Some of the older signals also had stop lamps. I understand the concept of the Griswold signals but think that the message could be communicated without the Griswold's somewhat complicated mechanism. Why not mount an illuminated stop sign to the gate arm and wire it to illuminate when the gate descends or mount a stop sign that is blank until the signal activates on flasher only crossings?

I don’t see the point of adding a continuous red light to activated grade crossing signals.

It is true that crossing flashers mean the same thing as a flashing red highway signal at both highway intersections and at grade crossings. But that meaning is not simply stop and proceed. It is stop and proceed only if it is clear. Deciding whether if it clear is where it gets into the matter of driver discretion. It is possible for a train to inside of the track circuit for a crossing, and the crossing to be “clear.” The same discretion applies to all passive (non-signalized) crossings. You don’t have to stop for crossbucks simply because a train is within sight.

It is this driver discretion coupled with a worry about delay that results in the typical near miss or collision at grade crossings.

Studies have shown that driver response to signals depends on how the signal is being used. With a red traffic light, there is no sense of driver discretion whatsoever. It is unlike a grade crossing signal, because the traffic light red is just a hold interval of known duration. There is no possibility of an unreasonable delay such as most drivers have experienced with grade crossings.

But going back to point of grade crossing flashers allowing discretion, if gates are present and lowered, there is no discretion allowed. A lowered gate is an absolute stop and wait even if no train is approaching or even present.

But drivers often use their discretion to override this absolute meaning of the gate because they are not aware of it.

Where are you getting this stop and proceed thing, equating crossing flashers with a flashing red light? Would you mind terribly showing me something from your state?

Here in Illinois, a crossing flasher is the same as a gate: Stop and stay until it stops flashing. Obviously some may not be able to stop if they are close the instant it starts flashing but there is nothing about stopping and proceeding. I would be surprised if other states are encouraging people to go through a crossing whose signals are active. That's practically inviting people to be nailed by a 2nd train that they didn't see.

This is from Illinois' Rules of the Road motorist book / website.

Considering that it has become easier to get a license, especially for illegals, I would bet that the average driver "assumes" that flashing crossing lights are equivalent to a flashing red "traffic" light.....
Why?
The typical driver rule book defines a flashing red light to be essentially the same as a stop sign.....Stop, look and go if its clear....
We must remember that the average driver only reads the rule book when they are required to pass a written test...most don't really understand the various requirements fully, etc....
Relatively few "average" drivers deal with trains much or at all, The driver education courses have been "dumbed" down since I learned to drive and the DMV tests are generally extremely easy to pass....As a result, these drivers literally don't know the rule....or they are in a hurry.....or they simply don't care...
Because of this, I'm actually surprised that so few people get hit and maimed or killed at grade crossings.
Being an Engineer, I have personnally "hit" four cars at grade crossings in ten years.....for each of those four, there have been literally hundreds of close calls.....My definition of a close call being from a couple car lengths away, to being so close that I was sure I was going to hit them, but didn't....

In this environment, a continuous red is probably a good idea. In fact, it could be a regular traffic signal head for emphasis though I would delete the green aspect because that invites people to sail along oblivious to their duty to be aware even at a signaled crossing. But, yeah, several seconds of yellow followed by solid red might encourage more obedience.

Steve

I am a major fan of using this.

The stop and proceed thing was expressed in some posts on the previous page and I was referring to that. I see that your reference to the Illinois law makes no reference to that. But I have seen other states that allow a driver to cross against the red flashing lights after stopping, if it is safe to do so. This might apply when the signals are false activated, for instance. It might also occur if a train is stopped short of the activated crossing. Some state laws might have some additional criteria for what determines if it is safe to cross in such circumstances.

So in these cases where a driver may cross against the activated red flashers, it does indeed amount to the same principle as a flashing red light at a highway intersection.

I will see if I can find a reference. I agree that it is somewhat surprising. That was my reaction to learning about it. But then what would be the logic of making traffic wait if no train is present?

Common sense says one may eventually proceed at a malfunctioning signal. Not every state puts it into law. Ohio, for one, does (for traffic signals). For Illinois I've been unable to find anything other than when a bicycle or motorcycle does not trigger the signal. If any do say something about grade crossing signals it would be similarly about actual malfunctioning signals.

But the general concept that an activated signal can be treated like stop sign or ordinary flashing red light---stop, then proceed---is wrong. That is a completely different animal than stopping and waiting and waiting and then when no train appears, proceeding carefully across.

Steve

The underlying argument is really one of semantics -- if a red flashing light is less 'absolute' than a fixed one, why not provide a fixed one to resolve the ambiguity?

There have been some extended threads on the Trains Magazine forums over the past several months on this and similar aspects of crossing management (starting with the use of 'yield' signs on some crossings). Part of what came up there is that MUTCD and many state statutes indeed consider railroad crossings as 'yield the right of way' situations -- exactly what the flashing red light at a road crossing emphasizes. That's different from a commanded STOP ... which I do think is warranted at crossings that can be equipped with lights and gates.

Interesting and sometimes amusing commentary here:

http://depletedcranium.com/railroad-cro ... th-idiots/

The phrase, “stop and proceed,” seems to ignore the fact that there are strings attached to the “proceed.” They are that you will be proceeding into a conflicting route in which vehicles have the right of way. So it must be clear to proceed into that conflicting route.

I will grant you that in the case of grade crossings, usually when the flashers are activated; it is not safe to proceed. So the stop and proceed action against the flashers rarely occurs. However, it is allowed under rules containing the language that I refer to that says that after stopping, a driver may not proceed “until it safe to do so.”

