Grade Crossing Signal Ambiguity

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

In one of the Nevada Amtrak crash threads, I asked how a driver can be expected to stop for the red flashing lights should they happen to suddenly activate upon approach to the crossing when a driver is too close to stop in time.

I have received the following information from the MUTCD in response to this basic question, which I posed to them:

There is no requirement for a driver to slow way down or to stop in order to be able to yield to the red flashing lights should they happen to activate.

If a driver is approaching a signalized grade crossing, and the lights activate when the driver is too close to stop, it is permissible for the driver to pass the flashing lights without stopping. However, this permission to

2

Bucyrus said, in part: “…Incidentally, there is a legal requirement to yield to trains at signalized crossings when they are un-activated. The un-activated signals would be clear, but the crossbuck is a yield sign. And this legal requirement to yield might require slowing down if an approaching diver cannot see far enough down the track to properly yield at the speed the driver is traveling…”

Just a thought; would it not be the rational thing to approach each crossing prepared to stop? Most signaled crossings do seem to incorporate a ‘crossbuck’ in their design. So the inference would be that a" Yield" would be an appropriate response(?) at each railroad crossing instance. [2c]

3

Bucyrus:

Yielding to a train requires a driver to actually see the train before entering the crossing. However, for many crossings it is impossible to see whether a train is coming until one is actually on the tracks due to vegetation, crossing angle, etc.

The ability to yield to a train under any and all circumstances requires that all vehicles slow down to a crawl or even stop at every crossing every time. This is impractical and as been stated numerous times, dangerous.

A law that requires drivers to yield to trains may have made sense when railroads were the dominant form of transportation and there were relatively few vehicles. It seems obsolete now that road vehicles are the dominant form of transportation.

Anthony V.

4

“Yielding to a train requires a driver to actually see the train before entering the crossing. However, for many crossings it is impossible to see whether a train is coming until one is actually on the tracks due to vegetation, crossing angle, etc. The ability to yield to a train under any and all circumstances requires that all vehicles slow down to a crawl or even stop at every crossing every time. This is impractical and as been stated numerous times, dangerous.”

You WILL yield to trains—it’s the law!

From the California Driver Handbook:

"SPEED LIMITS

Near Railroad Tracks

The speed limit is 15 MPH within 100 feet of a railroad crossing where you can not see the tracks for 400 feet in both directions. You may drive faster than 15 MPH if the crossing is controlled by gates, a warning signal, or a flag Man."

The Uniform Vehicle Code has similar wording in its model law for railroad-highway crossings.

Kurt Hayek

5

I have seen a number of posts in various threads over the years arguing that there is some kind of a legal requirement for motorists to stop or yield to trains at a railroad crossing even if the crossing is equipped with an active warning system, and the warning system doesn’t indicate the approach of a train.

I don’t want to get into yet another debate about statutury language. I simply want to point out that a railroad finding itself in a position where a grade crossing accident has resulted from an activation failure of an active grade crossing warning system will almost certainly be held liable for the accidents, and will probably settle the case without a trial. One can make all kinds of esoteric arguments about statutory language, but that’s what the law really is. Further, while I’m certainly not a fan of holding

6

I looked up that same section a week or so ago. The handbook seems to imply that it is legal to drive faster than the speed that would allow the driver to always come to a complete stop before the limit line of the crossing immediately after the signals activate. Seems to me that the handbook could use some tweaking.

The California motor vehicle code allows (or at least used to allow) for some leeway with traffic laws provided that the driver can prove what he/she did was safe. In the case of a crossing signal activating when the driver is to close too come to a safe stop (assuming the driver was traveling at or under the speed limit), he/she is likely to be successful in making the case before a judge about not being in violation of the law. This would be similar to where some red light camera tickets were thrown out because the yellow (amber) interval was set too short for the posted speed limit.

I would also argue that if it not possible to stop in time, that the safest course of action is to maintain speed in order to clear the crossing promptly. This brings up another assumption, i.e. that there is enough clear space on the other side of the crossing for the vehicle to clear the crossing.

