Trains.com

new purposed Illinois law Locked

5523 views
75 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 222 posts
new purposed Illinois law
Posted by wilmette2210 on Monday, January 16, 2012 1:18 AM

Read this article about a purposed law in Illinois http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120115/news/701159903/  I think this is kind of stupid.  What do you all think. 

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, January 16, 2012 2:45 AM

The train nearby may be stationary, but one in the distance and out of sight may be approaching at full speed.   I agree.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, January 16, 2012 7:18 AM

Is it April 1st already?

The law would allow you to cross tracks, provided that the train is stationary and no others are approaching AND you don't cross the track the waiting train is on.  How do you not cross that track? 

The article dosen't state if there is a distinction at which end of a stopped train you could cross.  The Palantine officer stresses not crossing in front of a stopped train.  Almost to the point one might think it's OK to cross in front of moving trains if one thinks it's a "safe" distance away.  The stopped train isn't the one that's going to be running over people.  It's going to be the one they don't see or think it far enough away.

If that officer likes this law, I wonder if he would support a law that would allow drivers stopped at a red traffic light to proceed when there are no other vehicles or pedestrians present.  I doubt it.  He would rightly think it would condition drivers to go when it wasn't safe to do so.  That's what this law will do for people, condition them to cross when it isn't safe to do so.

Jeff  

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, January 16, 2012 8:16 AM

  My thoughts are back to a You tube video of a suburban service train that has stopped to let passengers off, and while it is stopped a man and woman cross on a provided crosswalk across the three tracks in the station. The woman is struck by a through express train.  jeffhergert's, analogy is also another situation that could also put people in jeopardy.

   Sounds like this proposed law has not been very well thought through...

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Monday, January 16, 2012 8:32 AM

There should be a test period for the law.  The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period.  To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train.  Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too.  SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety:  There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime.   Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic.

If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system.  Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective.  One wiggle, and it is no longer safety. 

 

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.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Monday, January 16, 2012 8:34 AM

Dumb .... Would the promoters and sponsors of this bill like to assume all liability for this as well?

(and I'm not sorry at all that the scofflaw that initiated this had his widdle feelings hurt - the citing officer was trying to correct defective behaviour, not harass the lower portion of the gene pool where this clown resides.)SoapBoxSoapBoxSoapBox

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, January 16, 2012 9:29 AM

This doesn't need a law since the law would only apply to a very, very limited number of circumstances.  A law would be overkill.

There are two ways to approach this.  One would be too add some more logic to the crossing such that passengers could get to the center platform when there is no train approaching on the track they have to cross.  The other would be to simply put up a sign that would allow passengers access to the center platform when the highway gates are down, provided they "looked and listened".

No mixed-message with either approach since it would only apply to one particular place.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    November 2006
  • From: Southington, CT
  • 1,326 posts
Posted by DMUinCT on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:04 AM

If it were the ground level platforms at the Commuter Stations between Boston and Providence, that Acela Headlight a 1/2 mile away will be on you in 10 seconds.

In deference to the MBTA, at the same time the red scrolling signs and loud speakers would be informing  "High Speed Train Approaching --- Please Stand Back Of The Yellow Lines".

Maybe that's all that Illinois needs?

Don U. TCA 73-5735

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:09 AM

My point in that rant Zugman was IL were Politicans have no BRAINS and want the Taxpayers to kill themselves off then SUE the RR's for OBEYING a LAW they PASSED.  It will happen watch.  IL passed a law for Motorcyle riders where they can go thru Red Lights now if the light does not change for them.  How soon til someone gets Splattered by a SEMI and his family goes after the Trucking company for hitting him even though the Trtucker by LAW had the RIGHT OF WAY with the light being GREEN. 

You want to know how screwed up IL is we are the only state that raised Taxes AFTER the collaspe of 2008 and wondered why revenues FELL. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:11 AM

jeffhergert
The Palantine officer stresses not crossing in front of a stopped train.  Almost to the point one might think it's OK to cross in front of moving trains if one thinks it's a "safe" distance away.  The stopped train isn't the one that's going to be running over people.  It's going to be the one they don't see or think it far enough away.

