Why not? Because without an accompanying yield sign, a crossbuck is not well enough understood. But beyond that, if, as you say, you don’t need a yield sign at a signalized crossing because the signals convey the controlling message, then why do you need a crossbuck to convey a yield message?
Actually, the crossbuck is an essential component of a signalized crossing because drivers are supposed to yield at signalized crossings even when the signals are un-activated. This is a precaution against the possibility of a failure to activate as a train approaches.
Therefore, since the crossbuck is necessary at a signalized crossing why would it not be necessary to add a yield sign to clarify the crossbuck message just as it is necessary to do so at a non-signalized crossing?
Or add some additional signage to reinforce the yield sign that’s qualifying the crossbuck which backs up the signal lights which…
Why not just use one simple sign (and some cheap enabling technology) that cuts to the chase with signage more likely to ‘motivate’ the average motorist…
… or figure out a more effective active crossing method with all the ‘right’ semantics…
Works for me!
Looks like an effective and low-cost improvement. Perhaps more vivid, catchy graphics, fewer words, somewhat akin to the computer-generated simulation above?
Adding yield signs to passive (non-signalized) crossings is fascinating to me. This is very widespread, and will probably become universal practice.
I can’t think of any other case where a road sign has been deemed to be so ambiguous that it requires another sign next to it to explain the ambiguity.
My only problem with the re-signage of RR grade crossings is that it replaced all the old nostalgic signage.
At the time all the signage was being updated around here, I was in the process of making a sign for my Garden RR like I remembered seeing as a kid and wanted to verify the font and layout of the sign. I was told of places where there might still be the old signage on various streets and highways, but by the time I got to them, they had all been replaced and I could not get a photo of what I wanted. A web search was not fruitful either.
This issue of the crossbuck being perceived to simply mark the location of a railroad without explaining what a driver should do has been addressed before this latest idea using the yield sign. The earlier message telling drivers what to do was the phrase, “LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS.” This message often accompanied the crossbuck just as the yield sign does today.
But in the still earlier times, LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS was used without the crossbuck, apparently before the crossbuck had been invented. Sometimes the phrase, “RAILROAD CROSSING” was used in the earlier times as well, often presented as a horizontal signboard with both words on one line
Likewise, the phrase, LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS was often presented as a horizontal signboard with all words on one line, and sometimes the signs were quite large, for example, a foot high and 12 feet long.
Sometimes both phrases were combined in a sign.
Today the phrase, LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS seems odd because the greater threat would seem to be the approaching locomotive rather than the trailing cars. Indeed, there was a minor adoption of the phrase LOOK OUT FOR THE LOCOMOTIVE as an apparent correction of the perceived mistake of warning driver to look out for the cars.
But the real explanation is that the term “The Cars” was an alternate term for “The Train” in the 1800s. So LOOK OUT FOR THE CARS meant look out for an approaching train so as not to get struck by it.
There are dozens of signs along our roads that indicate a situation without explaining how to deal with it.
Take a four-way (or "all-way) intersection with stop signs. Why are there no instructions posted as to who can go first if two cars arrive at the same time?
Or a “road narrows” sign that is just a symbol. No instructions there, either.
Or the “school bus stop” signs. In some states you have to stop regardless for a stopped bus. In others, you can pass under certain circumstances. None of that is spelled out with the sign.
So how do you know this stuff? It’s in the V&T laws, driver handbooks, and very likely on the written test you take to get your license.
And so it is with the crossbuck.
I understand your point. The crossbuck is definitely explained in the rule books. So I do not know why they feel that a yield sign must be added just because drivers do not realize that a crossbuck means yield. It is the responsibility of drivers to know what a crossbuck means. And as I said earlier, I think that adding the yield sign to a crossbuck is wrongheaded for other reasons as well.
Many have suggested that the application of stop signs to passive (non-signalized) crossings would be a sure way to improve safety. By forcing vehicles to stop, they are brought down to low speeds where they are more likely to yield if a train is approaching.
However, it has been found that stop sign compliance is lower than usual at grade crossings compared to use at road intersections. Apparently this is due there being less driver respect for stop signs at grade crossings because drivers feel that they are capable of judging whether a train threatens without the need to stop at a crossing.
So the traffic control community worries that loss of driver respect for stop signs applied to grade crossings will carry over to all other stop sign applications, thus making road intersection more dangerous.
Source, please?
While some may not understand what a cross buck sign means, many seem to have trouble with the concepts of “yield” and “right of way” anyway, I think many just look at a crossing differently than they do a road intersection. I’ve seen a driver pull around lowered gates in front of me, then stop at a 4-way stop sign at 2am with nothing (not even a cop to write a ticket) in sight.
