# Railroad crossing accidents



## MIrailfan

How do we reduce them? discuss.


----------



## Qapla

Make all barricades block all lanes on both side of a crossing - do not give the ability to "swerve around them" to "beat the train" ... also, aggressively ticket those who don't obey the train crossing laws that have been in effect longer than most drivers have been alive instead of always blaming the trains when a car gets hit


----------



## TrackWalker

I vividly recall years ago an editortial cartoon of a car waiting at a crossing with a train almost in the crossing.

The gates were down. Crossing lights flashing. Train horn sounding. There were barricades and barbed wire wrapped around the gates. Klieg lights shining on the car. Snarling German Shepard dogs loosely held by tight leashes. A machine gun was pointed at the car.

The man in the car was thinking, “There must be some way to get across.”


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> instead of *always blaming the trains* when a car gets hit


I have yet to see a news article that blames the train.


----------



## jiml

SarahZ said:


> I have yet to see a news article that blames the train.


In fairness, some have come pretty close. The media usually sides with the "poor victim" as if the train suddenly leapt from the tracks to hit the vehicle. The headlines seldom say "Idiot Killed While Trying To Beat Train", usually more like "Train Strikes Car..." and the public draws their own conclusions.


----------



## AFS1970

We have a branch line on the commuter rail in my city that has some interesting grade crossings. Once of the stations, the train sticks into the intersection when stopped in the station. The crossings not only have the usual arms that come down, but has shorter arms that come down across the sidewalks. A few months ago they installed stanchions to keep cars from parking too close to the crossings.

Now on the same line, just north of that station, are a couple of grade crossings with private driveways. The big office park has the usual arms/lights/bells, but there are a couple of residential driveways with no protection other than the train horns. A few years ago a couple was hit and killed driving out of their driveway. At the time it was publicized that it was the responsibility of the property owner to put in the gates. I can't see how that works as the railroad maintains them & even sends railroad police to direct traffic if the arms are not working at the other crossings.


----------



## Qapla

Thank You @jiml 

I have made that point before. The headlines usually always say the train hit the car (I know, it did) but the order of the wording and the sensationalism of the headlines tend to lean toward the train being the culprit - not the idiot that drove in font of a train while the gates were down and the light were flashing


----------



## Qapla

AFS1970 said:


> A few years ago a couple was hit and killed driving out of their driveway. At the time it was publicized that it was the responsibility of the property owner to put in the gates. I can't see how that works as the railroad maintains them & even sends railroad police to direct traffic if the arms are not working at the other crossings.



It is true that a crossing on "private property" is not required to have gates or lights - with that in mind, when is the last time you saw a private driveway that has a STOP sign to remind the homeowner not to pull out in traffic before making sure there is space for them?

Should the City, County, State provide and maintain stop signs on every home's driveways? If someone has a RR crossing on their private driveway they should know it is there and use the same caution they use when they get to the road before they pull out in traffic


----------



## MIrailfan

"The Train always has the right of way. " fAMOUs and true quote.


----------



## TrackWalker

Qapla said:


> It is true that a crossing on "private property" is not required to have gates or lights - with that in mind, when is the last time you saw a private driveway that has a STOP sign to remind the homeowner not to pull out in traffic before making sure there is space for them?
> 
> Should the City, County, State provide and maintain stop signs on every home's driveways? If someone has a RR crossing on their private driveway they should know it is there and use the same caution they use when they get to the road before they pull out in traffic



Every private crossing (which includes driveways) is required to have the proper signage including a STOP sign, the private RR sign and the small blue sign with the 800 emergency number with the individual DOT crossing number for it. There was a big push for this in 2016 by the FRA requiring photo proof it was completed at every private crossing. 

As an FYI there is in the FRA website an inventory of every railway crossing (both public and private) and its location and number in the US.

And trains are not required to blow their horns at private crossings. (there may be some exceptions)


----------



## Cal

TrackWalker said:


> And trains are not required to blow their horns at private crossings. (there may be some exceptions)


Well that needs to be changed.


----------



## railiner

MIRAILFAN said:


> "The Train always has the right of way. " fAMOUs and true quote.


_Except _at a movable bridge over a navigable waterway...marine traffic has the right of way...goes back to "who was there first"


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> It is true that a crossing on "private property" is not required to have gates or lights - with that in mind, when is the last time you saw a private driveway that has a STOP sign to remind the homeowner not to pull out in traffic before making sure there is space for them?
> 
> Should the City, County, State provide and maintain stop signs on every home's driveways? If someone has a RR crossing on their private driveway they should know it is there and use the same caution they use when they get to the road before they pull out in traffic


Well that would depend on what you might call "private property". Commercial property, as in a shopping mall, is private, as opposed to publicly owned, but the government does provide traffic control devices for exits from such. Not sure if the mall owner has to finance those, or not....


----------



## Qapla

railiner said:


> Well that would depend on what you might call "private property".



Since I was referencing this comment



AFS1970 said:


> A few years ago a couple was hit and killed driving out of their driveway.



The comment was directed to "home owner private property" - not commercial property with businesses on them.


----------



## Dakota 400

The oddest railroad crossing accident in my community was at a spur off the main line that was used to move rail cars to a factory. A small, short street with crossing gates and lights and there is nothing to obstruct one's view of a train coming from either direction. Somehow, while an engine was crossing that short road, a driver managed to run his/her (don't remember which) car into the side of the engine. The driver was killed.


----------



## Cal

Dakota 400 said:


> The oddest railroad crossing accident in my community was at a spur off the main line that was used to move rail cars to a factory. A small, short street with crossing gates and lights and there is nothing to obstruct one's view of a train coming from either direction. Somehow, while an engine was crossing that short road, a driver managed to run his/her (don't remember which) car into the side of the engine. The driver was killed.


No words.


----------



## PeeweeTM

Cal said:


> Well that needs to be changed.



No. 
In the Netherlands and Germany I don't need to make noise to savely pass a rail/road crossing. Many Americans came from the Netherlands and Germany. I've never seen evidence that evolution made Americans relatively visually or intellectually impaired. It can and needs to be solved at the driver side.
You don't blow your car horn when entering a road/road crossing with green traffic lights, right?


----------



## Cal

PeeweeTM said:


> You don't blow your car horn when entering a road/road crossing with green traffic lights, right?


Well using that logic means trains will never need to blow their horn. 

How do you suggest the problem be fixed?


----------



## PeeweeTM

I'm not sure there's a problem with the railroad side of the crossing that needs fixing.
As a car driver I'd stop, look and listen. After I'm sure no train is dangerously close, I'd cross the tracks.
If that doesn't work, a technical warning system for car drivers paid by the owner or closing the crossing for cars might be the way to go.
But I'd rather see car drivers pitch solutions on their side of the process.


----------



## Qapla

Cal said:


> How do you suggest the problem be fixed?



By the drivers of cars not trying to "beat the train" and watching where they are going.

We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.