Jeff  

I agree.  They say that crossing in front of a stopped train is the greatest danger.  What is the problem with crossing in front of a stopped train?  Wouldn’t the greatest danger be in crossing in front of an approaching train?    

It sounds like they want to apply bicycle culture, which is where bicyclists don’t have to stop for red lights or stop signs unless there is a car coming.  You know, it’s one of those “personal liberty things.”

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Cordes Jct Ariz.
  • 1,305 posts
Posted by switch7frg on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:12 AM

Smile In this election year ,  all sorts of strange things will appear.  Would this tend to dirvert  things and events   of a more serious nature  ???  Hmmmm. 

                                                Jim

Y6bs evergreen in my mind

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:24 AM

edbenton

My point in that rant Zugman was IL were Politicans have no BRAINS and want the Taxpayers to kill themselves off then SUE the RR's for OBEYING a LAW they PASSED.  It will happen watch.  IL passed a law for Motorcyle riders where they can go thru Red Lights now if the light does not change for them.  How soon til someone gets Splattered by a SEMI and his family goes after the Trucking company for hitting him even though the Trtucker by LAW had the RIGHT OF WAY with the light being GREEN. 

You want to know how screwed up IL is we are the only state that raised Taxes AFTER the collaspe of 2008 and wondered why revenues FELL. 

 

This bill seems to be the work of one person that has a bug up his butt about getting fined for crossing against the lights.  And the reason for the motorcycle law is probably because the bikes don't have the mass to trip the circuit. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

 But at least you worked trucking companies in there.  I was worried you wouldn't.

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

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:27 AM

Bucyrus

 

 

 

I agree.  They say that crossing in front of a stopped train is the greatest danger.  What is the problem with crossing in front of a stopped train?  Wouldn’t the greatest danger be in crossing in front of an approaching train?    
It sounds like they want to apply bicycle culture, which is where bicyclists don’t have to stop for red lights or stop signs unless there is a car coming.  You know, it’s one of those “personal liberty things.”

[emphasis mine - zug]

 

Problem?  Blind spot.  

 

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

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:33 AM

This isn't a bad law problem (or rather, just a bad law problem if it goes through), but an access design problem.   The law extant is there for everyone's benefit, but stands in the way of access in a local context.  People have obviously complained, unknowingly or unthinkingly, that they should be able to use their own discretion when it is perfectly clear that the danger is not present...ie, the train is stopped.  If their passage to the other side of the tracks were via another (overhead) safer designated route, this would be a non-issue.

Crandell

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:51 AM

Nah the Problem is I looked up this State Senator his District was Redrawn and he is NOW having to run in a Heavily Metra Commuter train USED district.  I bet he is thinking I pass this law I will have it easy come the Nov Election.  However if someone gets KILLED because of it he is going to get hammered by his opponent by it.  All he is doing is LOOKING OUT FOR #1 HIMSELF and saying Screw everyone else.  Trust me we have the same thing going on by me.  A Career Pol that swore he would Never run more than 5 Terms is now in the fight for his life and just went NEgative why he has a Primary Opponent that is Younger and also voted against Raising the Debt limit the last time it came up the other guy voted for it.  The other guy also voted for Obamacare and also for the Stimulas package and only Just moved into the District. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, January 16, 2012 10:53 AM

 

Mm-hmm.  Politics as usual.  Not just an exclusive Illinois thing.

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

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Iowa
  • 3,293 posts
Posted by Semper Vaporo on Monday, January 16, 2012 11:24 AM

henry6

There should be a test period for the law.  The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period.  To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train.  Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too.  SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety:  There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime.   Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic.

If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system.  Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective.  One wiggle, and it is no longer safety. 