  • Erik

Physics wins…

7

ERIK:

You are so right![I] The Laws of Physics will more times than not prevail. [tup]

I cannot speak to the Traffic Laws in California and their enforcement, but they seem at times to suffer a sort of ‘wheelbarrow enforcement’ at the hands of LEOs out there. [2c]

Having driven commercially for a whole lot of miles, primarily in the Midwest to East and South and some North of the Boarder; not to mention being involved in ‘some’ various ‘outcomes’ in many States. Lets say." I learned the hard way[:^)] that I always had more time to exercise CAUTION than I had time to ‘splain to some LEO, and fill out the attendant paperwork. [:’(]

[soapbox] I would not attempt to tell someone else how to drive, now that I have retired. Let alone attempt to put an ‘old head’ on ‘young shoulders’, but approaching a railroad crossing with a modicum of caution will always pay off. Particularly, in this day and time when train speeds can be anywhere between zero and 70 mph. And as you erikem first mentioned, 'Physics always wins!" and the rule of solid object and occupation [of the same space, particularly with an object of much greater mass.] The TRAIN will always win.[banghead]

Even in California. [|(]

8

“A law that requires drivers to yield to trains may have made sense when railroads were the dominant form of transportation and there were relatively few vehicles. It seems obsolete now that road vehicles are the dominant form of transportation.”

I have re read this statement several times. The logic of the author still escapes me. It seems to be implying that cars should have the right of way over trains. That is absurd.

9

Dave:

Into the Theater of the Absurd; A number of years ago, I was stuck in a motel over a weekend in Auburn, Mass. There was a program on the TV referencing some old, arcane laws from around New England.

One that stuck in my mind was concerning the approach of a horse drawn vehicle to an automobile. At which point the driver of the car was to dismount and take a part off of the auto that would disable it. Throw the offending part into the weeds by the roadside. Assuming, that after the meet, the driver could retrieve the part and reassemble the auto and continue on the interrupted journey.

Maybe, some of the Luddites in California could have this written into their laws; each time there was a collision between a Train and an auto at a railroad crossing, The railroad would be at fault, because the engineer did not disable his engine upon meeting an automobile. Since there are so many motorists in California who are delayed by trains? [:-^][(-D][(-D]

10

Being prepared to stop is one component of the meaning of yield. The other component is to look for conflicting traffic (a train in this case), and to give way to it. However, being prepared to s

11

[quote user=“AnthonyV”]

Bucyrus:

Incidentally, there is a legal requirement to yield to trains at signalized crossings when they are un-activated. The un-activated signals would be clear, but the crossbuck is a yield sign. And this legal requirement to yield might require slowing down if an approaching diver cannot see far enough down the track to properly yield at the speed the driver is traveling. It seems to me that would always be the case at night regardless of any actual physical sight obstructions.

Bucyrus:

Yielding to a train requires a driver to actually see the train before entering the crossing. However, for many crossings it is impossible to see whether a train is coming until one is actually on the tracks due to vegetation, crossing angle, etc.

The ability to yield to a train under any and all circumstances requires that all vehicles slow down to a crawl or even stop at every crossing every time. This is impractical and as been stated numerous times, dangerous.

A law that requires drivers to yield to trains may have made sense when railroads were the dominant form of transportation and there were relatively few vehicles. It seems obsolete now that road vehicles are the dominant form of transportation.

Anthony V.

12

You are correct in stating that this discussion has little to do with the direct cause of the Nevada accident. IT IS relevant in what to do in regards to preventing future accidents of that sort. One change in particular would be stricter enforcement of motor vehicle laws pertaining to grade crossings and the issue of when a driver has to stop is an essential part of enforcement.

The amount of effort that the state of Nevada put into grade crossing law enforcement will be a major factor in determining if the State of Nevada has any liability in the accident.

  • Erik
13

Falcon48,

I recall our past discussions about this issue. I defer to your legal expertise regarding your description of the assignment of blame on the railroad in collisions at signalized crossings that result because the signals fail to activate upon approach of a train. I agree that blaming the railroad in such cases does seem logical. Part of the Illinois law that was central to our previous discussion about this seems to agree with your position that if the signals are not-activated, a driver is not expected to yield or look for trains. However, another part of that Illinois law conflicts with that. I asked someone at the MCTCD if he could explain the conflict, and he could not.

