tree68 Bucyrus: But the zone itself is not floating, as you have interpreted me to say. Its beginning is fixed at the RXR sign. And if the zone begins at that fixed point, then the driver’s responsibility to recognize the crossing begins there. It makes no difference if a driver is able to recognize the crossing or the RXR sign earlier. Chapter and verse from Vehicle and Traffic Law would be really handy right now - links preferred. Otherwise it's just your opinion.
Bucyrus: But the zone itself is not floating, as you have interpreted me to say. Its beginning is fixed at the RXR sign. And if the zone begins at that fixed point, then the driver’s responsibility to recognize the crossing begins there. It makes no difference if a driver is able to recognize the crossing or the RXR sign earlier.
Chapter and verse from Vehicle and Traffic Law would be really handy right now - links preferred.
Otherwise it's just your opinion.
Larry,
I can’t find anything that clearly states the law about when a driver must comply with a warning sign. The RXR sign is always described in a way similar to the Berkeley link you posted in which it says that the sign “Informs roadway users that they are about to encounter a railroad at-grade crossing.”
From a practical standpoint, a driver that complies will probably begin complying before reaching the sign. Compliance does require a short process of recognition, assimilation, and the decision to comply. Traffic control designers talk about that process and the time it requires. That process does have to begin before passing the sign. So, the 250 ft. of legibility distance you mention would allow for the recognition-assimilation-decision process, and maybe leave some distance left over.
In any case, as a practical matter, there is no way to legally enforce or even measure how or when a driver reacts to the RXR sign. The only indicator is whether or not a driver collides with a train or has a close call. If either happens, it would require a witness to determine whether the driver did not comply with the sign or if something was wrong with the sign. At that time, if it were determined that the sign was too close to the crossing, they would have to get into the issue of where drivers are when the sign takes effect. Generally, I suspect these signs are placed with a lot of care and study, and therefore would not expect a problem with their placement.
With the Nevada crossing, I think the problem with the placement of the RXR sign, if there is one, only applies to the class of the heaviest trucks being allowed to approach the crossing at 70 mph. That speed limit is right on the edge of grade crossing acceptability from the advice of the authorities. Likewise, double trailer trucks running 70 mph are probably also on the edge of reasonableness. It may be that where the two intersect, they overlap in a way that eliminates all margin of safety. The circumstance is probably limited to only a handful of grade crossings in the country, so there is not a wide body of evidence to support their safety statistically.
If it is a problem, I don’t see the solution as being to simply move the RXR signs further out. I suspect human nature is to take the RXR sign for granted without thinking further, no matter how far from the crossing it is. So the issue is not so much whether drivers are adequately warned to the letter of the law, but whether or not Amtrak passengers want to risk dying from being broadsided by heavy trucks.
Eh? Why not just give up on passenger rail service at all then, if you are so worried about it?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
.
BucyrusBut the zone itself is not floating, as you have interpreted me to say. Its beginning is fixed at the RXR sign. And if the zone begins at that fixed point, then the driver’s responsibility to recognize the crossing begins there. It makes no difference if a driver is able to recognize the crossing or the RXR sign earlier.
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...
tree68 Bucyrus: Well it does indeed mention when you should begin your preparations. The response where a driver recognizes a crossing is ahead is the definition of the approach zone. The zones are specific ranges with a beginning and an end. Therefore, since the driver response is defined by the approach zone, it begins with the approach zone. That is only logical. And there is nothing that states a requirement to recognize that a crossing is ahead, prior to reaching the approach zone. You just contradicted yourself. By your underlined statement, if a driver recognizes that there is a crossing ahead, a mile away, he has entered the approach zone.
Bucyrus: Well it does indeed mention when you should begin your preparations. The response where a driver recognizes a crossing is ahead is the definition of the approach zone. The zones are specific ranges with a beginning and an end. Therefore, since the driver response is defined by the approach zone, it begins with the approach zone. That is only logical. And there is nothing that states a requirement to recognize that a crossing is ahead, prior to reaching the approach zone. You just contradicted yourself.