 

I dissagree... the test should NOT stop when the 1st person is killed... nor end after 8 hours.  A single death might have been a fluke. The test must be carried out until all the people are dead,  Then there could be some statistical measure of why they each died... old age, or as bug splatter.

Semper Vaporo

Pkgs.

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Monday, January 16, 2012 11:52 AM

Semper Vaporo

 henry6:

There should be a test period for the law.  The State congressman and one or two of his supporters should be required, at a designated multi track station, to cross back and forth over the tracks continuously within an 8 hour period.  To make it more challengine, at least one of those participating should be chatting on a cell phone, one listening to an IPod, and another reading a newspaper.Test ends at the end of 8 hours or when one of them gets hit by a train.  Snow, rain, or otherwise unfavorable weather would be ideal testing times, too.  SIgns should also be posted with the first rule of safety:  There could be a train movement on any track, in any direction, at anytime.   Similar tests, control tests if you will, should be done crossing major expressways and busy downtown streets to see how effective it is to explain to people about safe crossing of anythng with traffic.

If this passes the Illinois legislature, even get to be discussed in the legislature, there has to be something wrong with the people and or the system.  Safety has been proven to be a factor that has to be practiced to the fullest, extremist extent in order to be effective.  One wiggle, and it is no longer safety. 

 

 

I dissagree... the test should NOT stop when the 1st person is killed... nor end after 8 hours.  A single death might have been a fluke. The test must be carried out until all the people are dead,  Then there could be some statistical measure of why they each died... old age, or as bug splatter.

 

If we are going to do it this way can we have the SAMPLE BE THIS THE IL LEGISLATURE AND OUR REPRESENATIVES TO THE US HOUSE AND SENATE.  Wonder how long it would take to get them to Realize that Trains are HEAVY and maybe PEOPLE need to be kept out of the WAY OF THEM. 

Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 16, 2012 11:57 AM

This would change the meaning of crossing signals for pedestrians from regulatory to advisory in some, but not all circumstances.  So there would be 5 possible conditions:

 

1)      No signals activated.

2)      Signals activated with clear view and train approaching.

3)      Signals activated with clear view and no train approaching.

4)      Signals activated with obstructed view and train approaching.

5)      Signals activated with obstructed view and no train approaching.

 

 

Response required from pedestrian correlated with 5 possible conditions:

 

1)      No response required.

2)      Pedestrian must stop.

3)      Pedestrian may proceed.

4)      Pedestrian must stop.

5)      Pedestrian must stop.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Monday, January 16, 2012 1:16 PM

mudchicken

Dumb .... Would the promoters and sponsors of this bill like to assume all liability for this as well?

(and I'm not sorry at all that the scofflaw that initiated this had his widdle feelings hurt - the citing officer was trying to correct defective behaviour, not harass the lower portion of the gene pool where this clown resides.)SoapBoxSoapBoxSoapBox

Spot On! M.C.

I guess Illinois does not have a corner on "Challenged Politicians" .         

    One has to wonder what kind of air was in the Washington, D.C. Council Chamber when Councilwoman (Councilperson(?) Mary Choh proposed,  and it was passed that in Washinton, D.C.

 C.P. Choh's law says, in part:  It would henceforth be illegal to kill vermin (Rats,etc.). In the Washington, D.C. areas   The rats would have to be rounded up, in 'family groups' ,and then transported to another jurisdiction ( Northern Virginia(?) .  This upon the heels of the stories that New York City, Subway employees were having to work in surroundings over run with those same vermin.

 It just plain seems to be in that same line of thought that Illinois would allow walkways across multiple tracks in stations, while allowing Express Trains to move through a station at track speed, and allowing detraining passengers to cross unimpeded around stopped equipment. Some rules don't make any sense. My 2 Cents

 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: hillbilly hide away and campground C, M-ville,ILL
  • 2,153 posts
Posted by inch53 on Monday, January 16, 2012 3:33 PM

A proposed law in Illinois like this doesn’t surprise me abit. As a congressional friend  said of Chicago politicians, “ they were intelligent men with pieces of “ I’m smarter than you papers” [collage degree], but with no common sense what so ever.  

http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309

DISCLAIMER-- This post does not clam anything posted here as fact or truth, but it may be just plain funny
  • Member since
    September 2009
  • 48 posts
Posted by HTower on Monday, January 16, 2012 5:43 PM

The law's proponent claims that the current law is parental, it protects us from ourselves. 

