Electroliner 1935 There are two FED EX trucks in the video, Does any one know if the truck that the officer was following was struck in addition to the double bottom truck coming toward the camera? I would love to know what the driver said when he got out of his truck.
There are two FED EX trucks in the video, Does any one know if the truck that the officer was following was struck in addition to the double bottom truck coming toward the camera? I would love to know what the driver said when he got out of his truck.
The article I read said that the truck starring in this show was the only vehicle involved. (But that other truck had to have been awfully close to flying debris!)From the statement in some preceding posts about the maintainer's movements during the time, I suspect he's going to be implicated (and properly, in my opinion) on this. It reminds me an awful lot of the incident here in Illinois where an Amtrak train struck a car with fatal results--the cause was a shunt inadvertently left in the bungalow by the signal maintainer, causing the crossing to fail to work.Even if this is what happened, the UTA crew should have been aware that work was beng done at this crossing. They should have been approaching it prepared to stop unless they had communication that the crossing was protected. And, the crew should have seen that the gates had not lowered and the signals were not activated. Yes, even in the bad weather. So I think that there's plenty of blame to go around--and probably all around the UTA.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRREven if this is what happened, the UTA crew should have been aware that work was beng done at this crossing. They should have been approaching it prepared to stop unless they had communication that the crossing was protected. And, the crew should have seen that the gates had not lowered and the signals were not activated. Yes, even in the bad weather. So I think that there's plenty of blame to go around--and probably all around the UTA.
For the train and engine crew to know that crossing protection is not properly working they have to be NOTIFIED of it.
'IF' the signalman was 'intending' to raise the gates and make the protection inoperative - BEFORE doing so he SHOULD have notified the control operator of his intended action so that trains that would be operating through the area could be notified to supply necessary protection at the crossing.
Whoever made the mistakes - the liability is purely UTA's.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Would it be the truck driver's fault for relying on the signals rather than looking first to make sure the crossing was clear?
Euclid (1-25):
No, it would hardly be the truck driver’s fault. Some grade crossings, and it looks like the one in question is one of them, one cannot see what is coming because of the angle behind the vehicle driver.
It is similar to, but not as severe as, a “High Desert” grade crossing here in Southern California as seen from this October 13, 2008 view:
The above eastward (vehicle traveling implied) view has a rather severe angle between the track and the road. The Utah situation was opposite that in angle. It is easy to see a train coming in the above view, but in Utah nearly impossible to see a train coming from behind the vehicle.
A number of times over the years this forum contributor has been westbound at that above grade crossing. A helpful aspect at that grade crossing (when traveling westbound) is that the next grade crossing about a quarter of a mile west has a block signal thereat.
That similar to Utah “High Desert” grade crossing now has flashers and gates, so is much safer. But when westbound on that desert now paved road if that signal is off it solidifies that no train is coming from behind. In Utah, it is unknown if ‘knowledgeable’ people have any signals that can be used as a confirmation that no train is coming at the angled grade crossing. But the average person has no knowledge of such possible second conformation railroad signals and thus has NO backup confirmation that no train is coming at a ‘blind’ grade crossing. Since that is the case, signal maintainers must absolutely know their jobs. People lives are on the line, as we as railroaders and railfans very much know.
While the commuter railroad officials presently may be puzzled at what happened, as such usually are, K.P. believes someone at the commuter railroad now needs tranquilizers, and they will need them for months to come. The governing board may need some tranquilizers too if (“if”) someone points out to them that the signal system (green, yellow, and red) apparently wasn’t interlocked with the grade crossing devices either.
Now pondering getting into tranquilizer sales,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
I have been told by Operation Lifesaver that it is the driver’s responsibility to look for trains and yield to them even on crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates. So, if a driver fails to look and yield to a train approaching when the signals have failed to activate; and if the driver is struck by the train; then it is the driver’s fault. At an un-activated signalized grade crossing, the crossbuck alone has the meaning of a yield sign.
I believe that very few drivers realize this, because it is counterintuitive, and drivers are habituated to expecting relatively few train encounters; plus a perception of robust signals and gates which they naturally assume are sufficient for their protection.