When I say that the response where a driver recognizes the crossing ahead defines the approach zone, all I mean is that the two are equivalent. Perhaps I should have said that the approach zone defines the place where a driver is supposed to recognize the crossing ahead, which is what the link says. The point I was making is that the response is entirely contained within that zone.
But the zone itself is not floating, as you have interpreted me to say. Its beginning is fixed at the RXR sign. And if the zone begins at that fixed point, then the driver’s responsibility to recognize the crossing begins there. It makes no difference if a driver is able to recognize the crossing or the RXR sign earlier.
Bucyrus Well it does indeed mention when you should begin your preparations. The response where a driver recognizes a crossing is ahead is the definition of the approach zone. The zones are specific ranges with a beginning and an end. Therefore, since the driver response is defined by the approach zone, it begins with the approach zone. That is only logical. And there is nothing that states a requirement to recognize that a crossing is ahead, prior to reaching the approach zone.
The issue of sign legibility is quantified by how far away it can be seen, but that distance does not represent the point where the sign takes effect. A sign that only becomes legible the instant you pass it will increase the probability that a driver will miss it by a momentary distraction.
MUTCD has assigned a value of 250 feet to that legibility distance. There are charts for computing proper letter size for various highway speeds.
There are people who believe that drivers are supposed to comply with a reduced speed as soon as a sign ahead calling for a slower speed limit becomes visible. That would be analogous to your belief that drivers must react to the approach zone as soon as the signs are visible. The fact is that drivers do not have to comply with the lowering of the speed limit until they reach the sign that establishes it.
Apples and oranges. A YELLOW diamond sign indicating an upcoming speed zone has no legal standing whatsoever. It is simply a WARNING of the upcoming speed zone.
The black-on-white rectangular speed limit sign has legal standing. It is regulatory. If you exceed the posted limit once past the sign, you can be ticketed.
The warning sign gives you sufficient opportunity to reduce your speed to one that is acceptable prior to reaching the regulatory sign. If your speed, weather, or vehicle is such that you will require extra distance to reduce your speed, then you will likely do so before reaching the warning sign.
Likewise, a hazard warning sign (for a curve, for instance) may include a smaller sign below it indicating a speed. That is a recommended speed. You cannot be ticketed for exceeding it. If you have an accident as a result of taking the curve too fast, you can be ticketed for speed too fast for conditions, but the speed posted on the warning sign does not factor in.
Regarding the advance warning RXR sign, you mention that the Iowa driver’s manual does not say you don’t have to take action until you pass a sign. But it also does not say you do have to take action in advance of the sign. You are not required to do something just because the manual does not tell you not to do it. The fact that the RXR advance signs give early warning of the crossing ahead does not mean that one must react early to the advance signs.
The fact that the RXR advance signs give early warning of the crossing ahead does not mean that one must react early to the advance signs.
After reading this thread and several predecessors, i get the feeling someone is having trouble either with reading comprehension or just likes splitting hairs, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 Also from the Iowa manual, a round yellow sign (RXR) means "Railroad crossing ahead. These signs give you early warning of railroad crossings." You'll note that it does not say that you do or don't have to take action as you pass the sign. From a PowerPoint out of Berkley University, in a section covering three situations encountered by a driver approaching a crossing: Approach Zone - Recognizes that a crossing is ahead. Begins to search for train or signal.- Decides the proper course of action. Once again, neither the manual nor the Berkley document mentions when you should begin your preparations, only that you should.
Also from the Iowa manual, a round yellow sign (RXR) means "Railroad crossing ahead. These signs give you early warning of railroad crossings." You'll note that it does not say that you do or don't have to take action as you pass the sign.
From a PowerPoint out of Berkley University, in a section covering three situations encountered by a driver approaching a crossing:
Approach Zone - Recognizes that a crossing is ahead. Begins to search for train or signal.- Decides the proper course of action.
Recognizes that a crossing is ahead.
Begins to search for train or signal.-
Decides the proper course of action.
Well it does indeed mention when you should begin your preparations. The response where a driver recognizes a crossing is ahead is the definition of the approach zone. The zones are specific ranges with a beginning and an end. Therefore, since the driver response is defined by the approach zone, it begins with the approach zone. That is only logical. And there is nothing that states a requirement to recognize that a crossing is ahead, prior to reaching the approach zone.
Regarding the advance warning RXR sign, you mention that the Iowa driver’s manual does not say you don’t have to take action until you pass a sign. But it also does not say you do have to take action in advance of the sign. You are not required to do something just because the manual does not tell you not to do it.
ButchKnouse How about red light cameras at RR crossings, so they can ticket anybody who runs the lights?
How about red light cameras at RR crossings, so they can ticket anybody who runs the lights?
I think that is done in some places, particularly where there has been proven to be a significant problem.
I should have stated the "fixed signs" thing differently. For the purposes of this discussion, all of the signs are in fixed positions. In the case of construction and other work zones, the signs will be temporary, but will still be configured much the same as if they were fixed.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
The problem might be in which way does one perceive the driver...is s/he a capable individual or one that cannot be trusted to do the right thing when approaching crossings....
Bucyrus Larry, I am not sure about your conclusion about the advance warning signs being advisory, or your conclusion that being advisory means that drivers are supposed to take action as soon as the sign can be seen. The so-named “approach zone” begins at the RXR signs. It does not begin a the point where drivers are expected to be able to first see the RXR signs because that will vary from one driver to another. If a fixed sign conveys a message that must be recognized before reaching the sign, it is preceded by a advance warning sign. An example would be a “stop ahead” sign preceding a “stop” sign. Otherwise, fixed signs without any pre-warning simply present a message that must be comprehended before passing the sign.
Larry, I am not sure about your conclusion about the advance warning signs being advisory, or your conclusion that being advisory means that drivers are supposed to take action as soon as the sign can be seen. The so-named “approach zone” begins at the RXR signs. It does not begin a the point where drivers are expected to be able to first see the RXR signs because that will vary from one driver to another. If a fixed sign conveys a message that must be recognized before reaching the sign, it is preceded by a advance warning sign. An example would be a “stop ahead” sign preceding a “stop” sign. Otherwise, fixed signs without any pre-warning simply present a message that must be comprehended before passing the sign.
If a fixed sign conveys a message that must be recognized before reaching the sign, it is preceded by a advance warning sign. An example would be a “stop ahead” sign preceding a “stop” sign. Otherwise, fixed signs without any pre-warning simply present a message that must be comprehended before passing the sign.
Sheesh. Where to start...
From the previously linked Iowa driver's manual - yellow signs mean "General warning or caution."
Such signs are diamond shaped, to differentiate them from the square or rectangular regulatory signs (which are white with black lettering, or red).
In the section of the manual on railroad crossings, the manual reads "Advance warning signs and pavement markings tell you railroad tracks cross the road ahead. Be prepared to stop before you get to the tracks if a train is approaching the crossing."
All signs are "fixed." They are either regulatory, warning, or informational.
Regulatory signs (ie, stop, speed limit, crossbucks) will be preceeded by an advance warning sign.
Advance warning signs don't usually get "advance advance warning signs" except in special situations, like limited sight distance.
The references I'm finding indicate that the recognized point of sign legibility is around 250 feet. Thus a driver should be able to read and begin reaction to the sign, yes, 250 feet before reaching it.
The chart can be found here amongst other places. The source is MUTCD Table 2C-4. As a by-the-by, the table lists the placement of an advanced warning sign for a 75 MPH road at 625 feet.
Advance warning signs are not regulatory. "These signs warn you to slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary; a special situation or hazard is ahead."
If you are driving a vehicle with "special needs," or in conditions which affect your ability to control your vehicle, you need to begin reacting to the advance warning as soon as you see it, not when you pass it. Most drivers know this.
I am not sure about your conclusion about the advance warning signs being advisory, or your conclusion that being advisory means that drivers are supposed to take action as soon as the sign can be seen.
The so-named “approach zone” begins at the RXR signs. It does not begin a the point where drivers are expected to be able to first see the RXR signs because that will vary from one driver to another.
BucyrusThe whole point of this would be to extend the length of the “approach zone” of the crossing from about 900 ft. to maybe 1500-1800 ft.
There you go with the 900 feet again. This is a key flaw in your arguments and I just realized why.
Yellow signs (such as the RXR sign) are advisory. They exist to warn a driver of an oncoming hazard. If they were regulatory, they would be black and white, and any restriction they carried, either specified or implied, would indeed take effect at the point at which they were erected.
If they were regulatory, there would be further warning some distance ahead of them, perhaps stating that there was a "railroad crossing zone ahead."
Because they are simply advisory, they therefore "take effect" when they can be seen. This runs counter to your argument that a driver is under no obligation to "comply" with the RXR sign until he/she reaches it.
It has been suggested by others that the sign and/or pavement markings in question can be seen another hundred yards or better before they are reached. Probably far better given the conditions that apparently existed at the time of the accident.
Inasmuch as it is a driver's duty to adequately control his/her vehicle, that would then mean that a driver approaching the crossing does have at least 1,200 feet of warning, and it could be argued that they would have every bit of the 1,500 to 1,800 feet of warning you hold as necessary.
If for some reason a driver is unable to see such a sign because of visibility limiting factors (ie, fog), they are obligated to adjust their speed downward anyhow. That, and line-of-sight, were not factors in that incident, from what I've read.
Jeff,
I might have gotten a little too much on the plate here, but I think you are following my point as are others. In regard to the Nevada crash, I had posted a lot about advocating advance distant warning signals. They would flash yellow when the red lights at the crossing activate. Perhaps the timing would be adjusted so the yellows begin flashing earlier than the red lights. The whole point of this would be to extend the length of the “approach zone” of the crossing from about 900 ft. to maybe 1500-1800 ft. This is a standard tool in the traffic control toolbox. It is for crossings with a high road speed limit. The manual on grade crossings advises that crossings with road speeds of 70 mph or higher should be eliminated. So, their advance-warning tool would surely seem appropriate for the Nevada crossing with its 70 mph road limit.
But that was not what I had in mind when I brought up this lack of “yellow phase” in general. However, the two areas of the topic do overlap. For the yellow phase in general, my point was if you left out the yellow phase, it would not kill drivers, but it would have them running the red lights at times when they could not stop. This would water down the absolute meaning of the flashing red lights. It would lead to drivers regarding part of the red light timed warning to be a yellow light phase. Indeed the North Carolina DOT paper I linked to in another recent thread finds that many drivers do regard the interval between red light activation and gate dropping to be equivalent to a yellow light.
So, this yellow light phase in general is to warn drivers that the signals are about to change from clear to stop. Its absence can cause drivers to run through the flashing lights because there is not time to stop, but it would not get them hit by trains. This yellow light phase in general is absent from crossings with limited sight distance and higher speed limits according to the extent of those conditions.
It is true that there is a full-time yield requirement at grade crossings no matter whether signals are activated or not. However, executing that yield requirement means looking for trains, slowing down as required by sight lines, and assuming the fastest possible train. And as I mentioned above, the MN DOT and Highway Patrol do not want people to slow down on fast highways to make sure un-activated crossings are safe to cross. And virtually no drivers do it. And I doubt if one in one-thousand would consider it a legal requirement because they naturally assume the signals will protect them. So, if visibility down the track is limited, the yellow light phase is not there in any practical sense. Neither is yielding to the crossing in case the signals fail to activate if visibility down the track is limited.
However in wide open space, a driver does not have to slow down in order to look for trains because they will be visible from a long distance, and a driver is required to look for trains once he or she enters the “approach zone,” which is marked at its beginning by the RXR sign. And therefore in such a wide open space, the signals will not activate without warning because a driver will see the train before the signals activate.