It is the same way with train crossings. The crossing can have lights flashing and cross-arms down and the train can he blowing away on the horn - yet, when a driver goes around the gates and gets hit the headline reads "Train hits car" ... not "Car tries to beat train" or "Car drives in front of train" and people say "something needs to be done about the trains" - why not do what we were taught when I first learned to drive "Stop - Look - Listen"


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> By the drivers of cars not trying to "beat the train" and watching where they are going.
> 
> We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.
> 
> It is the same way with train crossings. The crossing can have lights flashing and cross-arms down and the train can he blowing away on the horn - yet, when a driver goes around the gates and gets hit the headline reads "Train hits car" ... not "Car tries to beat train" or "Car drives in front of train" and people say "something needs to be done about the trains" - why not do what we were taught when I first learned to drive "Stop - Look - Listen"


Yes, I see your point. But hasn't that always been the lesson, yet people still do it... 

It should be enforced more harshly


----------



## PeeweeTM

1. When I'm driving a train, I know any error or misjudgement I make can result in death, wounded people, damages and/or an investigation. And I could loose my permit.
And I don't want any of the above.

2. Before starting my education I was tested and certificated medically and psycologically. Those exams are repeated every couple of years. If I fail these exams, I lose my permit.

3. At least once a year my manager rides a shift with me to make sure I can still apply all rules correctly. If I fail, it's training and re-test.

4. I have to take and pass yearly theory tests about infrastructure and locomotives. If I fail, it's training and re-test.

Etc.

I'm sure the above would help, if applied to car drivers, too.

Anyway, I think handing out a driver's licence should not be taken lightly by the gouvernement.
Holding the privilege to drive a car should not be taken lightly by the holder of the driver's licence. 
Only canceling a licence should be taken more lightly by police and judge.


----------



## railiner

One thing I think may help somewhat, is to add a “street” traffic light to grade crossings.
I think that the fact that it’s a highway installed and maintained apparatus may carry more “clout” with some drivers, than the flashing lights on the crossbuck poles, installed and maintained by the railroads. It should not be that way, but unfortunately, I perceive that it is.

There are some crossings that do have that, that are interlocked to work together...I wonder if the stats on accidents at those crossings would support my theory, or not?


----------



## me_little_me

I've previously suggested an inexpensive help - cameras that activate (and locally store information) when the lights are activated and a vehicle or pedestrian is detected in the zone. The police can then decide to look at the data if there are a lot of incidents and start sending out warning letters and/or tickets to offenders.


----------



## Barb Stout

PeeweeTM said:


> 1. When I'm driving a train, I know any error or misjudgement I make can result in death, wounded people, damages and/or an investigation. And I could loose my permit.
> And I don't want any of the above.
> 
> 2. Before starting my education I was tested and certificated medically and psycologically. Those exams are repeated every couple of years. If I fail these exams, I lose my permit.
> 
> 3. At least once a year my manager rides a shift with me to make sure I can still apply all rules correctly. If I fail, it's training and re-test.
> 
> 4. I have to take and pass yearly theory tests about infrastructure and locomotives. If I fail, it's training and re-test.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> I'm sure the above would help, if applied to car drivers, too.
> 
> Anyway, I think handing out a driver's licence should not be taken lightly by the gouvernement.
> Holding the privilege to drive a car should not be taken lightly by the holder of the driver's licence.
> Only canceling a licence should be taken more lightly by police and judge.


I am wondering if there is a way for an employee on the train to take a picture or jot down the license plate number of a vehicle that is being naughty on the railroad tracks such that it can be "tracked" and sent a citation even if no harm ends up being done. Perhaps this is already in practice, but I don't know about it because ever since my shoe got caught between some railroad ties when a train was coming, I have been exceedingly subservient to trains.


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> One thing I think may help somewhat, is to add a “street” traffic light to grade crossings.
> I think that the fact that it’s a highway installed and maintained apparatus may carry more “clout” with some drivers, than the flashing lights on the crossbuck poles, installed and maintained by the railroads. It should not be that way, but unfortunately, I perceive that it is.
> 
> There are some crossings that do have that, that are interlocked to work together...I wonder if the stats on accidents at those crossings would support my theory, or not?



We have a crossing with the main line that runs through our community that has traffic signals that work in conjunction with the railroad signals. To my knowledge, there has never been an accident at that crossing.


----------



## Qapla

We have some that have crossings and intersections - like this



Even though there are lights, warning signs and cautions, it is surprising how many people who stop at this light will do so sitting on the tracks while waiting for the light to turn green.


----------



## TrackWalker

Barb Stout said:


> I am wondering if there is a way for an employee on the train to take a picture or jot down the license plate number of a vehicle that is being naughty on the railroad tracks such that it can be "tracked" and sent a citation even if no harm ends up being done. Perhaps this is already in practice, but I don't know about it because ever since my shoe got caught between some railroad ties when a train was coming, I have been exceedingly subservient to trains.



BNSF has what is known as a "near miss" report train crews can fill out if they are able to get the needed information quickly enough.


----------



## Cal

me_little_me said:


> I've previously suggested an inexpensive help - cameras that activate (and locally store information) when the lights are activated and a vehicle or pedestrian is detected in the zone. The police can then decide to look at the data if there are a lot of incidents and start sending out warning letters and/or tickets to offenders.


I support this...


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> We have some that have crossings and intersections - like this
> View attachment 21027
> 
> 
> Even though there are lights, warning signs and cautions, it is surprising how many people who stop at this light will do so sitting on the tracks while waiting for the light to turn green.


I have seen several situations where people waiting for the light sit on top of the tracks! One place I recall very well is near Surprise, Arizona along the BNSF tracks (No idea of the subdivision).


----------



## PeeweeTM

railiner said:


> One thing I think may help somewhat, is to add a “street” traffic light to grade crossings.
> I think that the fact that it’s a highway installed and maintained apparatus may carry more “clout” with some drivers, than the flashing lights on the crossbuck poles, installed and maintained by the railroads. It should not be that way, but unfortunately, I perceive that it is.
> 
> There are some crossings that do have that, that are interlocked to work together...I wonder if the stats on accidents at those crossings would support my theory, or not?



We were just thinking to do that to a crossing near one of our workshops! It may look more familiar (as a place where you are likely to get ticketed...?)

Just hoping car drivers won't turn right after a rolling stop too often.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Qapla said:


> We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.


I don't mind people who drive aggressively when conditions allow but when I'm driving around pedestrians I slow down and take my time. Where are we going that maiming or killing strangers would seem reasonable on the way? Telling people to "be safe" is not a practical solution and many college students have barely left their childhood home at that point. I'd rather give up a bit of road to keep students safe from angry drivers with a victim complex.


----------



## ehbowen

We had a particularly bad summer around here in 2007. In June, an unlicensed teenager stole an SUV, packed it with five of his underaged friends, and took a joyride around Baytown after dark. He drove towards an (unsignaled) crossing on a secondary road at top speed, intending to "catch some air". A train was parked, stopped, on the crossing. The SUV plowed directly into it, killing all four of the passengers in the rear seat. The driver was sentenced to eight years as a juvenile for murder; no idea how much time he actually served.

In August 2007, former Houston Rockets player Eddie Griffin drove around a crossing gate, ignoring lights and bells, and was killed in the ensuing collision.

Also in August 2007, three teenagers were killed when they also ignored warning lights and drove around the gates. They drove directly into the path of the Amtrak _Sunset Limited_ which was making 55 mph. They were identified only by the license plate of their crumpled vehicle.