It’s not always not knowing what to do at a crossing, but thinking you don’t have to apply traffic laws to a crossing the same as at an intersection. Or maybe thinking you can get away with ignoring traffic laws at railroad crossings.
I don’t mind placing yield or stop signs along with cross bucks. However, until drivers give a railroad crossing the same respect as a road intersection, all the signage won’t make a bit of difference.
Jeff
PS. Since some jurisdictions think they need to add yield or stop signs to cross bucks at passive crossings, those in charge themselves may not equate a cross buck with a yield sign. Instead they may think it just signifies that a roadway crosses railroad tracks. Not how to act at said crossing.
Jeff,
This goes to your points too.
The following is quoted from NCHRP REPORT 470. It contains some very interesting ideas about driver behavior and perceptions regarding traffic control signage. What I find particularly interesting is that stop sign compliance is lower than usual at grade crossings. Apparently this is due there being less driver respect for stop signs at grade crossings where drivers feel that they are capable of judging whether a train threatens without drivers needing to stop at a crossing. And then as the stop sign authority is diminished by applying it in a way were drivers have lower respect for it; that loss of authority will extend to all stop sign applications. Thus, using stop signs at grade crossings will damage the effectiveness of stop signs in all applications. From the report:
Among the issues of current interest for passive crossings
is the use of Stop or Yield signs. Part of this interest has been
spurred by a recent report by NTSB (8), which recommended
much broader use of Stop signs at railroad-highway grade
crossings. The literature evaluation found a great deal of controversy
but questionable empirical basis o
I love it clear simple and to the point. It also gives a huge discouragement, and enforces the law. Every major city should have one of these. I would also suggest putting a picture of car that was hit by a train on a few of those boards to show the general public the result of small car playing chicken with big train.
A crossbuck does not tell a driver to yield, so to know this, a driver has to read the laws. Nevertheless, authorities feel that the crossing signage should tell a driver directly what to do without need to refer to the law books. Therefore, authorities want to add yield signs to the crossbuck to tell drivers that they must yield.
By this same reasoning, shouldn’t there be signs on signalized and gated crossings telling the driver not to go around lowered gates? There is no signage at those crossings that informs the driver not to pass lowered gates.
A driver might logically conclude that they are allowed to use their own discretion as to whether or not there is time to get over the crossing ahead of the train. After all, that is exactly what they are allowed to do at passive (non-signalized) crossings.
I’ve never seen a sign on a stop light that said cars needed to stop when the light was red.
You presume that the driver can actually read English.
Here is what I taught my kids when I was teaching them to drive:
A traffic light that is ON Red solidly (i.e.: not flashing) means a motorist must STOP and wait for the Red light to turn OFF before proceeding (usually meaning that a similar light for cross traffic has turned Red to stop cross traffic from the left and/or right.
A flashing Red traffic light means to Stop and then proceed when the way is clear. This is true for side roads entering a highway or at a 3- or 4-way Stop intersection. A motorist would be stuck there forever if this were not the design. If the cross traffic has no flashing Red light (it is not a 3 or 4-way Stop intersection) , then the motorist must just wait for a break in traffic before proceeding, but if the cross traffic also has a flashing Red light then all must Stop and take turns proceeding; the car to the “Right” has the Right of Way to go first and then you get to go. (Kindergarten is where one should have learned about “taking turns”. Something that many motorists seem to have flunked.)
Flashing RR lights mean the same thing. They just happen to have two alternately flashing Red lights to distinguish that the “cross traffic” is a RR and not an automotive highway (and it is not a 3 or 4-way Stop intersection!). This is because the lights are controlled by sensors in the track that can be fooled into detecting cross traffic (a train) and turn the lights On when there is no real cross traffic… i.e.: so that a malfunction of the lights does not impede automotive traffic from proceeding. When the Red lights are flashing, the driver must Stop and then proceed when the way is clear to do so safely.
All the RR grade crossing gates that I have ever seen have 3 Red lights on them along the length. The middle one and the one furthest from the open end (the hinged end) flash alternately in sync with the main flashing lights on the crossbu
Ah HA! I remember when they did!
I must tell a dumb story about me when I was a wee lad and not in school yet! The family was out for a Sunday drive and we stopped at a stop light and I piped up from the backseat,
“I know how to spell ‘RED’… RED, S, T, O, P, RED!”
I had seen the word “STOP” embossed in the glass lens of the stop light!
Even the people in the car next to us laughed! [:$]