Some sort of psychological thing I suspect… Seeing the fast moving train imparts to the motorist a feeling of having to hurry and thus they “just have to cross in front of the train”, but a slow moving train imparts a feeling of leisure and the motorist feels like it is okay to wait.
That is why automobile advertisements are so “manic”… “Hurry on down TODAY, the sale ENDS this WEEK!” Anybody that is paying attention KNOWS that another “sale” will occur immediately after this one “ENDS!” and that “The lowest prices this year!” are no different than the prices last week or next week. But no matter, I just gotta go buy a car NOW 'cause the guy on TV has me all agitated to go… HURRY! HURRY! HURRY! HU… (there, I just hit the mute button, and now I feel better and I think I’ll go watch a few trains, instead).
NO it is not okay to cross with the red lights flashing. At a railroad crossing it is not only stupid it’s against the law to do it. And if a cop see you do it you can get a ticket and I do beleave it can be up to 500.00 and cost you like 5or6 points and it’s even worse when a school bus pulls up to a railroad crossing and the lights are flashing. And you are running a route with a bunch of screaming kids on the bus. And there is nothing you can do about it because with those lights on. It’s like duh what do I do. and alot of bus drivers think well there’s no train coming. I can cross right wrong. If you hold a CDL and if you cross train tracks without stopping or cross them with the red lights flashing and a cop sees you your toast. Also alt of bus drivers think okay there are no gates but the lights are on let’s call into dispatch and ask and the dispatcher will come back. And say no I can not give you permision to cross. IF you can get yourself turned around to go another way around the tracks. Others will try to think oh just the heck with it’s safe I’ll just cross no one with see me. So like I said it’s against the law.
But it is OK to cross when the red lights are flashing according to the law quoted in the first post of this thread. Apparently from what others have said, other states have the same basic law. If the red lights are flashing, you are required to stop. You can proceed once it is safe to do so. Under most normal circumstances, it would be safe once the train has passed and the lights stop flashing. But if a train is approaching on single track and stops after triggering the lights to flash, I would assume that it would be safe to cross after first stopping for the flashing lights. And if it is SAFE to cross, it is OK to cross while the lights are flashing.
As others have pointed out, it is up to law enforcement and the courts to determine the definition of
I just spent (maybe, wasted) a couple of hours in a web search for traffic laws about railroad grade crossings to see what I could find. I did not find information from all States.
I found that some states exactly quoted the Uniform Traffic Code (a “recommended” set of traffic laws) and some states had their own wording.
All places that I found said that you cannot go around gates that are lowered or in the process of lowering or raising.
“stop and shall not proceed until he or she can do so safely.”
It then gives 5 reasons for stopping:
An approaching train is visible and in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
A stop sign or other traffic control device requiring a stop is posted at the crossing;
A crossing gate is lowered or is being lowered or raised, or a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train; or
An approaching train horn is being sounded.
The only criteria for continuing is that it is safe to do so. There is NO mention of whether the lights are STILL flashing. I certainly see where one could claim that they “stopped” and then seeing that a train is not there at all, or too far away or traveling too slowly to reach the crossing before they can “cross safely” then they are permitted to do so. It would then fall to the courts to determine if they were right in the claim. This is the same as stopping at a Stop sign and pulling out into other traffic. If you get hit or otherwise cause a problem, then it must not have been “safe” to do so.
When you get into knowing the laws in different states, we Truckers try to be good with that. Ultimately it gets settled when something does come up involving a trucker or car driver creating a problem.
Here is a twist to consider…
The trailer must stop clear of any crossing area at least 15 feet away. I remember one Ohio town that had a traffic light about… 45 feet from a rail crossing. Should the trucker stop there at the traffic light, his trailer blocks the railroad behind him and earns a very nice ticket. I dont recall the name of the town, but trust me anyone who has been through that specific town will pretty much know where I refer to.
Ultimately violations are payable through points, fines or injury, property damage and death. Or any and all of these.
Safety Valve, its not in Ohio, but I know of a series of crossings similar to what You describe. I am a Truck Driver also, of 19 years experience. Here in Portland, OR where UP’s Kenton line parallels Sandy Blvd the 138th ave crossing only has room for about 2 maybe 3 cars between the tracks and the intersection, and not enough room for a truck without fouling the tracks, the wonderful part of this intersection is that there are no sensors on the far side of the tracks, so a truck can’t cross to trigger the light, and is not detected waiting, not only is this frustrating for the truck driver, but you can imagine the reactions of some motorists. Yelling honking, verbally abusive expecting you to pull across the tracks, NOT ME, this is a BUSY mainline, I just avoid it when possible.
At least further east at 158th ave where our plant is (we are a UP on line customer) there is room for a truck to cross and wait, if there are no cars already at the signal, but at least this way someone can trigger the light.
There are too many locations like this that should at minimum have detection sensors on BOTH sides of the crossing. From reading past threads, I know that you advocate closing all grade crossings, and this would be nice but there are many places like along the Kenton Line that there just is not any practical alternative, and cross track access is needed, I wish that it could be done though.
I have a couple other thoughts on grade crossings. There is one detail of these uniform regulations for crossings that I believe could be addressed more clearly. I think the law should directly command that drivers look for approaching trains at all grade crossings, no matter how they are protected.