In any case, here is what the FRA told me when I asked if it was necessary to yield as required by the crossbuck at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated:

14

There is a single track crossing a main road near where I live. The crossing is guarded by gates. The road speed limit is 40 mph. The tracks cross the road at about 120 degrees. The track on one side is in a cut and is hidden from view. The track on the other side is hidden by vegetation. It is impossible to see whether a train is coming until you are actually crossing the track.

Based on the law as stated in California, Illinois, or anywhere else, how should drivers cross this crossing? Should they stop, slow down to a crawl, travel at 15 mph, faster than 15 mph (whatever that means), or 40 mph?

Anthony V.

15

Certain vehicles, such as trucks hauling hazmat loads, and school busses, are required by law to stop at every railroad crossing. This applies regardless of whether or not the crossing has lights/gates, So those who suggest that drivers should not be prepared to slow or stop because they might get rear-ended are putting the onus on the wrong driver. The problem is the following driver, because if you are following a school bus, you will be forced to stop just as the school bus does. (Assuming a single lane in each direction, and no pull-off.) And if you drive beyond your range of vision, you risk running into a stopped fuel tanker or school bus, and you will then legally be at fault for the accident.

If you need a link to verify this, here you go:

http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title14/sec14-250.html

This link cites Connecticut law, but most other states are quite similar.

16

[quote user=“Bucyrus”]

Falcon48,

I recall our past discussions about this issue. I defer to your legal expertise regarding your description of the assignment of blame on the railroad in collisions at signalized crossings that result because the signals fail to activate upon approach of a train. I agree that blaming the railroad in such cases does seem logical. Part of the Illinois law that was central to our previous discussion about this seems to agree with your position that if the signals are not-activated, a driver is not expected to yield or look for trains. However, another part of that Illinois law conflicts with that. I asked someone at the MCTCD if he could explain the conflict, and he could not.

In any case, here is what the FRA told me when I asked if it was necessary to yield as required by the crossbuck at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated:

17

[quote user=“Falcon48”]

Bucyrus:

In any case, here is what the FRA told me when I asked if it was necessary to yield as required by the crossbuck at signalized crossings when the signals are not activated:

“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. This is required if the grade crossing is equipped with active warning devices or only the crossbuck.

Failure to yield to a train could result in a citation or serious injury or even worse, a fatality.

I hope this answers your question.”

Note that the FRA response actually ducks the question you asked. It doesn’t really answer the question of whether a motorist is required to treat an unactivated grade crossing warning signal as a yield sign.

[/quot

18

(My emphasis added to above quote in blue)

I can understand your conclusion that if some vehicles are required to stop, the rest are not required to stop. However, I do not believe you can logically conclude that because some vehicles are required to stop, the rest are not required to yield. It is not a logical deduction.

19

Our legal system is not black-and-white – it is a constant balancing of conflicting rules, conflicting interests & policies, and conflicting facts & circumstances. The “law” is not ultimately what is in the books, but what a judge says it is in a given case.

Yes, there is a general legal principle that, if the law requires certain people (but not others) to do something (like stop at a RR crossing), then there is an assumption (not necessarily conclusive) that those others don’t have to follow that rule under the same circumstances. (By the time I went to law school, even the Jesuits didn’t require Latin, so I won’t try to quote the technical name of the principle!)

And yes, a train always has right-of-way, so all crossing traffic has to always be prepared to yield, and stop if necessary.

And yes, if there is active crossing protection, the driver is allowed to assume that there is no train, if the crossing protection is not activated.

And yes, every driver must always control his/her vehicle, such that he/she can stop in time to avoid any mishap (a rear-ender is almost always the fault of the rear car, regardless of how unreasonable was the stopping of the front car).

And yes, if the traffic control equipment does not give sufficient warning, given the allowed & reasonable speeds & traffic conditions, then this may be considered a mitigation of the driver’s responsibility.

Bottom line, even if there is no ambiguity whatsoever in a signal (or rule), there were still b

20

No, the driver is not allowed to assume that. On the contrary, even if the crossing protection is not activated, a driver is supposed to yield because the crossbuck means yield. The meaning is there 24 hours a day, no matter whether a train is present, and no matter whether the crossing protection is activated.

When a driver approaches a signalized crossing and the signals are not activated, the driver is supposed to yield by looking for trains, and traveling slow enough to be able to stop short of the crossing if necessary to give way to the train.

This information is confirmed by Operation Lifesaver, the FRA, MNDOT, and the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices.