You are saying that the railroad didn’t break any laws?
I don’t mean to say that. I am only asking about how the blame is placed in a case where the signals fail, but the driver has a legal obligation to yield to all trains no matter whether the signals are activated or not.
Where do you get the idea that motorists have a “yield” obligation at a signalized grade crossing if the signals don’t indicate that a train is coming? That’s a new one on me.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
I don’t want to sound like I am piling on the victim in this crash, but it raises a perplexing question. Drivers are supposed to yield at grade crossings no matter whether the signals and gates are activated or not, and no matter whether the signals and gates fail to activate upon the approach of a train.
The crossbuck alone requires a driver to yield, and for a driver to yield, a driver must know that no train is approaching before the driver crosses. That is the law according to the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, and the state DOTs.
While there may be some hair-splitting over what it means to yield in merging situations where no collision occurs, it is 100% clear that if a driver gets hit by a train, that driver did not yield.
Therefore, in cases where a driver gets hit by a train at a grade crossing where the signals have failed to activate, that driver has failed to yield, as the law requires.
So, who is at fault in such a collision? To most people, it would seem to be the railroad’s fault because their war
[quote user=“Paul_D_North_Jr”]
Falcon48 - I have not before seen or heard the use of the term ‘‘deranged’’ in the context of disabling or ‘‘un-arranging’’ railroad grade crossing signals - only in the more common context of a severely mentally unstable or ill person, etc. But sure enough, a quick Google search discloses that it has been used in the railroad signalling literature and references as at least as far back as 1903. And here’s the first 2 meanings under a definition that I found on-line that corroborates your usage of it, per: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deranged
1. To disturb the order or arrangement of.
2. To upset the normal condition or functioning of.
I was wondering the same thing too as blue streak 1 mentions above earlier today - until the correct operation of the crossing signals was tested and confirmed, why wasn’t this crossing being flagged, and with a fusee at night ? The number of personnel shouldn’t have been an issue - when a conductor is ‘flagging’ across a crossing as part of normal switching operations, or when a crossing is subject to a ‘flagging order’, there’s only 1 of him/ her then, too, and that’s enough to get the job done.
Putting a far more cynical and devious spin on this, I can see a plaintiff’s attorney essentially claiming that the railroad’s employee
That is the key here. It depends on how Illinois law is written. In the Missouri Driver’s Guide (.pdf file found here: http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/dlguide/dlguide.pdf), on page 41 it reads:
A white, X-shaped sign or “crossbuck” is located at the railroad crossing. This sign has the same meaning as a “yield” sign; therefore, you must yield to trains at crossings. …snip…
When you see any of these signs [round advance warning sign, pavement markings, crossbuck], SLOW DOWN, look for a train, and be ready to stop You must STOP if the red lights are flashing or the gate is down. …snip
The way I read it, here in Missouri a driver should be prepared to stop and yield to a train whenever they encounter a crossbuck, regardless of activation of lights and/or gate.
My own opinion is that the signal maintainers that were there should have flagged the crossing until they were positive the signals were working correctly.
Falcon48: Yes a number of trains used the trackage. My understanding is that some work had just been done in the approach area that Amtrak ran through not maintenance but actual a capital project?. There could have been an inadvertent change in the shunt circuit caused by the signal work. ( maybe an engineering mistake ) Could be a long train would shunt the signals but not a short train?The signal apparatus definitely did not work for the Amtrak train but there is indication that the signals started working when the Amtrak train occupied the circuit at the road?
The signal department must have had some concern to be at the crossing at this time of day?
As James has explained in a post above, it is the crossbuck atop the flashers at a signalized crossing that means yield. A crossbuck is equivalent to a yield sign. So the crossbuck requires a driver to yield even if the signals are inactivated. To yield, a driver must look for approaching trains to make sure there are none. I sought and received confirmation of this interpretation from the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, and my state DOT.
Have been doing a non-scientific survey and absolutely no one knows of this requirement. In fact several said I was full of hot air. It now appears that a massive educational program would not achieve good results. So what is the answer?
I was thinking the same thing - that the maintenance people may have adjusted the shunt sensitivity of one of the approach circuits outside normal parameters. This is something that should have been picked up by their required testing, if they actually did it. I hadn’t previously seen anything indicating that the signals started working when the Amtrak train occupied the circuit right at the road. That’s certainly possible, since the “island circuit” is separate from the approach circuits. But the “island circuit” is pretty short and designed only to keep the signals activated while the train is occupying the crossing. It wouldn’t have given any appreciable advance warning for a fast moving train.
But, of course, this is all just speculation. I suspect
Falcon48 - The statement by the Cook County Asst. Prosecutor - Lauren Brown, if I recall correctly, which is in one of the articles that is linked over on the other thread on this incident - was that the crossing gates came down by the time the 2nd-to-the-last car of the Amtrak train was on the crossing. That’s what led me to speculate that perhaps the approach circuit wasn’t working correctly for some reason, but the middle ‘island’ circuit did sense the train and only then activated the signals when the train got that far - or maybe it was the approach circuit on the other/ far side ? I believe you and I would share similar views as to the credibility of Ms. Brown from her age, training, and the nature of her profession - I’d be very inclined to rely on her testimony unless there was very strong contrary technical evidence. - Paul North.
Well, since this accident occurred in Illinois, not Missouri, here is what Illinois law says about the obligation to “yield” at railroad crossbuck sign:
"At any railroa
In reading the rest of 625 ILCS 5/11-1201, they don’t say yield, but say to exercise due care because a railroad track across a highway is a warning of danger. It gives some conditions as to when a vehicle must stop for a train. One condition mentions activiated warning lights/gates. Other conditions do not.
To me, it sounds like you are to slow down and look for a train whether the gates/lights are working or not. If a train is approaching, you are to stop. I also think it’s written, like a lot of laws, just ambiguous enough to be argued either way.
Jeff
Falcon: How about heard a train. I’ve stopped several times at various signaled crossing when I heard a train because I roll the window down. ( train wasn’t at that crossing but slowing at a very close crossing). I have no idea what I would do at the new quite zone crossings. Are they marked quite zone as I have only seen FEC tracks so marked?
Falcon48, thanks for posting the Illinois law. Just as a side note, I have noticed that here in rural Missouri most drivers slow as to yield at signaled crossings. This came as a surprise to me since I grew up and learned to drive in other states.
As to your three observations, I have no argument. Your third observation, I agree with completely.
Falcon 48,
Thanks for posting the Illinois law. It does indeed exclude signalized crossings from the need to treat a crossbuck as a yield sign. I don’t know how to reconcile that information with the apparently conflicting information from the FRA.
Here is my question that I submitted to the FRA:
I have a question about signalized railroad grade crossings. Does the crossbuck at these signalized crossings constitute a yield sign? If so, does that mean that a driver must slow down and make sure no trains are approaching even if the signals are not activated? Thank you.
Here the response I received from the FRA:
The crossbuck sign means yield. It is the motorist responsibility to slow down, look in both directions and determine if a train is approaching.
The factual issue would be whether the driver either knew, or must have known, that a train was approaching a crossings even though the grade crossing signals weren’t functioning. Frankly, that’s a pretty stiff standard and would be a hard sell to a fact finder (be it a judge or a jury). The normal assumption would be that, if the gates or lights weren’t functioning, there is no train,. It would be really hard to show that the driver really should have realized a train was coming. After all, do you slow to a crawl at signalized crossings when the signals aren’t actuated in order to see or hear whether there is really a train approaching. I consider myself a pretty careful person around railroads, and I don’t. I doubt that any of you do either.
With respect to “new” quiet zone crossings, federal rules require that they be marked with a “no train horn” sign at the advance crossing warning sign. The only crossings where this doesn’t apply is at the “old” quiet zone crossings in the 6 county Chicago metro area.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Falcon 48,
Thanks for posting the Illinois law. It does indeed exclude signalized crossings from the need to treat a crossbuck as a yield sign. I don’t know how to reconcile that information with the apparently conflicting information from the FRA.
Here is my question that I submitted to the FRA:
I have a question about signalized railroad grade crossings. Does the crossbuck at these signalized crossings constitute a yield sign? If so, does that mean that a driver must slow down and make sure no trains are approaching even if the signals are not activated? Thank you.
Here the response I received from the FRA:
The crossbuck sign means yield. It is the motorist responsibility to slow down, look in both directions and determine if a train is approaching. The train always has the right of way.
The issue to which I was responding was the assertion that a “crossbuck” sign in Illinois meant “yield” at a crossing with active warning devices. It does not. I specifically mentioned in my earlier note that there were other provisions in Illinois law that required a motorist to stop for a freight train, without regard to the meaning of a “crossbuck” sign. But these all require that the approach of the train be evident. I don’t think there is a judge or jury in Illinois or elsewhere which would conclude that a motorist was negligent for not slowing and looking for a train at a crossing equipped with active warning devices which were not activated. I’m ordiinarily on the side of railroads in grade crossings accidents, the vast majority of which are caused by driver misconduct. But one caused by a signal system failure (particularly a failure apparently due to an error by railroad maintenance personnel) is one where the railroad should just face the music and pay up. I suspect that’s exactly what CN will do here.
Falcon48,
You may be correct that a crossbuck does not mean yield when it is applied to a signalized crossing anywhere in the U.S., or that may only be the case in Illinois. While the FRA may not have the authority to interpret or enforce state law, they have done so per my inquiry to them. They may be incorrect in their response to me. Somewhere here I have an email from Operation Lifesaver confirming what the FRA said.
I have found several references indicating that a crossbuck means the same thing as a YIELD sign. According to the language of the Illinois law, that requirement to yield per the meaning of a crossbuck is apparently suspended at signalized crossings. I do not know if that is the case with other states. However, if the meaning of a crossbuck is not intended to apply at signalized crossings, I wonder why crossbucks are installed at signalized crossings.