This duty to look for trains at signalized crossings may require a driver to slow way down on a high speed road in order to visually confirm a train is not approaching if sight lines happen to be limited by obstructions. After all, the duty to yield to trains may include trains running at extremely high speeds, so it may require a driver on a 65 mph road to slow down to say 20 mph in order to see far enough down the track to make sure a high speed train is not approaching.
I once asked our State Patrol about this requirement to slow down for such crossings. They denied that such a requirement exists, and said that a driver should not slow down at all because it would risk causing a rear end collision. They said there was no reason to slow down because the automatic crossing signals will tell you if a train is coming.
Here is a reference to the law in Utah:
Utah Code 41-6a-1203. Railroad grade crossing -- Duty to stop (2) Whenever a person operating a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing, the operator of the vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad track and may not proceed if: (c) a railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible and the train by reason of its speed or nearness to the crossing is an immediate hazard; (d) an approaching train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing;
Somehow I feel that the statutory citation is being taken out of context. Is it part of a section referring to buses and vehicles transporting hazardous materials?
Other railroads have general procedures for situations where there is a problem with a crossing or crossing signal, the signal department (or other employees)notify the dispatcher, the dispatcher issues a bulletin to the crews warning the train and instructing them to follow one of several standard procedures, which can require them to stop, be prepared to stop or reduce speed depending on the situation (probably they would have been instructed to approach the crossing prepared to stop in a situation similar to the one on the video).
I don't know if the UTA has similar procedures, whether the dispatcher was notified, whether the crew was notified, how long the signal maintainer was working on the crossing, what the problem was or what the signal maintainer did to the crossing. Without knowing all of that and the timing, its possible that the process was being followed but that the train was closely approaching and process didn't have time to be completed prior to the train getting to the crossing. Or there was no process. Or there was a process and it wasn't followed. Not enough information to know what happened.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
CSSHEGEWISCH Somehow I feel that the statutory citation is being taken out of context. Is it part of a section referring to buses and vehicles transporting hazardous materials?
I assume this is not limited to buses and vehicles with hazmat. Here is the link:
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S1203.html
Balt, you're absolutely correct. When I said that the train crew "should be aware", it follows that thate should have been made aware by someone in authority that the crossing was defective, and they should approach it assuming that protection wasn't working. That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't). But in turn, the dispatcher would have to have been notified that the crossing was defective (which he must have been, since somebody had to have told the Signal Department), and again when the maintainer had arrived at the scene. UP's bungalows have (had?) a flashing light on them when someone was inside working on them. With the proper notifications in place, that would be warning enough. If there was a flasher on this bungalow and no notification, engineer should be contacting dispatcher and slowing down. I don't buy that the visibilty at the time was so bad that nothing could be seen (either by the train crew or a truck driver who had looked down the track...visibility was not impaired by surroundings, I've seen reported).I foresee a few "safety meetings" in UTA's future. I hope FRA funding isn't cut in the near future...
EuclidI have been told by Operation Lifesaver that it is the driver’s responsibility to look for trains and yield to them even on crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates. So, if a driver fails to look and yield to a train approaching when the signals have failed to activate; and if the driver is struck by the train; then it is the driver’s fault. At an un-activated signalized grade crossing, the crossbuck alone has the meaning of a yield sign.
I don't believe a jury would see it that way.
EuclidI once asked our State Patrol about this requirement to slow down for such crossings. They denied that such a requirement exists, and said that a driver should not slow down at all because it would risk causing a rear end collision. They said there was no reason to slow down because the automatic crossing signals will tell you if a train is coming.
State Patrol is correct. A motorist slowing way down or stopping creates a highway hazard. i.e: chain reaction rear end collision.
Effective 5/12/2015 41-6a-1203. Railroad grade crossing -- Duty to stop -- Malfunctions and school buses -- Driving through, around, or under gate or barrier prohibited.
Makes specific reference to school busses.
And given that the whole incident was captured on police video it won't go to court. The railroad will offer a settlement.
Norm
CShaveRR Balt, you're absolutely correct. When I said that the train crew "should be aware", it follows that thate should have been made aware by someone in authority that the crossing was defective, and they should approach it assuming that protection wasn't working. That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't). But in turn, the dispatcher would have to have been notified that the crossing was defective (which he must have been, since somebody had to have told the Signal Department), and again when the maintainer had arrived at the scene. UP's bungalows have (had?) a flashing light on them when someone was inside working on them. With the proper notifications in place, that would be warning enough. If there was a flasher on this bungalow and no notification, engineer should be contacting dispatcher and slowing down. I don't buy that the visibilty at the time was so bad that nothing could be seen (either by the train crew or a truck driver who had looked down the track...visibility was not impaired by surroundings, I've seen reported).I foresee a few "safety meetings" in UTA's future. I hope FRA funding isn't cut in the near future...
Carl,
That brings up a question. Was the signal maintainer employed by UTA, UP, of a contractor? That could have some bearing on whether the train crew got notification.
The responsible railroad's name and contact number would be on the bungalow.
As noted, there is plenty of blame to go around. Calhoun and Lightning are lining up for their share of the $ pie. Was there any paint transfered on the engine? Hope this event won't last as long as the crash in Phil. Pa.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Norm48327 Euclid I have been told by Operation Lifesaver that it is the driver’s responsibility to look for trains and yield to them even on crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates. So, if a driver fails to look and yield to a train approaching when the signals have failed to activate; and if the driver is struck by the train; then it is the driver’s fault. At an un-activated signalized grade crossing, the crossbuck alone has the meaning of a yield sign. Effective 5/12/2015 41-6a-1203. Railroad grade crossing -- Duty to stop -- Malfunctions and school buses -- Driving through, around, or under gate or barrier prohibited. Makes specific reference to school busses.
Euclid I have been told by Operation Lifesaver that it is the driver’s responsibility to look for trains and yield to them even on crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates. So, if a driver fails to look and yield to a train approaching when the signals have failed to activate; and if the driver is struck by the train; then it is the driver’s fault. At an un-activated signalized grade crossing, the crossbuck alone has the meaning of a yield sign.
Norm,
The reference to school buses does not mean that the whole section only applies to school buses. Specific parts apply to school buses, but the part requring drivers to look for trains an un-activated, signalized crossings applies to all vehicles. It begins with this language: "
Utterly absurd and irresponsible to require vehicles to stop at all crossings with gates and/or flashers because some doofus does not know how to maintain them. Supposed code or not, the courts will rightly find the railroad in neglect.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CShaveRR That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't).
That would have to have been done by the dispatcher (judging from the train's speed, it wasn't).
Maybe or the crew got it and didn't act on it or the crew got it and didn't have time to act on it. We don't know.
But in turn, the dispatcher would have to have been notified that the crossing was defective (which he must have been, since somebody had to have told the Signal Department) and again when the maintainer had arrived at the scene.
Not necessarily. Just because the signal department knows, that doesn't mean the dispatcher knows. We don't know who dispatched the signal maintainer, we don't know when it was discovered and we don't know if the dispatcher was notified and when. Just because there is a signal maintainer present doesn't mean that the dispatcher was notified.
UP's bungalows have (had?) a flashing light on them when someone was inside working on them. With the proper notifications in place, that would be warning enough. If there was a flasher on this bungalow and no notification, engineer should be contacting dispatcher and slowing down.
No, the light on the bungalow may means the system is on. And it is of no significance to a train. Just because a signal maintainer is in a bunglow doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the crossing or the signals or that the train has to do anything special. Plus since the train is on the far side of the crossing from the bungalow, unless the engineer had X ray vision and could see through 2 FedEx trucks, he isn't going to be able to see the bungalow, let alone a light on it.
I foresee a few "safety meetings" in UTA's future. I hope FRA funding isn't cut in the near future...
UTA has had issues in the past too.
You also have to back up and set the context. What were the signals doing when the signal maintainer arrived? Were they up or down? If the signal maintainer gets a call that the signals are stuck down, and drives up and they are still down with no train, then there probably is a problem (but the system has failed "safe").
If the signal maintainer was told the gates are stuck down, arrives and the gates are up, with no train there, he doesn't know whether the system is malfunctioning or not nor what caused the gates to come down before. At that point he has to go into the cabin and check the logs and do some tests.
What we also don't know is what he did and what was wrong with the system. Did he reset something that caused the system to be inactive for a while? Was the system detectibly broken ? If you went into a signal cabin and there was no train there, the gates were up and the status lights were all green, you wouldn't take the crossing out of service. If the gates were down when you got there, you reset whatever was failing and the gates went up, did it give the maintainer the indications that the signals were normal? We don't know (and the people on this list will probably never know since there is probably no requirement to publish the results of the investigation).
It is entirely possible that it was a total process failure or its entirely possible that signal maintainer may not have been able to tell the system had failed quickly enough to provide a warning. We don't know. It looks like a process failure, but that doesn't mean it is until the look at the logs and talk to the signal maintainer, dispatcher and crew.
Crossing was former UP First/Salt Lake Sub. now owned and maintained by UTA(UFRC) with UP and UTAH operating over it on UP's reserved freight rail easement...Former DRGW main is now the Woods Cross Industrial Lead. UTA ownership extends north to Ogden (Nye's Crossing)
Compounding the problem was the fact that this resided in a lousy Quiet Zone.
Let FRA sort this out. (It's going to be VERY involved as Carl and Balt implied.)
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH Somehow I feel that the statutory citation is being taken out of context. Is it part of a section referring to buses and vehicles transporting hazardous materials? I assume this is not limited to buses and vehicles with hazmat. Here is the link: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S1203.html
per http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title41/Chapter6A/41-6a-S1005.html
a grade crossing is an "Active railroad grade crossing" only when gates are closed or closing, warning lights are flashing, bells are sounding, etc.
schlimm Utterly absurd and irresponsible to require vehicles to stop at all crossings with gates and/or flashers because some doofus does not know how to maitain them. Supposed code or not, the courts will rightly find the railroad in neglect.
Utterly absurd and irresponsible to require vehicles to stop at all crossings with gates and/or flashers because some doofus does not know how to maitain them. Supposed code or not, the courts will rightly find the railroad in neglect.
Railroad at fault but truck driver should have been more vigilent about checking both ways anyway prior to proceeding over the tracks. It's somewhat like proceeding through an intersection on a green light..even though you've got the right of way you check both ways anyway. A pro driver is expected to drive defensively at all times...that's why they call them pros.
Ulrich schlimm Utterly absurd and irresponsible to require vehicles to stop at all crossings with gates and/or flashers because some doofus does not know how to maitain them. Supposed code or not, the courts will rightly find the railroad in neglect. Railroad at fault but truck driver should have been more vigilent about checking both ways anyway prior to proceeding over the tracks. It's somewhat like proceeding through an intersection on a green light..even though you've got the right of way you check both ways anyway. A pro driver is expected to drive defensively at all times...that's why they call them pros.
According to the law, the driver is at fault. He did not look for trains and yield as the meaning of the crossbuck requires. It means that continuously, no matter whether the crossing signals are activated or not. If you pass a yield sign and get hit, it is your fault.
The railroad simply experienced an equipment failure. They do not legally guarantee that such a failure will not happen.
Quiet zone plus snow and no crossing gate activation and you going after the driver. Sure let's see how well the courts play that one out when on dashcam you can see the truck get spun almost completely around while being ripped in half then after his trailer is scattered all over the tracks did the gates come down. Even the most anti trucker jury in the nation is going to go he was the injured party in this one.
What is the normal Speed Limit on the highway that this incident happend on?
What is the intersection angle between the railroad and the highway?
What was the 'real' visibility at the time of the incident?
What is the sight line of the railroad for vehicles traveling in the direction of the truck that was struck?
EuclidThe railroad simply experienced an equipment failure.
Maybe - maybe not. As I noted earlier, there was a situation where the maintainer had disabled crossing protection and neglected to reactivate it, resulting in several deaths.
Given the apparent situation where there had been false activations, this becomes a possibility.
And while the driver may well share a portion of the blame for not having "Stop, Look, & Listened," the installed crossing protection equipment did not operate as it should, which opens the railroad up for liability, especially if there was a human factor involved.
Could be interesting.
In answer to Balt's question, there are two crossings near the Woods Cross Station. I did a little digging from the news reports and on satellite images.
The one to the north N 40 53' 2" W 111 54' 4" is a four lane road. The one to the south N 40 52' 28" W 111 54' 20" is a two lane road, which is consistent with what appears in the video.
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...
Euclid Ulrich schlimm Utterly absurd and irresponsible to require vehicles to stop at all crossings with gates and/or flashers because some doofus does not know how to maitain them. Supposed code or not, the courts will rightly find the railroad in neglect. Railroad at fault but truck driver should have been more vigilent about checking both ways anyway prior to proceeding over the tracks. It's somewhat like proceeding through an intersection on a green light..even though you've got the right of way you check both ways anyway. A pro driver is expected to drive defensively at all times...that's why they call them pros. According to the law, the driver is at fault. He did not look for trains and yield as the meaning of the crossbuck requires. It means that continuously, no matter whether the crossing signals are activated or not. If you pass a yield sign and get hit, it is your fault. The railroad simply experienced an equipment failure. They do not legally guarantee that such a failure will not happen.
Thousands of attorneys would be out of work if it were that simple. Both parties likely share some responsibility and fault. The railroad for not maintaining the crossing, and the truck driver for not exercising due caution. Each situation is evaluated on its own merits.. the extent of fault of each involved party.. any mitigating circumstances, fines/penalties/sanctions,moving violations/convictions, whether or not there are criminal charges pending, compensation, etc...all for the attorneys to sort out.
I am just pointing out what the law says. I have no idea what a jury would decide or what a court would instruct them to consider. The only other failure-to-activate crossing collision I know of was the one in Chicago where Katy Lund was killed. In that case, the signal maintainers checked their work with an unrestricted Amtrak train moving through the crossing at 80 mph. Their work failed the test, and their test killed Katy Lund. I do recall hearing that the family won a large civil award against the railroad when they went to court.
In any case, failing to yield to a train at a signalized crossing where the signals have failed to activate is no different than failing to yield to a train at a passive crossing without any signals. And we all agree that drivers who get hit while trying to beat the train are at fault. Isn’t that right?
But I think it is a bad law because most drivers are unaware of the requirement to look for trains at a signalized crossing because it is counterintuitive. You have a crossing with massive automatic flashing red signals and mechanical gates. We are all told that this equipment is for our protection and that we must comply with its warning. There is no caution sign telling us that the signals may not work, and therefore we should not rely on them. So it is not surprising that drivers do rely on them. After all, if you can’t rely on them, what is the point of having them?
Dave H., I'm well aware of UP's "system on" light on the bungalows, because that ws installed on ex-CNW bungalows almost immediately after the merger. The flashing (rotating beacon) was something different. It may have been given up on; I haven't seen it lately. I don't think they even have that "blue beacon" system at the Rochelle diamond any more.
EuclidIn any case, failing to yield to a train at a signalized crossing where the signals have failed to activate is no different than failing to yield to a train at a passive crossing without any signals. And we all agree that drivers who get hit while trying to beat the train are at fault. Isn’t that right?
Well, you just said Katy Lund was not at fault. You say drivers are required to stop at protected crossings when the gates/lights/bells are not operating yet the state trooper you spoke with says differently. You can't have it both ways. And yes, there are different requirements for protected and non-protected crossings.
EuclidBut I think it is a bad law because most drivers are unaware of the requirement to look for trains at a signalized crossing because it is counterintuitive. You have a crossing with massive automatic flashing red signals and mechanical gates. We are all told that this equipment is for our protection and that we must comply with its warning. There is no caution sign telling us that the signals may not work, and therefore we should not rely on them. So it is not surprising that drivers do rely on them. After all, if you can’t rely on them, what is the point of having them?
You conveniently left out the part about complying with them when they are working. There is no requirement for a motorist to stop at any crossing that is protected. Remember the state trooper? Please stop trying to spin this to your liking.
CShaveRR Dave H., I'm well aware of UP's "system on" light on the bungalows, because that ws installed on ex-CNW bungalows almost immediately after the merger. The flashing (rotating beacon) was something different. It may have been given up on; I haven't seen it lately. I don't think they even have that "blue beacon" system at the Rochelle diamond any more.
We are seeing some plain old turn signals (both sides amber) being installed on bungalows, especially if the bungalow is visible before the crossing on a curve. It shows that the crossing circuit activated, nothing more.
Somebody is going to be in deep do do here...Who actauly owns the track? UTA or UP? or both?
Norm48327 Euclid In any case, failing to yield to a train at a signalized crossing where the signals have failed to activate is no different than failing to yield to a train at a passive crossing without any signals. And we all agree that drivers who get hit while trying to beat the train are at fault. Isn’t that right? Well, you just said Katy Lund was not at fault. You say drivers are required to stop at protected crossings when the gates/lights/bells are not operating yet the state trooper you spoke with says differently. You can't have it both ways. And yes, there are different requirements for protected and non-protected crossings. Euclid But I think it is a bad law because most drivers are unaware of the requirement to look for trains at a signalized crossing because it is counterintuitive. You have a crossing with massive automatic flashing red signals and mechanical gates. We are all told that this equipment is for our protection and that we must comply with its warning. There is no caution sign telling us that the signals may not work, and therefore we should not rely on them. So it is not surprising that drivers do rely on them. After all, if you can’t rely on them, what is the point of having them? You conveniently left out the part about complying with them when they are working. There is no requirement for a motorist to stop at any crossing that is protected. Remember the state trooper? Please stop trying to spin this to your liking.
Euclid In any case, failing to yield to a train at a signalized crossing where the signals have failed to activate is no different than failing to yield to a train at a passive crossing without any signals. And we all agree that drivers who get hit while trying to beat the train are at fault. Isn’t that right?
Euclid But I think it is a bad law because most drivers are unaware of the requirement to look for trains at a signalized crossing because it is counterintuitive. You have a crossing with massive automatic flashing red signals and mechanical gates. We are all told that this equipment is for our protection and that we must comply with its warning. There is no caution sign telling us that the signals may not work, and therefore we should not rely on them. So it is not surprising that drivers do rely on them. After all, if you can’t rely on them, what is the point of having them?
I have never claimed there to be a requirement to STOP at a un-activated, signalized crossing. The law requires drivers to YIELD to trains at all crossings-- including un-activated, signalized crossings. In order to yield, you have to know if a train is approaching. That may require slowing down in order to see far enough down the track to see if a train is approaching, and to be traveling slow enough to stop short if a train is approaching. This act of yielding would probably never require a driver to stop.
As I clearly explained above, I disagree with the law. If the law were to have any merit, at the very least, signage should be posted at signalized crossings warning drivers to look for trains in case the signals fail. Otherwise drivers will rely on the signals to tell them if it is safe to cross. It is a natural, common sense conclusion.
So I am not trying to have it both ways. Because I disagree with the law, I do believe that Katy Lund was not at fault, and I do agree with the state trooper who advised that slowing down to look for trains would be danerous. But according to the law, the trooper was wrong, and so was Katy Lund. The law requires drivers to yield, and if they yield, there will be no collision. So the proper solution would be to add the signage I mentioned that would warn drivers to look for trains and not rely on signals at signalized crossings.
There is a reason why I believe this will never happen, though. The warning message would cast doubt on the signal system, which would create the impression that not enough is being done to prevent crossing collisions.
Here is a point to consider: Authorities are adding yield signs to passive crossings because they have learned that most drivers do not realized that the crossbuck means yield. I asked Operation Lifesaver, and our state DOT why they don't add yield signs to signalized crossings for the same reason. Both organizations will tell you that a driver must yield at a passive crossing and also at a signalized crossing, whether the signals are activated or not.
Both organizations told me they saw no reason to add a yield sign to signalized crossings because the signals protect the driver, thus making a yeild sign unnecessary. And yet both tell me that drivers must yield when the signals are un-activated because the signals might fail when a train is approaching.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.