Serious business.

Article from the Houston Chronicle, August 23, 2007.


----------



## railiner

PeeweeTM said:


> We were just thinking to do that to a crossing near one of our workshops! It may look more familiar (as a place where you are likely to get ticketed...?)
> 
> .


That’s my point...driver’s may respect a standard solid red traffic light, over the traditional flashing red crossing lights.

As for those “trapped” by a red light beyond the tracks, on the tracks; that signal should also be interlocked and remain green for a few seconds longer, than the preceding one before the tracks, to allow time to clear the tracks...


----------



## joelkfla

railiner said:


> As for those “trapped” by a red light beyond the tracks, on the tracks; that signal should also be interlocked and remain green for a few seconds longer, than the preceding one before the tracks, to allow time to clear the tracks...


Better yet: have it tied to an intrusion detector.


----------



## John Bredin

Qapla said:


> We have a college here. They are talking about changing one of the major roads past the college thus impairing the travel of the cars to "reduce pedestrian incidents". Most of the solutions being discussed are all aimed at the cars instead of just telling the college students to watch where they are going instead of staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic. They cross in the middle of blocks and "against the light" frequently - then blame the cars if someone gets hit.
> 
> It is the same way with train crossings.


I respectfully but firmly disagree that they're the same thing. A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion. While I don't think pedestrians should just cross the street willy-nilly, they are proper users of the street as a whole, and it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.

While I don't cross the street without looking for traffic, I have frequently (after confirming no vehicle is coming towards me) crossed streets in the middle of the block and/or against the traffic signal. Well-populated areas of towns and cities, where people actually walk sometimes to get around, are full of people doing the same. It ain't the jays (old slang similar to hicks) who jaywalk. 

Nonetheless, too many places value above all not "impairing the travel of the cars" to any significant degree. Bike lines, bus lanes, stop signs, mid-block crosswalks with signs and flashing yellow lights, lower speed limits; all are unacceptable to the motoring public, which to many officials is the only public that counts. All duties to the pedestrian, all rights to the motorist, though the latter is the one who by license is in control of a ton or more propelled at 30, or 40, or 50 mph. And when some towns or cities do decide to address the matter, they run into criticism that echoes your post: the solutions being proposed are unfairly aimed at the motorists instead of just telling the pedestrians to watch where they're going.

Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.


----------



## LookingGlassTie

One thing I think will help is to trim back trees and other growth from around RR crossings.

I had started a thread a while back about a fatal incident that occurred not far from where I live. The driver was killed after her vehicle collided with a CSX freight. There were no gates at that crossing at the time (not sure about signs) and there were trees, bushes and such which were obstructing the view. As far as I know, gates have since been erected at that crossing (or at least the plan is to install them there).

I don't know if the driver stopped or slowed down to look/listen out for trains or not, but based on news reports, I don't think she was necessarily being careless. It was just a tragic situation all around.

Having said all that, approaching any railroad crossing should be treated the same way as a gun (treat all guns as if they're loaded). In other words, ALWAYS assume that a train is coming.

$0.02


----------



## Barb Stout

John Bredin said:


> I respectfully but firmly disagree that they're the same thing. A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion. While I don't think pedestrians should just cross the street willy-nilly, they are proper users of the street as a whole, and it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.
> 
> While I don't cross the street without looking for traffic, I have frequently (after confirming no vehicle is coming towards me) crossed streets in the middle of the block and/or against the traffic signal. Well-populated areas of towns and cities, where people actually walk sometimes to get around, are full of people doing the same. It ain't the jays (old slang similar to hicks) who jaywalk.
> 
> Nonetheless, too many places value above all not "impairing the travel of the cars" to any significant degree. Bike lines, bus lanes, stop signs, mid-block crosswalks with signs and flashing yellow lights, lower speed limits; all are unacceptable to the motoring public, which to many officials is the only public that counts. All duties to the pedestrian, all rights to the motorist, though the latter is the one who by license is in control of a ton or more propelled at 30, or 40, or 50 mph. And when some towns or cities do decide to address the matter, they run into criticism that echoes your post: the solutions being proposed are unfairly aimed at the motorists instead of just telling the pedestrians to watch where they're going.
> 
> Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.


Some interesting and good points. Not only have I seen "both sides now", but I have also seen 3 sides now as a driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist.


----------



## Barb Stout

Just today I read someone's comment on the Next Door app where they were criticizing something by saying, "It's just like all that railroad crossing signage..". So he's an example of someone who just ignores signage, but going around crossing gates takes it to whole other level.


----------



## Qapla

John Bredin said:


> A street in town is not a rural road or an open highway. They all carry vehicles, but a street isn't just intended to carry vehicle traffic, and a street is not just the vehicular roadway portion



While I agree that the road/street/highway has room for cars, bicycles and pedestrians - they must all obey the laws that apply to them. If we are going to hold the cars to obey the speed limit, we should also hold the pedestrians to cross with the light at crosswalks. If we adopt the idea that it is OK for pedestrians to disobey the laws that apply to their use of the road ... why hold the cars to also obey the laws?



John Bredin said:


> it isn't just people "staring at their electronic devices and/or crossing anywhere they please without even looking at the traffic" who end up getting fatally hit by fast unimpeded vehicle traffic. I'd bet a "road" bordering a college with a lot of students walking outside (not a suburban community college) is really a street.



Calling it a street or a road is just semantics, at least to me it is. I don't know where you live but have you ever been to a college town where the campus sits on the corner of a State Highway and a US Highway - both roads carrying traffic that is made of cars, semi-trucks, delivery vehicles with local and through traffic sharing the thoroughfare? Have you experienced the number of students who do not look before they cross?

Yes, I agree, the vehicle traffic should not be given a free hand to drive as they want - just that the "fix" should include the pedestrians using the same caution and obeying the laws as we expect the cars to do.



John Bredin said:


> Sorry for the hijack on a thread concerning rail crossings, but I feel strongly about the issue of more parity between pedestrians and motorists.



The parity is good - as long as they are held to the laws just as the cars are.

To get back to the topic of the thread ... I only used the example of this particular road because it has been in our local news. All to often the blame, and therefore the "responsibility" and "changes" are placed on the larger machine "only" instead of expecting all to do their part. A good example of that is the number of train vs car crashes that have occurred due to cars "running the gates" and people saying the trains should "do something" about it. Then, if the gates are extended all the way across the road and preventing anyone from bypassing them when they are down, people complain because they don't want to wait if they think they have time to beat the train.

While making crossings safer is a good idea - it does not replace the benefit of "Stop-Look-Listen" and obeying the laws. If the gates are down - Do Not Go Around Them. If a car does and gets hit - don't blame the train and don't phrase the headline as "Train Hits Car"


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Qapla said:


> If the gates are down - Do Not Go Around Them. If a car does and gets hit - don't blame the train and don't phrase the headline as "Train Hits Car"


"Rather than phrase it correctly let's butcher the wording so an illiterate reader will not misapply blame."


----------



## ehbowen

How about, "Was It Suicide, Or the Single-Minded Pursuit Of A Darwin Award?"


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> I've previously suggested an inexpensive help - cameras that activate (and locally store information) when the lights are activated and a vehicle or pedestrian is detected in the zone. The police can then decide to look at the data if there are a lot of incidents and start sending out warning letters and/or tickets to offenders.


Why just warning letters? We have red light cameras all over our city, and I presume that driver who get caught on camera running a red light get a nice fat traffic ticket.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> Why just warning letters? We have red light cameras all over our city, and I presume that driver who get caught on camera running a red light get a nice fat traffic ticket.


That solution is disliked by a lot of people because of its Big Brother feeling and in many places, it has been voted down or prohibited by law because of that resistance. So I hesitate to suggest tickets as a first solution and leave that for scofflaws. But more importantly, it shows where a problem exists and it might take more signage, crossing gates instead of signs or a police car at random hours to give out a ticket (since no radar is required in the police car).

When an officer is not busy, they are often doing their paperwork in their car to catch up. I requested our local town police that they park in our neighborhood at the bottom of the hill so even though the officer doesn't have the town's one radar unit, it is amazing how people slow down when they come over the hill and suddenly they see a police car facing them.

Prevention is the key. Enforcement is only necessary when prevention fails. And cameras really help to understand what happened when an accident occurs and the occupants of the vehicle are in too many pieces to give their side of the story. The train's camera only shows what the train sees and if it comes around a curve, it may miss what preceded.

The main thing is that the stationary camera with no wi-fi or cell-tower transmission is an inexpensive but big deterrent especially when it is accompanied by clear "camera in use" warning signs.


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> That solution is disliked by a lot of people because of its Big Brother feeling and in many places, it has been voted down or prohibited by law because of that resistance. So I hesitate to suggest tickets as a first solution and leave that for scofflaws. But more importantly, it shows where a problem exists and it might take more signage, crossing gates instead of signs or a police car at random hours to give out a ticket (since no radar is required in the police car).



Yeah, I know the feeling. I once got a speed camera ticket, and I do find speed cameras annoying because many times the posted speed limits are far below what the road is engineered to safely handle. Thus, the speed cameras are a kind of entrapment. On the other hand, I have no problem with red light cameras. Speeding a little might not be so bad, but running red lights is really evil and dangerous to others. And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.

The problem with them is that the city isn't really transparent about whether these are used for safety or for revenue enhancement. They originally deployed them by contracting with a vendor who provided the equipment and took a cut of the fines. That let to suspicions that the vendor was setting up the cameras on a hair trigger in order to maximize the fines collected. This is more a problem with the speed cameras, where environmental factors can interfere with the radar signals. In fact, I once got a speed camera ticket that seemed off. I downloaded the camera images and radar data, went back to where the alleged violation occurred, and measured the distance between the two recorded locations of my car. This distance wasn't as far as it should have been if I had been traveling as fast as the camera system claims. I was going to challenge in court, but the city had a lot more problems with inaccurate speed cameras than mine, and they ended up dropping a lot of cases (including mine) and even shutting down the speed cameras for a while. But, as I said, this is more a problem with speed cameras than red light cameras.


----------



## cocojacoby

There are better options:


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> Yeah, I know the feeling. I once got a speed camera ticket, and I do find speed cameras annoying because many times the posted speed limits are far below what the road is engineered to safely handle. Thus, the speed cameras are a kind of entrapment. On the other hand, I have no problem with red light cameras. Speeding a little might not be so bad, but running red lights is really evil and dangerous to others. And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.
> 
> The problem with them is that the city isn't really transparent about whether these are used for safety or for revenue enhancement. They originally deployed them by contracting with a vendor who provided the equipment and took a cut of the fines. That let to suspicions that the vendor was setting up the cameras on a hair trigger in order to maximize the fines collected. This is more a problem with the speed cameras, where environmental factors can interfere with the radar signals. In fact, I once got a speed camera ticket that seemed off. I downloaded the camera images and radar data, went back to where the alleged violation occurred, and measured the distance between the two recorded locations of my car. This distance wasn't as far as it should have been if I had been traveling as fast as the camera system claims. I was going to challenge in court, but the city had a lot more problems with inaccurate speed cameras than mine, and they ended up dropping a lot of cases (including mine) and even shutting down the speed cameras for a while. But, as I said, this is more a problem with speed cameras than red light cameras.


The other issue with speed cameras was that some municipalities reduced the yellow light time. I believe that yellow lights nowadays stay on much linger than they used to and there is also a delay between when one light turns red and the other one turns green and I believe this time has increased from years past when it was zero. Supposedly, some municipalities have reduced these times for red light camera signals only which confuses drivers.


----------



## me_little_me

cocojacoby said:


> There are better options:View attachment 21274


That's an alternative for a FEW of the many crossings - the ones with gates. It is also EXPENSIVE. For those with just signals or just crossbucks, it is not a reasonable alternative to a simple solar-powered battery camera and a warning sign.

As to your comment - being better - building all overpasses and underpasses is even BETTER but the price is very high even compared to your solution.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> And the ticket one gets from a camera isn't the same as one you get from a live cop. The fine is less, and there are no points involved. At least that's how it works in Baltimore.


And everywhere else, AFAIK...because the camera image is not good enough to positively identify the driver thru facial recognition, the image is designed to capture the license plate, and then cite the registered owner of the vehicle, which may be or not be, the same as the violating driver. Hence, no points assessed.


----------



## Qapla

Since a stationary camera at a RR crossing would/should be aimed at the area of the crossing where the track cross the road - it would/should not be difficult to show that the vehicle photographed is on-the-tracks when the gates are down - there should not be the same "technicalities" that are involved in a speeding camera or even a red light camera.

A vehicle is on the tracks with the gate down or it is not - fairly simple.

As for crossings without gates - that would not be helped with an enforcement camera.


----------



## flitcraft

MARC Rider said:


> I do find speed cameras annoying because many times the posted speed limits are far below what the road is engineered to safely handle.


The problem is that the roads were engineered to handle less traffic and fewer bikes and pedestrians than they carry today. In the past year, traffic fatalities in Seattle were higher than they have been in many years--mostly pedestrians and bicyclists, apparently. Unfortunately, when the roads were put in, no sidewalks were installed north of what was then the city limits, so pedestrians have to walk on the narrow shoulders of the road, as do bicyclists. So, the City Council passed an ordinance limiting the top speed on all non-freeway roads to 25 mph. I have to admit, it does seem really slow on four lane streets compared to what I'm accustomed to. It will take some time to get used to, but I suspect in time we'll wonder why we were in such a rush to get from A to B, at the cost of too many lives.


----------



## Asher

Highways, bike paths, walkways. Hard to make them synonymous, not to mention throwing in a railroad track.


----------



## AFS1970

My state and city has further complicated things with something called a Hawk Signal. These are put in at crosswalks located in the middle of a long block. They are traditional traffic lights but are tied to the walk buttons for pedestrians. They are dark completely when not in use, when you press the button for the walk light they turn on yellow, then go to solid red when the walk light comes on. So far so good, as red means stop. However after a few seconds the lights go to flashing red, this now means proceed if there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk, but stay stopped if there are pedestrians crossing. This was so confusing that they had to put up signs on the poles to tell motorists what the new rules were.

We have three of these in town now and more are coming. One Assistant Police Chief called it the most confusing system he had seen, because the only other place we have flashing red traffic lights are railroad crossings and school busses and they both mean stop. Here they may or may not mean stop. So while these are not specifically railroad related, I can see them causing confusion at crossings.


----------



## Asher

We have the same crosswalks. One can never tell when someone will cross without pushing the button. They cross a street that has a parking median in the center, people get out of their car and just start crossing. You never know which way to look, for the light, the sidewalk, the center of the street. It's a free for all at times so it seems. Oh yeah, a bike path on both sides of the street.


----------



## cocojacoby

I totally agree about that "Hawk" signal. The first and only one I ever encountered was on Beacon Street near Boston College. I and every other driver had no idea what to do. The alternating flashing red lights mean what exactly? Just a completely stupid idea that never should have reached fruition.


----------



## railiner

cocojacoby said:


> I totally agree about that "Hawk" signal. The first and only one I ever encountered was on Beacon Street near Boston College. I and every other driver had no idea what to do. The alternating flashing red lights mean what exactly? Just a completely stupid idea that never should have reached fruition.


Perhaps the answer can be found somewhere in here? (Good luck!)



https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf


----------



## Bob Dylan

AFS1970 said:


> My state and city has further complicated things with something called a Hawk Signal. These are put in at crosswalks located in the middle of a long block. They are traditional traffic lights but are tied to the walk buttons for pedestrians. They are dark completely when not in use, when you press the button for the walk light they turn on yellow, then go to solid red when the walk light comes on. So far so good, as red means stop. However after a few seconds the lights go to flashing red, this now means proceed if there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk, but stay stopped if there are pedestrians crossing. This was so confusing that they had to put up signs on the poles to tell motorists what the new rules were.
> 
> We have three of these in town now and more are coming. One Assistant Police Chief called it the most confusing system he had seen, because the only other place we have flashing red traffic lights are railroad crossings and school busses and they both mean stop. Here they may or may not mean stop. So while these are not specifically railroad related, I can see them causing confusion at crossings.


Austin is putting these in everywhere( along with Bike Lanes)and lots of our so called Drivers DON'T Stop!


----------



## Siegmund

AFS1970 said:


> My state and city has further complicated things with something called a Hawk Signal. These are put in at crosswalks located in the middle of a long block. They are traditional traffic lights but are tied to the walk buttons for pedestrians. They are dark completely when not in use, when you press the button for the walk light they turn on yellow, then go to solid red when the walk light comes on....



An IMO better version of these is in widespread use in western Canada. The signal is flashing green, not dark, when not in use. When a pedestrian pushes the button they first turn solid green, then yellow and red for the normal length of time. I don't believe the Canadian version uses flashing red at the end of the cycle -- and having flashing red mean anything other than stop-and-proceed does seem very confusing. (If flashing red still meant stop and proceed, maybe it would save a few seconds for drivers at these.) Flashing green has the merit of not being in widespread use in the US.

I still had to ask what they were, the first time I drove in BC after several years living well away from the border.

They had their own version of confusion because eastern Canada used to use flashing green rather than green arrow for left turn signals.


----------



## trainman74

railiner said:


> Perhaps the answer can be found somewhere in here? (Good luck!)
> 
> 
> 
> https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf



Here's the section that describes "HAWK" signals (under their official name, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons): Chapter 4F

A flashing red traffic signal being the equivalent of a stop sign should be basic stuff. I assume people are just confused because instead of one red light flashing on and off, it's two red lights flashing back and forth.

From the California driver's handbook:


----------



## railiner

trainman74 said:


> Here's the section that describes "HAWK" signals (under their official name, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons): Chapter 4F
> 
> A flashing red traffic signal being the equivalent of a stop sign should be basic stuff. I assume people are just confused because instead of one red light flashing on and off, it's two red lights flashing back and forth.
> 
> From the California driver's handbook:


I think it would be much better, if they just installed standard traffic signal's, pedestrian activated, at the crosswalk...the 'hawk' is just too unusual to be readily understood...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If a HAWK beacon is just too complicated to understand then maybe it's time to hang up the car keys.


----------



## cocojacoby

Disagree. There is no reason for such a weird signal.


----------



## jiml

Siegmund said:


> They had their own version of confusion because eastern Canada used to use flashing green rather than green arrow for left turn signals.


There are still a few. They're called "Advanced Green" and are usually accompanied by an explanatory sign. The main reason they've fallen into disfavor and are gradually being replaced is not actually confusion, but that they've outlived their original purpose - to provide both left turn and forward motion to one direction only. More and more intersections are requiring multiple left turn options and that requires arrows.


----------



## Qapla

I have found that many drivers only look at the lights - they do not read the "explanatory signs" that explain the signals.


----------



## me_little_me

Qapla said:


> I have found that many drivers only look at the lights - they do not read the "explanatory signs" that explain the signals.


The whole purpose of lights is to be self explanatory so if they cause confusion instead of eliminating it, they are not very useful. The idea is that the color alone with a built-in arrow to tell you what direction it refers to, is enough for you to make a decision. Witness the use of the flashing yellow arrow. When it came out not too many years ago and became ubiquitous in no time at all, it apparently was obvious to most people because they followed it correctly. A few were confused but not once did I ever see an explanatory sign.


----------



## jis

Florida DOT has invented an innovative HAWK where flashing Green apparently means someone may be walking across the street. It is actuated in a mid block pedestrian crossing when someone pushes the walk request button. If not actuated the signal is dark. Go figure. 

A whole slew of them have recently been installed on A1A on the Barrier Island across Indian River here in Melbourne.


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> Florida DOT has invented an innovative HAWK where flashing Green apparently means someone may be walking across the street. It is actuated in a mid block pedestrian crossing when someone pushes the walk request button. If not actuated the signal is dark. Go figure.
> 
> A whole slew of them have recently been installed on A1A on the Barrier Island across Indian River here in Melbourne.


That doesn't sound very intelligent to me. "According to the California Department of Motor Vehicles, a blinking or flashing yellow light means that drivers should proceed with caution. Unlike a blinking red light, a blinking yellow light does not require drivers to stop, but it does suggest that they slow down and remain particularly alert."

So if a blinking yellow light means you can proceed and "suggests" you slow down, who would consider a blinking green light means you better be prepared to stop for a pedestrian?

But then nobody has suggested that there is intelligent life in Florida.


----------



## railiner

Maybe they should adopt "Lunar white" from the railroads...that should wrinkle some brows....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cocojacoby said:


> I and every other driver had no idea what to do. The alternating flashing red lights mean what exactly? Just a completely stupid idea that never should have reached fruition.





cocojacoby said:


> There is no reason for such a weird signal.


For my entire life and in every location I have ever traveled flashing red has meant "stop and proceed when clear."


----------



## cocojacoby

Alternate flashing red means a train is coming to me, not stop and proceed


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Today I was watching a video of someone driving in Canada and they passed several flashing green lights without explanation. After doing a bit of digging it sounds like depending on the province it either means you have a protected turn or to be prepared for pedestrian cross traffic. You don't actually stop on flashing green but are supposed to be prepared for the light to change upon activation. Where I live protected travel is solid green while unprotected travel is flashing yellow and prohibited travel is solid red. I guess flashing green is used to keep traffic moving at full speed?


----------



## railiner

If this keeps up, driver's will have to learn as many signal aspects as a locomotive engineer....


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> Today I was watching a video of someone driving in Canada and they passed several flashing green lights without explanation. After doing a bit of digging it sounds like depending on the province it either means you have a protected turn or to be prepared for pedestrian cross traffic. You don't actually stop on flashing green but are supposed to be prepared for the light to change upon activation. Where I live protected travel is solid green while unprotected travel is flashing yellow and prohibited travel is solid red. I guess flashing green is used to keep traffic moving at full speed?


Protected turn in most cases. Flashing green at an intersection indicates Go to both through traffic and those making a left turn. The signal would be red coming the opposite way. They are being phased out in favor of arrows, since fewer intersections still require left turns in only one direction and drivers aren't as smart as they used to be.


----------



## caravanman

Gosh, I have enough trouble with driving on the wrong side of the road and lack of roundabouts over there, don't confuse me even more!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I can switch sides so long as the steering wheel is at the correct orientation to remind me which rules to follow. I've also driven in countries where they seem to shove five lanes of traffic into 1½ lanes of pavement, but the UK's multi-lane highway style roundabouts are genuinely difficult for me. I never grew up with anything like that and find the process rather tedious with several turnoffs passing in rapid succession at high speed. It's probably a more efficient design but I'm just not wired for that sort of layout and really have to think about it when I encounter one.


----------



## caravanman

I have found myself driving the wrong side on occasion in the USA, thankfully I realised soon enough!
It is funny that folk find our roundabouts tricky, I have exactly the same problem about the 4 way USA box junctions, our brains just are so used to certain procedures over the years, I guess!


----------



## TrackWalker

Practice on this....


----------



## Cal

TrackWalker said:


> Practice on this....


Oh my, that’s cool, but not great for drivers!
I personally love odd crossings like that though


----------



## jiml

caravanman said:


> Gosh, I have enough trouble with driving on the wrong side of the road and lack of roundabouts over there, don't confuse me even more!


Roundabouts are the Devil's handiwork. They're becoming more prevalent here due to their cheapness vs. a proper intersection. Their use is not covered in driver training and the dual-lane ones are accidents in waiting.


----------



## TrackWalker

When roundabouts first started appearing locally the first one was almost always built close to the nearest high school.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> I can switch sides so long as the steering wheel is at the correct orientation to remind me which rules to follow. I've also driven in countries where they seem to shove five lanes of traffic into 1½ lanes of pavement, but the UK's multi-lane highway style roundabouts are genuinely difficult for me. I never grew up with anything like that and find the process rather tedious with several turnoffs passing in rapid succession at high speed. It's probably a more efficient design but I'm just not wired for that sort of layout and really have to think about it when I encounter one.


Have you driven in Mexico City with the Gloriettas( Multi Lane Traffic Circles) and the Topes?( Speed Bumps to slow the Grand Prix Drivers! )

Sort of like Chevy Chase in London in "European Vacation" at Twice the Speed!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Check out this one where traffic goes from "American" to "European" and back to "American" (driving on right, then left and then back to right)









Delaware City · Delaware


Delaware




www.google.com


----------



## Duane Witte

AmtrakBlue said:


> Check out this one where traffic goes from "American" to "European" and back to "American" (driving on right, then left and then back to right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delaware City · Delaware
> 
> 
> Delaware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 21387


They're doing that quite a bit here in Missouri when they rebuild interchanges


----------



## joelkfla

AmtrakBlue said:


> Check out this one where traffic goes from "American" to "European" and back to "American" (driving on right, then left and then back to right)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delaware City · Delaware
> 
> 
> Delaware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 21387


The idea is that cars making left turns don't have to cross traffic. You still have two traffic signals, same as a conventional diamond interchange, but each has only 2 intervals, so it's supposed to greatly increase capacity.

It looks weird, but it's really hard to turn onto the wrong side of the road.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

joelkfla said:


> The idea is that cars making left turns don't have to cross traffic. You still have two traffic signals, same as a conventional diamond interchange, but each has only 2 intervals, so it's supposed to greatly increase capacity.
> 
> It looks weird, but it's really hard to turn onto the wrong side of the road.


I’ve been thru it a couple of times. I’m sure you can get used to it, but it is weird at first.


----------



## greatwestern

Devil's Advocate said:


> I can switch sides so long as the steering wheel is at the correct orientation to remind me which rules to follow. I've also driven in countries where they seem to shove five lanes of traffic into 1½ lanes of pavement, but the UK's multi-lane highway style roundabouts are genuinely difficult for me. I never grew up with anything like that and find the process rather tedious with several turnoffs passing in rapid succession at high speed. It's probably a more efficient design but I'm just not wired for that sort of layout and really have to think about it when I encounter one.


Being a Brit, one of the major problems I have when driving in the USA or Canada is doing right turns against a red - scares the hell out of me. No problems with roundabouts - but this one in Swindon is a bit of a challenge !!


----------



## railiner

Egads! I think I would prefer good ole 'spaghetti bowl' multi-grade separated flyover interchanges...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Egads! I think I would prefer good ole 'spaghetti bowl' multi-grade separated flyover interchanges...


Since we've ventured into Italian food, I suspect every major city has a "spaghetti junction". This is certainly what this first one in west Toronto was nicknamed over a generation ago, and it has long since been supplanted by several of the second type.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Houston has an infamous one called "The Spaghetti Bowl" and the other Major Texas Cities are emulating them including Austin, which Specializes in badly designed "Flyovers",2 Lanes turning into One ways @ intersections, No Left turns allowed and Poor Signage and Lighting on our Major Roads!

Since most Traffic Engineers are Texas Aggies ( Texas A&M) we call them College Stations Revenge against the University of Texas!


----------



## cocojacoby

Cal said:


> Oh my, that’s cool, but not great for drivers!
> I personally love odd crossings like that though



Then this is for you. It even has semi street running coming off of it:


----------



## Dakota 400

jiml said:


> Roundabouts are the Devil's handiwork. They're becoming more prevalent here due to their cheapness vs. a proper intersection. Their use is not covered in driver training and the dual-lane ones are accidents in waiting.



Near where I live, two secondary roads that intersect and are heavily used at certain times of the day (going to work and coming home from work times) are due to have a roundabout built when funding is available. The reasons are two folk: First, to reduce the long lines of cars waiting to get through the intersection by "increasing the rate of traffic flow". Second, to reduce the number of accidents at that intersection.

I'll predict that the number of accidents will increase significantly once this thing is built. Maybe after people have used it for some time, the accident rate will decline. But, I am not going to bet on it.


----------



## me_little_me

joelkfla said:


> The idea is that cars making left turns don't have to cross traffic. You still have two traffic signals, same as a conventional diamond interchange, but each has only 2 intervals, so it's supposed to greatly increase capacity.
> 
> It looks weird, but it's really hard to turn onto the wrong side of the road.


They are called Diverging Diamonds and, IMHO, are one of the best ideas devised for that situation. Drivers only have one traffic light to go through instead of all sorts of left-turn lights and the tons of delays.


----------



## Ziv

We had something similar in Arlington VA on Washington Blvd. It is a regular cross walk but there is an amber warning light to get drivers to pay attention to pedestrians. The pedestrian hits the button, the light goes on and hopefully the drivers slow and stop. Within a month of it being installed a pedestrian hit the button and walked into the traffic of Washington Blvd without looking to see if the cars were stopping. One did but the other driver didn't see the pedestrian and hit them at 30 mph. 


AFS1970 said:


> My state and city has further complicated things with something called a Hawk Signal. These are put in at crosswalks located in the middle of a long block. They are traditional traffic lights but are tied to the walk buttons for pedestrians. They are dark completely when not in use, when you press the button for the walk light they turn on yellow, then go to solid red when the walk light comes on. So far so good, as red means stop. However after a few seconds the lights go to flashing red, this now means proceed if there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk, but stay stopped if there are pedestrians crossing. This was so confusing that they had to put up signs on the poles to tell motorists what the new rules were.
> 
> We have three of these in town now and more are coming. One Assistant Police Chief called it the most confusing system he had seen, because the only other place we have flashing red traffic lights are railroad crossings and school busses and they both mean stop. Here they may or may not mean stop. So while these are not specifically railroad related, I can see them causing confusion at crossings.


----------



## trainman74

greatwestern said:


> Being a Brit, one of the major problems I have when driving in the USA or Canada is doing right turns against a red - scares the hell out of me.



You're never _required_ to make a right turn on red (although you may occasionally hear a horn honking from behind you).


----------



## SarahZ

And then there’s the infamous “Michigan Left”:


----------



## Cal

SarahZ said:


> And then there’s the infamous “Michigan Left”:
> View attachment 21397


What the-


----------



## SarahZ

Cal said:


> What the-


It's really not so bad once you've done it a couple times.  It prevents left turn congestion at busy intersections. You mostly see them in the larger cities.

This is what the signs look like, indicating the path you need to take. I couldn't figure out why this one looked so familiar, and then I realized I go through this intersection on the way to/from work every day.


----------



## jiml

SarahZ said:


> And then there’s the infamous “Michigan Left”:
> View attachment 21397


I have driven in Michigan a lot over the years, and you nailed it.


----------



## jiml

trainman74 said:


> You're never _required_ to make a right turn on red (although you may occasionally hear a horn honking from behind you).


Right turns on red are still prohibited in Montreal, although now permitted in the rest of Quebec. Here in southern Ontario there have also been issues of people turning right getting tickets from red light cameras, so caution (and honking) has become more common.


----------



## SarahZ

Many people (in my experience) don't know that you can also turn left on red, provided you are turning onto a one-way street.


----------



## jiml

SarahZ said:


> Many people (in my experience) don't know that you can also turn left on red, provided you are turning onto a one-way street.


That is illegal here and a friend of mine got the ticket to prove it.


----------



## SarahZ

jiml said:


> That is illegal here and a friend of mine got the ticket to prove it.


True. Best to check provincial/state traffic laws.


----------



## TrackWalker

"In Ontario, you have a right to turn left on a red – but only if you're turning from a one-way onto another one-way. If police catch you turning from a one-way onto a two-way, you'll be charged with running a red light. "


----------



## jiml

TrackWalker said:


> "In Ontario, you have a right to turn left on a red – but only if you're turning from a one-way onto another one-way. If police catch you turning from a one-way onto a two-way, you'll be charged with running a red light. "


Yes, this is where my friend discovered the fine print. He was turning left from a two-way street onto a one-way, so the opposite of your example, but with the same end result. He went to court asking where the opposite direction traffic going to come from on the street he was turning from. He lost.


----------



## SarahZ

TrackWalker said:


> "In Ontario, you have a right to turn left on a red – but only if you're turning from a one-way onto another one-way. If police catch you turning from a one-way onto a two-way, you'll be charged with running a red light. "


Oh gosh, yes. You can't turn left on red onto a two-way here either. You can turn left onto a one-way from a one-way OR two-way street, though.

As for a right on red, that can be done from a one-way or two-way onto a one-way or two-way, provided there isn't a "No Turn on Red" sign.


----------



## WWW

Yeah although they drive among us - - - - -

Further note - you MUST be in the curb lane to make these right or left turns - Curb to Curb - NOT out in the center lane.
Sheesh making a left hand turn from the right lane - what cereal box did you get your license out of ?
The curb lanes may still have straight thru traffic and not a forced turn - it is illegal to go around thru traffic -OR- a stopped Bus !
And you need a good solid book thrown at you to read in jail if it is a School Bus AND STOP ARM EXTENDED !
Patience and BEWARE of any pedestrian traffic !


----------



## Bob Dylan

SarahZ said:


> Oh gosh, yes. You can't turn left on red onto a two-way here either. You can turn left onto a one-way from a one-way OR two-way street, though.
> 
> As for a right on red, that can be done from a one-way or two-way onto a one-way or two-way, provided there isn't a "No Turn on Red" sign.


Same here in Austin. Texas has a patchwork of Traffic Laws,with most decided Locally, but a few are Federal Laws such as No Two Way Access Roads for Interstate Highways!


----------



## SarahZ

WWW said:


> Yeah although they drive among us - - - - -
> 
> Further note - you MUST be in the curb lane to make these right or left turns - Curb to Curb - NOT out in the center lane.
> Sheesh making a left hand turn from the right lane - what cereal box did you get your license out of ?
> The curb lanes may still have straight thru traffic and not a forced turn - it is illegal to go around thru traffic -OR- a stopped Bus !
> And you need a good solid book thrown at you to read in jail if it is a School Bus AND STOP ARM EXTENDED !



I seriously hope you aren’t addressing me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jiml said:


> Roundabouts are the Devil's handiwork. They're becoming more prevalent here due to their cheapness vs. a proper intersection. Their use is not covered in driver training and the dual-lane ones are accidents in waiting.


You mean driver training today or back when you were learning? Every option has its own issues. The problem with spaghetti flyovers is that they are expensive and require a large footprint. The problem with intersections is that they do not scale smoothly and are inefficient. The problem with roundabouts is that North American drivers are unfamiliar with them and our versions do not always follow the free flowing traffic model which impedes the primary benefit.



Bob Dylan said:


> Have you driven in Mexico City with the Gloriettas( Multi Lane Traffic Circles) and the Topes?( Speed Bumps to slow the Grand Prix Drivers! ) Sort of like Chevy Chase in London in "European Vacation" at Twice the Speed!


I have no interest with driving in Mexico city but I have seen the European Vacation scene and had a laugh.





SarahZ said:


> It's really not so bad once you've done it a couple times. It prevents left turn congestion at busy intersections. You mostly see them in the larger cities.


Any congestion benefit is a myth where I live. I believe Texas calls these "super roads" or some such. If they're intended to be safer then perhaps we should include the road rage they promote as drivers realize they will now sit through up to three lights instead of one to make the same trip. Our version was built after drunk teenagers kept crashing into each other in the middle of the night and rather than put more cops out at 2AM we screwed up traffic for everyone for decades to come. How bad is it? Bad enough I simply ignore that part of town in order to avoid it.


----------



## Chris I

WWW said:


> Yeah although they drive among us - - - - -
> 
> Further note - you MUST be in the curb lane to make these right or left turns - Curb to Curb - NOT out in the center lane.
> Sheesh making a left hand turn from the right lane - what cereal box did you get your license out of ?
> The curb lanes may still have straight thru traffic and not a forced turn - it is illegal to go around thru traffic -OR- a stopped Bus !
> And you need a good solid book thrown at you to read in jail if it is a School Bus AND STOP ARM EXTENDED !
> Patience and BEWARE of any pedestrian traffic !



Free right on red, in practice, ends up being really dangerous for pedestrians. Drivers become used to turning right on red, and will only look left before rolling on through. So it is actually quite common to be walking through a crosswalk with the signal, to have someone fly through as you reach the end of the crossing. 

Free right on red should be banned in all cities.


----------



## WWW

*Drivers become used to turning right on red, and will only look left before rolling on through. *

Yeah that rolling on through is a *ROLLING STOP* not a complete STOP before proceeding !

There are three aspects to the Right Turn on Red -
reduces traffic congestion and keeps some busy traffic flowing
restricted where there is high pedestrian traffic i.e. downtown corners
and at school crossings for obvious safety concerns

Then there is the pedestrian violator - when the DON"T WALK sign is lit they run like hell endangering themselves 
and the turning vehicle making a less safe turn in a wider arc or curb hopping move.

It is not only senior drivers needing that 55 drive classes offered to reduce insurance rates ! NO LOL matter !


----------



## NS VIA Fan

On Prince Edward Island where they don't even have a freeway.....there's now 'Displaced Left Turns' and the DOT has had put out videos on how to navigate them!


----------



## jiml

WWW said:


> *Drivers become used to turning right on red, and will only look left before rolling on through. *
> 
> Yeah that rolling on through is a *ROLLING STOP* not a complete STOP before proceeding !


In Ontario that's referred to as a $325 rolling stop.


----------



## Qapla

Chris I said:


> Free right on red, in practice, ends up being really dangerous for pedestrians. Drivers become used to turning right on red, and will only look left before rolling on through. So it is actually quite common to be walking through a crosswalk with the signal, to have someone fly through as you reach the end of the crossing.
> 
> *Free right on red should be banned in all cities.*



I disagree...

I live in a college town where pedestrian and vehicle traffic interactions are prime concerns and in the news quite often. Of the many problems talked about to improve safety turning right on red has never been proposed as something to be eliminated. On the intersections where it would be hazardous there are signs prohibiting right-on-red. 

To blanketly eliminate them slows traffic, blames only the car drivers and encourages pedestrians to ignore the crossing signals.


----------



## Eric S

Chris I said:


> Free right on red, in practice, ends up being really dangerous for pedestrians. Drivers become used to turning right on red, and will only look left before rolling on through. So it is actually quite common to be walking through a crosswalk with the signal, to have someone fly through as you reach the end of the crossing.
> 
> Free right on red should be banned in all cities.


Completely agree. Right on red prioritizes motorist convenience over pedestrian safety. It should have no place in an urban environment.


----------



## me_little_me

Qapla said:


> I disagree...
> 
> I live in a college town where pedestrian and vehicle traffic interactions are prime concerns and in the news quite often. Of the many problems talked about to improve safety turning right on red has never been proposed as something to be eliminated. On the intersections where it would be hazardous there are signs prohibiting right-on-red.
> 
> To blanketly eliminate them slows traffic, blames only the car drivers and encourages pedestrians to ignore the crossing signals.


And often, pedestrians pressing the buttons are not given priority in that the buttons may be disabled (as some are in my community) or they cause one to wait as long as the cross traffic. It's one thing to have a long wait in cross traffic in your heated/cooled car and another to be a pedestrian in bad, cold or hot weather. Unless it is an intersection where there are constant pedestrians, pressing the button should immediately cause the street one is crossing to turn yellow unless someone had activated the button for the other street. In that case, their countdown should begin.


----------



## joelkfla

me_little_me said:


> And often, pedestrians pressing the buttons are not given priority in that the buttons may be disabled (as some are in my community) or they cause one to wait as long as the cross traffic. It's one thing to have a long wait in cross traffic in your heated/cooled car and another to be a pedestrian in bad, cold or hot weather. Unless it is an intersection where there are constant pedestrians, pressing the button should immediately cause the street one is crossing to turn yellow unless someone had activated the button for the other street. In that case, their countdown should begin.


I believe most major cities by now have traffic signals synchronized to maximize flow on the major street. Turning them red at random times could cause quite a mess.

In most cases, the pedestrian button does one or both of 2 things:

Causes the light to change at the next scheduled interval, at intersections where the inferior roadway only gets a green if traffic is detected, and
Lengthens the green interval to allow sufficient time for most pedestrians to complete crossing.


----------



## MARC Rider

caravanman said:


> Gosh, I have enough trouble with driving on the wrong side of the road and lack of roundabouts over there, don't confuse me even more!


Oh, we have lots of roundabouts in Maryland, but I guess they would be going in the opposite direction compared to yours, so they'd still be confusing to a British driver.


----------



## caravanman

No, roundabouts are fine, and one gets used to driving on the other side. I towed my caravan through France, driving on the other side of the road, with my UK car steering wheel!


----------



## MARC Rider

jiml said:


> Roundabouts are the Devil's handiwork. They're becoming more prevalent here due to their cheapness vs. a proper intersection. Their use is not covered in driver training and the dual-lane ones are accidents in waiting.


Not always true. We had a notorious 5-way intersection in Towson, Maryland (just north of Baltimore.) It took forever to get through it because of traffic being held up by people making left turns and such. Plus the ridiculously long red-light cycle times typical of Maryland. They replaced it in the 1990s with a roundabout, and things are so much better. True, traffic backs up on the approaches during busy periods because you have to yield to traffic in the circle, but you never have to wait as long as you did when it was just an intersection with traffic lights.


----------



## MARC Rider

joelkfla said:


> I believe most major cities by now have traffic signals synchronized to maximize flow on the major street. Turning them red at random times could cause quite a mess.


Actually, de-synchronizing lights on the main streets in cities might be a good idea. Nowadays, those streets are basically managed as "automobile sewers" to the detriment of all other street users. If the traffic gets snarled up, that might discourage people from driving and encourage city designs that are walkable and more at a human scale.


----------



## Barb Stout

MARC Rider said:


> Not always true. We had a notorious 5-way intersection in Towson, Maryland (just north of Baltimore.) It took forever to get through it because of traffic being held up by people making left turns and such. Plus the ridiculously long red-light cycle times typical of Maryland. They replaced it in the 1990s with a roundabout, and things are so much better. True, traffic backs up on the approaches during busy periods because you have to yield to traffic in the circle, but you never have to wait as long as you did when it was just an intersection with traffic lights.


Roundabouts sound perfect for 5-way intersections. What gives me a heart attack is where there are 2 roundabouts right next to each other with double lanes. Yikes!


----------



## Qapla

How about a roundabout with a train wye stitch in the middle of it ... talk about crazy


----------

