This belief is an ingrained carryover from the long history of non-signalized crossings. So why make a statement to drivers about having free will when it has no bearing on the situation, and when it creates a double meaning with the second meaning being something that reinforces the one most deadly misunderstanding that many drivers already have?
So why make a statement to drivers about having free will when it has no bearing on the situation, and when it creates a double meaning with the second meaning being something that reinforces the one most deadly misunderstanding that many drivers already have?
Ever think maybe just some computer lackey wrote up that grade crossing bit and we are all looking for some deep-rooted meaning that just ain't there?
That is true that the driver has free will. That is one of the two meanings to the U.P. sentence in blue at the top of this page. I don’t see the point of telling drivers that, however. It goes without saying, and saying it leads to the other meaning.
And that other meaning is a perfect confirmation of one of the most significant and most common misunderstandings that many drivers have. That misunderstanding is the belief that the lights and gates are only advisory to tell a driver a train is coming, and beyond that, a driver is legally free to decide whether or not it is safe to cross. This belief is an ingrained carryover from the long history of non-signalized crossings.
Yes, I agree.
Yesterday, I called U.P. and talked to someone in communications. I don’t believe he understood the point I was making about there being another meaning to their statement. But he did attempt a robust explanation of the meaning that they intended. He said that if a motorist made a decision that it was safe to cross the tracks, and the signals were activated, then the motorist would be breaking the law, but ultimately it is it is the motorist’s decision whether or not it is safe to cross the tracks.
He told me that what the sentence means is that ultimately it is the motorist’s decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross because it can’t be the engineer’s decision. I said yes it cannot be the engineer’s decision, but it cannot be the motorist’s decision either. The signals mean what they mean, and nobody is free to decide otherwise.
He said that ultimately everything the driver does is the driver’s decision whether it is legal nor not.
I also talked to Operation Lifesaver national office. We discussed it in detail, and at first, she did not see the second meaning either. Then all of a sudden it was as if a light turned on, and she said she could then see the other meaning that I was talking about. She said they definitely did not mean to convey that meaning. She told me to contact U.P. and explain it again.
Bucyrus When I say it is irrelevant, I mean is serves no purpose to state it. Does your employer make a point to tell you that you are free to break the rules?
When I say it is irrelevant, I mean is serves no purpose to state it. Does your employer make a point to tell you that you are free to break the rules?
They don't have to tell me I have free will.
I'm free to not follow the rules. But I won't have a job for very long, so I do follow. But the choice is always there.
I agree it is strange, but not irrelevant.
That is basically the meaning intended by the U.P. However, it seems like a strange and irrelevant point to make. It is self-evident, and only adds confusion. It would be like saying that railroad rules are important to follow, but ultimately the railroad employee is free to decide whether or not to follow the rules. Can you see the double meaning? I wonder if U.P. could see it.
Two meanings: One meaning is true, and the other meaning is false. Equals bad writing.
Bucyrus The motorists bears the responsibility to follow the law at a grade crossing, but motorists are not free to make the decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross, as the U.P. site states.
The motorists bears the responsibility to follow the law at a grade crossing, but motorists are not free to make the decision as to whether or not it is safe to cross, as the U.P. site states.
People still have free will. There can be consequences, but ultimately, it is for the motorist to decide to stop or not.
TDM,
You are missing the point. I am not trying to relieve drivers of responsibility, and I really don’t understand your analysis in coming to that conclusion. The sentence I quoted above in blue from the U.P. website has two meanings. One of them they intended, and the other one, they are not aware of. In my opinion, the unintended meaning is far clearer than their intended meaning.
Mandatory or not , doesn't matter. Regardless of whether it is a railroad crossing or a stop sign, red light, what ever, the driver makes the decision to stop in accordance with sign or signal. All of these are mandatory but light and signs are run every day. Face it Bucyrus. Operating a motor vehicle is an exercise in judgement. A driver is obligated to be aware of everything that might affect or interact with his vehicle and make decisions accordingly. The law can only do so much. You are trying to relieve drivers of the basic responsibility of operating a vehicle.
Bucyrus I think what they meant to say is this: “Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately the safety of a motorist depends on obeying these warnings.
“Signals, signs, lights and horns are important safety aids, but ultimately the safety of a motorist depends on obeying these warnings.
Your statement isn't any better. It still makes the signs and signals sound advisory, and not mandatory.
edbenton Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when they are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
Plus he was a local driver and they get to be Drivers of Habit and not expect trains at certain times when they are on time. The CZ was running 5 hours late and according to the Drivers brain was not supposed to be there.
If he was driving of habit, a 5 hour late Zephyr is nothing out of the ordinary.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Here is the U.P. website page called, Rail Crossing Warning Systems:
http://www.uprr.com/she/safety/xing_safety/sentinels.shtml
I cannot believe they say this in the last sentence of the page:
“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.”
That is absolutely 100% false.
In fact, that is the most common misperception among drivers that is at the very heart of the grade crossing crash problem. That misperception being that many drivers believe the lights and gates are merely advisory, and that drivers are allowed to use their own discretion as to whether they can safely cross the tracks. This false belief is the driver’s rationalization in every attempt to beat the train when the warning system is activated.
I think what they meant to say is this:
Triple post. Holy cow.
Double post. D'oh.
Bucyrus and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
And I'm sure they were 100% honest given the circumstances. Funny how nobody knows the law when they are caught breaking it.
schlimm,
Here is a link that includes findings on driver behavior patterns at grade crossings. I have not read this enough times to fully digest it, but if I understand it, they collected driver perceptions by catching them with a camera while violating crossings, and then they waived prosecution in exchange for the driver filling out the perception questionnaire. They developed this approach because no drivers would fill out a questionnaire about their illegal behavior, on a purely voluntarily basis.
Through this process, I believe they have stumbled upon some of the most revealing insight imaginable. However there is one drawback to this study, and that is the way it is written. In my opinion, this is one of the most difficult papers to read that I have ever seen. You just cannot start a sentence and take it in six different directions, and expect a reader to organize all of the interlacing stipulations and qualifiers in that sentence:
http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/clearrpt.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.