I am just telling you, in my last post on the previous page, the reason why stop signs are not widely applied to grade crossings according to the FRA, Operation Lifesaver, Minnesota DOT, and the Minnesota Highway Patrol. Any stop sign increases the odds of a rear end collision compared to if there were no stop sign there.
Traffic authorities are also on the warpath over crosswalk law compliance. An obvious remedy would be to add stop signs to all crosswalks. Here again, they feel the risk of rear end collisions is greater than the reward of better crosswalk law compliance.
Why are the ‘authorities’ more concerned with “Yuppie vs. Yuppie” rear-enders than the safety of pedestrians in crosswalks? True, stop signs at crosswalks would be a bit of overkill. Better would be a country-wide uniform crosswalk law. Pedestrians, in New York City, are “fair game” if they jaywalk. Aim for 'em! In California, the pedestrian is the only thingie they stop for!
I think the issue is that a stop sign forces a stop for every vehicle, but only a small percentage of those vehicles will be approaching when a pedestrian (or train) is approaching in conflict. So, overall, those numerous stopping events drive up the potential for rear-end collisions while doing far less to drive down the potential for collisions with trains or pedestrians (at crosswalks).
Therefore, they would like to structure the compliance model with grade crossings and crosswalks so that no stop is required if a crossing pedestrian or train is not present.
Aside from the idea of applying stop signs to grade crossings, there is a plan to apply yield signs to all non-signalized grade crossings. This would be redundant because these crossings are already equipped with crossbucks and a crossbuck means yield. However, studies have recently found that most drivers do not know that a crossbuck means yield. They merely perceive the crossbuck as informational to mark the existence of a grade crossing. So the plan is to add an actual YIELD sign to the crossings below the crossbucks.
Of course, if this needs to be done to non-signalized crossings, it also needs to be done at active or signalized crossings because drivers are supposed to look for trains and yield if necessary even when the signals are not activated. For reasons that I have not yet heard formally, authorities do not intend to add yield signs to active grade crossings.