For example, last summer, the Chief Information Officer of the Nevada DOT told me that there is no reason to slow down for the grade crossing involved in the Amtrak crash if the signals are not activated. Once in the approach zone, drivers are suppose to look for trains and they will be able to see them before the signals activate.
However, I contend that the Nevada crossing is one of those few where the approach zone is too short for the heaviest trucks running at 70 mph. For that problem, you need the flashing yellow advance warning. Perhaps it is also needed at fast highway crossings with adequate approach zones, but limited sight lines down the tracks.
blownout cylinder ButchKnouse: Bucyrus: It is interesting that there is no yellow light warning phase at grade crossings as there is at traffic light intersections. Grade crossings signals go from clear to stop with no warning to give time for drivers to slow down. This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so. ARE YOU SERIOUS???????????????????? Yes, he is...I suspect. I keep thinking...wait until you find yourself at a street paralleling the tracks with many intersections. And having all kinds of lights with advance greens as well...then having the flashing yellow lights on RR crossings about 75 to 100 feet down the cross street... Someone with ADD or somesuch would have a field day with that.
ButchKnouse: Bucyrus: It is interesting that there is no yellow light warning phase at grade crossings as there is at traffic light intersections. Grade crossings signals go from clear to stop with no warning to give time for drivers to slow down. This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so. ARE YOU SERIOUS????????????????????
Bucyrus: It is interesting that there is no yellow light warning phase at grade crossings as there is at traffic light intersections. Grade crossings signals go from clear to stop with no warning to give time for drivers to slow down. This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so.
This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so.
ARE YOU SERIOUS????????????????????
Yes, he is...I suspect.
I keep thinking...wait until you find yourself at a street paralleling the tracks with many intersections. And having all kinds of lights with advance greens as well...then having the flashing yellow lights on RR crossings about 75 to 100 feet down the cross street...
Someone with ADD or somesuch would have a field day with that.
Not to say what Bucryus is thinking or put words into his mouth, but what I think he's talking about is a technicality of the law. A flashing red light is to be treated like a stop sign. The moment a crossing flasher is activated, you're required to stop and then proceed if it's safe to do so. If you are only a few automobile lengths or so away when it starts, you won't be able to stop for it. (Assuming your view down the tracks is such you can't see anything that would be approaching, the speed your traveling, etc.) I think it was Tree that observed if you were that close and they activated, you would be over the crossing before you were in imminent (more assumptions here) danger. I can agree with that, however I think technically, you have ran a stop sign. This is where common sense and discretion on the part of an observing officer would come into play. At least I'ld like to think it would. Seeing the way some officers in Iowa have been acting lately according to the media, that might be asking a lot.
Jeff
ButchKnouse Bucyrus: It is interesting that there is no yellow light warning phase at grade crossings as there is at traffic light intersections. Grade crossings signals go from clear to stop with no warning to give time for drivers to slow down. This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so. ARE YOU SERIOUS????????????????????
Bucyrus It is interesting that there is no yellow light warning phase at grade crossings as there is at traffic light intersections. Grade crossings signals go from clear to stop with no warning to give time for drivers to slow down. This seems like a design defect. Authorities preach to drivers that they must stop for the flashing lights, and then install systems that can make it impossible to do so.
Lion: "If the light changes to yellow and you CAN stop in time before the intersection, then you must do so." You might want to check that b/c you run a risk if causing an accident.
NOT in Illinois Rules of the Road: "Yellow light — The yellow light warns that the signal is changing from
green to red. When the red light appears, you may not enter the intersection. "
NOT in ND's Rules of the Road; " A yellow indication means WARNING or CAUTION. The light is
changing from green to red."
It of course depends upon the state.
According to the LION you would be traveling at a NORMAL rate of speed with a green light displayed.
If the light changes to yellow and you are too close to the intersection to make a normal stop given the stopping distances for the legal speed on the road, you may pass the yellow signal.
If the light changes to yellow and you CAN stop in time before the intersection, then you must do so.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
If running a yellow light were illegal and the intersections were camera-equipped, local governments would be swimming in cash! The yellow is a warning that the light will turn red in x seconds (depending on where it is).
Semper Vaporo The yellow light part of the traffic light cycle is the same as a red light... you may not enter the intersection on a yellow light. The purpose of the Yellow is only to allow the intersection to clear of left turning vehicles before the light turns green for cross traffic. You are not allowed to enter the intersection if you cannot proceed all the way through before the light turns yellow, EXCEPT if you must stop to make a left turn, waiting for the light to halt oncoming traffic (with the YELLOW!).
The yellow light part of the traffic light cycle is the same as a red light... you may not enter the intersection on a yellow light. The purpose of the Yellow is only to allow the intersection to clear of left turning vehicles before the light turns green for cross traffic.
You are not allowed to enter the intersection if you cannot proceed all the way through before the light turns yellow, EXCEPT if you must stop to make a left turn, waiting for the light to halt oncoming traffic (with the YELLOW!).
I don't believe that is correct.
It is legal to enter an intersection on a yellow light, and it is legal to still be in the intersection when it turns red. But it is illegal to enter the intersection on red.
The pupose of the yellow is to give stopping time for changing from green to red.
After I just spouted off about what I think the regulations are, I realized I am sitting in front of the world's greatest research machine... I Googled for the info... found the following:
http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/dlmanual/section2.pdf
Iowa Department of Transportation Driver's License Manual. Check out page 16.
That page explains both vehicular traffic lights and RR crossings. I was not spot on in what I spouted off with, but it should settle the reasons for the various methods of signalization of intersections and grade crossings.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
There may not be an amber signal, but as Bucyrus says - the initial activation of the signals has a built in delay that operates much the same way. In the vast majority of cases, if one is travelling at the posted speed limit when the lights begin flashing and you are unable to safely stop before reaching the crossing, you are in little danger of being hit by the train.
The same is generally true of the amber phase of a traffic light - if one is travelling at an appropriate speed and is unable to effect a safe stop, odds are that one will pass through the intersection before the light changes to red.
On the other hand, a barrier across the highway is a rather obvious indication that the driver should not proceed past said barrier. And this seems to be where people get into trouble, ignoring the barrier.
Oddly, they wouldn't think about passing a construction barrier.
The Cross Bucks and gates are the warning devices installed by the railroad.
The paint on the road and the yellow X sign constitute your yellow light as you approach the crossing.
It is a sign, a "Fixed Yellow", but it is there nonetheless.
Unlike a highway intersection, here you must be ready to stop when the gates go down.
jeffhergert Bucyrus: It is easy to miss the point about the lack of a yellow light phase at grade crossings: Practically speaking, you don’t need the yellow light because there is a warning time built into the period between start of activation and the train arriving at the crossing. So there is no problem arising directly from the missing yellow light. The problem is more of an indirect nature. The problem is cultivating a belief on the part of drivers that it is okay to violate the red flashing signals. The official approval for that violation comes from a crossing warning that presents a full stop command to drivers when it is impossible for them to comply because they need time to decelerate. Authorities wag their fingers at drivers and lecture them about stopping for the red flashing lights, and then blithely set up a warning system that makes it impossible to stop in time. To drivers, it is a mixed message. It waters down the authority of the warning system. It gives encouragement to gate running. Since the crossbucks themselves are akin to a yield sign, couldn't it be argued that motorists should already be approaching a crossing prepared to stop and yield the right of way, no matter if the lights are flashing or not? Many jurisdictions have added either yield or stop signs to crossbuck only crossings. It seems most drivers that I've seen ignore them, too. It's like they must think that since it's a crossing, the stop sign doesn't matter. I remember reading some place, years ago in Trains, installed traffic lights at a crossing to see if it cut down on accidents. I don't know if there was ever a follow up on it, but I think I've seen it tried other places. The only problem with a yellow light before a red, is that some drivers think the yellow means, "GO FASTER!" Jeff
Bucyrus: It is easy to miss the point about the lack of a yellow light phase at grade crossings: Practically speaking, you don’t need the yellow light because there is a warning time built into the period between start of activation and the train arriving at the crossing. So there is no problem arising directly from the missing yellow light. The problem is more of an indirect nature. The problem is cultivating a belief on the part of drivers that it is okay to violate the red flashing signals. The official approval for that violation comes from a crossing warning that presents a full stop command to drivers when it is impossible for them to comply because they need time to decelerate. Authorities wag their fingers at drivers and lecture them about stopping for the red flashing lights, and then blithely set up a warning system that makes it impossible to stop in time. To drivers, it is a mixed message. It waters down the authority of the warning system. It gives encouragement to gate running.
Authorities wag their fingers at drivers and lecture them about stopping for the red flashing lights, and then blithely set up a warning system that makes it impossible to stop in time. To drivers, it is a mixed message. It waters down the authority of the warning system. It gives encouragement to gate running.
Since the crossbucks themselves are akin to a yield sign, couldn't it be argued that motorists should already be approaching a crossing prepared to stop and yield the right of way, no matter if the lights are flashing or not?
Many jurisdictions have added either yield or stop signs to crossbuck only crossings. It seems most drivers that I've seen ignore them, too. It's like they must think that since it's a crossing, the stop sign doesn't matter.
I remember reading some place, years ago in Trains, installed traffic lights at a crossing to see if it cut down on accidents. I don't know if there was ever a follow up on it, but I think I've seen it tried other places. The only problem with a yellow light before a red, is that some drivers think the yellow means, "GO FASTER!"
That is a good point. The crossbuck is a yield sign, so drivers should be prepared to stop. Traffic authorities have found that most drivers are not aware that a crossbuck is a yield sign, so they are adding yield signs to passive crossings, as you mentioned.
I asked Operation Lifesaver and MNDOT why they are not going to add yield signs to signalized crossings, and they told me that yield signs are not needed at signalized crossings because the signals protect drivers. I asked what if the signals fail, and they told me the signals cannot fail because they are fail-safe.
I would say that if many drivers do not know that a crossbuck means yield at a passive crossing, many more will not know it means yield at a signalized crossing. Just like MNDOT says, drivers will feel protected by the signals.
Yielding requires slowing down from the posted limit if visibility is too short to yield at full speed. There are signalized crossings with very limited sight distance. I have seen some in northern Wisconsin on 55 mph highways that would require slowing down to 30 mph or less in order to yield with such a short sight distance. Approaching the crossing, you can only see about 75 ft. of track on each side.
I asked the MN Highway Patrol if a driver is supposed to slow down on a fast highway to yield to un-activated signalized crossings with short sight distance. Three different contacts told me no. They said that there was no requirement to yield at un-activated grade crossings. They said that the signals would protect drivers, so there is no reason to slow down. They were perplexed that I would even consider slowing down for an un-activated crossing signal. They told me they don’t want drivers to slow down for un-activated crossing signals because it presents an unnecessary highway hazard.
Odd,
The only red light I have ever failed to stop for was at a street intersection, with the full complement of green then yellow followed by red lights (very short yellow).
Never once have I not been able to stop for the flashing red lights at the grade crossing with a railroad track.
Guess the knowledge of the fact that a collision with a train was potentially more deadly that a collision with a Yugo must have made more me aware of the tracks and the danger.
Mr. Lion,
From the GCOR, Rule 1.20......
1.20 Alert to Train Movement
Employees must expect the movement of trains, engines, cars, or other movable equipment at any time,
on any track, and in either direction.
Employees must not stand on the track in front of an approaching engine, car, or other moving equipment.
Employees must be aware of location of structures or obstructions where clearances are close.
23 17 46 11
In Japan there are arrows to point out the direction of the trains. These are a help. So might be a flashing white LED type sign that reads "TWO TRAINS PRESENT!"
Reminds the LION of the time he went down to the station to find a locomotive idling on the main track. Him jumped up on to a near by flat car spotted at the team track to take some pictures of it. When him stepped off, a second locomotive attached to the flat car sounded its horn, and pulled the car away.
Always look. There is more than one train on the railroad.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.