Of the five items that require a driver to stop, item number one requires a driver to stop if an approaching train is visible and in hazardous proximity to such crossing. So it is up to the driver to know if a train is approaching, and in order for a driver to know this, he or she must look for trains. Other than this requirement to know if a train is approaching, there is nothing in the law that directly commands a driver to look for trains.
With crossings marked only by crossbucks, the only way a driver can know a train is approaching is to look for it. But the law applies to all grade crossings, no matter how they are protected, so item number one would also apply to crossings with lights. Since lights warn a driver of an approaching train, I wonder the extent to which drivers lower their guard and rely on the lights instead of looking directly for an approaching train.
As long as the lights don’t fail, it would be possible to comply with the basic command of the law to yield without ever looking for a train. This is because the law does not command a driver to look for a train. It only tells him or her to yield to a train if one is approaching, and the lights tell you that.
So, of all the drivers who conscientiously look for trains at passive crossings (without lights), I wonder how many of them do the same at crossings with lights. I’ll bet the percentage is easily under ten. It is probably not a big issue because the lights seldom fail to come on.
But here is something else to consider. A crossbuck is a strong warning, and lighted crossings have crossbucks.
I am “SOMETIMES” part of your estimated less that 10 percent that slow and look for trains at signal protected crossings. There is one crossing here with both lights and gates that I especially do this because there are hills on both sides of the road that block the view of the tracks. (It is not so much a desire for safety, but more because I am hoping to see a train.) But I have been the focus of a fellow driver’s road rage due to my slowing at the crossing!
But, I think you are right in that signal protected crossings seem to induce a complacency in drivers and this has a detrimental effect at unprotected crossings.
I also wish the Traffic Code would specifically address the responsibilities and actions a driver should take at grade crossings. Especially whether it is okay to proceed against flashing lights if no train is present or obviously does not present a hazard. But I bet the Code’s authors deliberately abstain from doing so, so they do not have to deal with the definition of “obviously”.
The only lights without gates I run into anymore are inside Devil’s Lake State Park in Wisconsin. The trains there are going 5-10mph and everyone stops and waits. Maybe the fact that recreation rules that particular road leads to people being more laid back about the crossing.
Eventually, one of two things will happen, in my opinion. 1. The laws get changed to make it mandatory to wait. or 2. The laws get changed to mandate gates. It is only a matter of how many people die (and engineers driven mentally ill) until that happens.
Yes I do not see many signaled crossings without gates. I can’t think of any offhand. But there are many passive crossings that are taking a toll on lives. It is only money that is preventing all crossing from signaled protection.
Does anyone have statistics that indicate how often crossing signals fail to activate?
Actually, its NOT passive crossings that are taking a toll on lives, it is IMPAITENCE, IGNORANCE and just plain STUPIDITY that are taking a toll in lives. It is LONG PAST TIME that people start accepting some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions. when there is a grade crossing “ACCIDENT” it is rarely an accident rather than a case of someone being in a hurry, or just being stupid. “GEE, some railroad tracks, damn you don’t suppose there may be a TRAIN coming some time do you”
I cant give the statistics of how often crossing signals fail to activate, but, I can give you the statistics of how many people are killed, or injured every year.
For the Year 2006 there were 2897 crossing accident, or stupid people.
362 of those were people killed at crossings in a vechile
999 of those were crossing injuries be that the train crew or the people getting hit.
530 was trespassers fatalities
466 of those were tresspassers injured.
The Top 10 state have in the most accidents for 2006 are:
What I mean to say is that per train/car encounter, there is a higher probability of a collision at passive crossings than there is at active crossings.
I am actually quite surprised that some laws allow a diver to pass the flashing lights if it is safe to do so, while those same laws do not provide a legal definition of safe. Without a prescribed legal definition of the term, the definition it is up to each driver’s interpretation. It seems like an invitation to disaster.
It also seems oddly charitable coming from a system of government that otherwise prefers to control every activity by the letter of the law instead of trusting people to be ruled by common sense.
I’m not trying to be argumentative. But, the same is true for “right turn on red” and just plain ol’ stop signs at any intersection. You are allowed to proceed when the way is clear (safe). Otherwise, you’d never get to “Main Street” from any “Side Street”.
You don’t have to stop at a “Yield” sign, unless there is traffic that produces an unsafe condition for you not to stop.
The law relies on the public’s knowledge of “SAFE” in those situations, what makes stopping and proceeding when it is safe at a RR crossing any different?
Yes, trains are harder to stop, but they don’t travel faster than semi trucks on the highway (well, except for some special passenger lines in certain areas), so if it is safe to cross a highway when a semi is some distance away, shouldn’t it be safe to cross a rail line when the train is the same distance away? It is really all that much harder to estimate time/distance for a train as it is a truck, such that a difference in the law would be required?
I understand your points, and you are right that a basic yield sign or stop sign requires the judgment of the motorist to determine what it safe when entering into a conflicting route. But railroad crossings seem like they have been placed into a special category of risk, since they (active crossings) have a completely unique and relatively elaborate system of protection.
I suppose they allow passing the flashing lights to address the practical problems of lights stuck activated or trains stopped in the circuit. That would be common sense to avoid having the road rendered closed just because the lights are stuck on. But they have no trouble giving up that common sense when it comes to crossings with gates. The road is indeed closed if the gates are falsely activated. Since signals with gat