Under rules with that phrase, if a train happens to be stopped short of the crossing, it most certainly is safe to proceed.

That series of grade crossing rules is similar from state to state, but is varies considerably. Some states omit the clause: “The fact that a moving train approaching a railroad grade crossing is visible from the crossing is prima facie evidence that it is not safe to proceed.”

Under rules where that clause is omitted, it would be safe to proceed if a train were approaching very slowly, but I think this would get into a gray area.


Here is an example from the Minnesota law which contains the “safe to do so” language:

Subdivision 1. Requirements. (a) Except as provided in section 169.28,
subdivision 1, when any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade
crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this paragraph, the driver shall
stop the vehicle not less than ten feet from the nearest railroad track and shall
not proceed until safe to do so and until the roadway is clear of traffic so that the
vehicle can proceed without stopping until the rear of the vehicle is at least ten
feet past the farthest railroad track. These requirements apply when:
(1) a clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device warns of the immediate
approach of a railroad train; or
(2) an approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity.
(b) The fact that a moving train approaching a railroad grade crossing is visible
from the crossing is prima facie evidence that it is not safe to proceed.
(c) The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped and not traverse the
grade crossing when a human flagger signals the approach or passage of a train
or when a crossing gate is lowered warning of the immediate approach or
passage of a railroad train. No person may drive a vehicle past a flagger at a
railroad crossing until the flagger signals that the way is clear to proceed or
drive a vehicle past a lowered crossing gate.


If you parse the language above, the following becomes clear: If you approach an activated signalized crossing, where a train present, but stopped; you must stop as specified. Then you may proceed across because it is safe to do so. The same would apply if no train were present.

It's quite obvious from the foregoing that you have never driven in a major Northeastern city where traffic lights were installed decades ago for the benefit of cross traffic, schoolchildren, and elderly pedestrians (and primarily to politically placate the latter) that have long since died off or vanished.

If every last crossing in the nation were a rural crossing with trains thundering across every half-hour without any possibility of stopping, this would work. Unfortunately for us, for every crossing of this ilk there exists another crossing cutting across the end of a mill siding, near a passing siding, or at the throat of a small yard, subject to occasional brief blocking, or activated crossing lights without fouling. Further, the mechanism and circuitry for a rural crossing that sees traffic maybe three times a week (think our typical excursion line), even in this modern age, is still expensive and probably not worth the return on investment; adding to its complexity is not for the faint of heart unless you have an electronics geek on staff.
Adding to driver confusion is the occasional sight of a railroad employee, not in any uniform recognized by the driving education classes, waving drivers across a crossing when a locomotive looms large fifty feet away. Or, further, the practice of many railroads of "signalling" an unsignalled crossing by dropping a fusee at the crossing as they pass. (In my home area, that practice started at one crossing after a car travelling too fast on a foggy night skidded on a wet road underneath a covered hopper on a local freight and got dragged a quarter-mile up the track, with the train only stopping because they had to work the next mill.)

EDM -

This is an interesting thought. Might the old Griswold "stop sign" type flashers have actually been safer? For that matter, might the "wig-wag" signal, which had a SWINGING aspect to its warning, been safer than flashers? We know why both Griswolds and wig-wags were replaced; because they cost more to maintain with their moving parts. But, was there ever a study made to see if either, or both, might have been a better highway warning system? My guess is that none was ever done.

Les

The idea of using regulation traffic lights to control cross traffic at railroad crossings was popular in New York State in the early 1980s. It still required that police enforce the things, or the motorists would realize that those weren't "real" traffic lights.
The rotating stop sign was to provide something that already legally required the motorist to stop and wait until safe to cross, but only when a train was nearby, instead of all of the time. Some signals used the illuminated letters "S T O P" instead, one letter per light bulb.
Originally, the crossing watchman's red lantern moving back and forth was the legal signal to stop. Next, "mechanical flagmen", Wig Wag, and Banjo signals were invented to swing the red light. To allow for replacing the mechanical parts with just electrical parts, it was ruled that the red light only had to be illuminated at the ends of the swing. Two bulbs did that trick.

Although the meaning of a highway flashing red and flashing red grade crossing signals is nearly identical, it is not because of a common DOT meaning of flashing red. Each of the two signal types has its own individual set of rules.

It is reasonable to conclude that if drivers comply with highway continuous reds better than they comply with grade crossing flashing reds, a solution would be to apply highway continuous reds to grade crossings.

However, drivers make a distinction between the two applications. For example: Currently “yield” signs are being added to all passive crossings because studies have found that many drivers to not know that the crossbuck means yield. In the course of this reasoning, many have suggested simply adding “stop” signs to passive grade crossings.

But studies have shown that compliance with stop signs at passive grade crossings is far less than compliance with stop signs in highway intersection applications. This is because drivers often do not see the point of stopping at grade crossings when no train is approaching. In other words, drivers apply their own common sense reasoning in addition to being guided by the signage.

Therefore, MUTCD-DOT experts believe that applying stop signs to passive grade crossings will lower the respect and compliance with stop signs in all applications. Thus it will increase traffic crashes at highway intersections that depend on stop signs.

This same reasoning and conclusion also applies to adding a continuous red light to active grade crossings. The inherent lower respect and compliance for the grade crossings flashing reds would carry over to the introduction of a grade crossing continuous red, and thus would diminish the respect and compliance for continuous red in traffic lights.

In other words, adding traffic lights to grade crossings will kill more people at traffic light road intersections.