There is some of that, and lord knows that we need protection because of the deaths that occur every year.  The law also protects the railroads, keeps them from being sued.  Every fatality that is prevented probably saves in the millions of dollars from lawsuits, cleanup, delays in the train schedule during the investigation etc. 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 16, 2012 6:43 PM

The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger.  But the core of the problem is not pedestrians being delayed by false alarms. 

 

The core of the problem is false alarms.  They are like the little boy crying “Wolf!”  It dilutes the warning, so people pay less attention to it; and then when there is actual danger accompanying the warning, people are caught off guard. 

 

If pedestrians were capable of determining whether it is safe to cross, there would be no need of automatic warning systems.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:14 AM

Bucyrus
 

If pedestrians were capable of determining whether it is safe to cross, there would be no need of automatic warning systems.

While the greatest majority would be capable, it only takes one idiot.  But what do you mean by false alarms?

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

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:20 AM

Cynical! (?) Maybe, but laws like the proposed Illinois law; do seem to be aimed at one goal....Cleansing the gene pool.  Possibly the final result might be to propose an award for the most creative stupidity while attempting suicide. Something like a reverse Darwin Award.

  Bang HeadBang HeadBang Head

 

 


 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:57 AM

zugmann
  But what do you mean by false alarms?

Warning signals activated when no train danger exists.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:02 AM

Bucyrus

 


 

Warning signals activated when no train danger exists.

 

Soooo... when no train is present, or when one is stopped?  Or both?

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

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:17 AM

It's a bit unfair to blame this proposal strictly on the members of the Illinois General Assembly.  Elected representatives are expected to be responsive to their constituents.  When a constituent submits a reasonably written (albeit stupid) proposal, the constituent expects his representative to submit it for consideration by the entire body.  Presumably, the proposal will either be voted down or die in committee.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:51 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

It's a bit unfair to blame this proposal strictly on the members of the Illinois General Assembly.  Elected representatives are expected to be responsive to their constituents.  When a constituent submits a reasonably written (albeit stupid) proposal, the constituent expects his representative to submit it for consideration by the entire body.  Presumably, the proposal will either be voted down or die in committee.

  I would hope that my elected official would be bright enough to explain to a constituent that a submited,  reasonably written (albeit stupid) proposal, is not a good idea, and is therefore not worthy(?) of consideration by the entire body.

     It seems like a few phone calls on the part of the lawmaker would have given an indication whether this was worth pursuing.  If a lawmaker is not giving proposed bills even that much consideration,  it seems there would be a million bills submitted per session.

     Or......the lawmaker knows it's a waste of time,  but needs to show that he's looking out for the best interests of those voting for him.  Mischief

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Southeast Missouri
  • 573 posts
Posted by The Butler on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:42 PM

Bucyrus
The proposed law is to solve the problem of pedestrians being delayed by false alarms of signals activating when there is no danger. ...snip

I disagree.  The article states the gentleman that proposed the law was ticketed after crossing against the signals behind a departing train.  He could have avoided the ticket by waiting a few more seconds.  It appears to me, he was impatient and was fined for it.

To see the Palitine train station punch in these coordinates in to your favorite map:

N 42.11309 W 88.04838

This is old CNW track so the trains run on the left (south track westbound north track east).  The center track is bi-directional. 

If standing at the station building and a west bound train was at the station, a person would have to cross the north and center track to get to the platform where the train is boarding.

In the '80s and '90s, I would watch people crawl under stopped commuter trains to be able to board said train or worse, get to their automobiles before the rest of the commuters!

James


Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy