Untitled Document

FEDERAL DATA SHOWS THAT GATES ARE THE SAFEST PROTECTIVE DEVICE AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS

(Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2005 Table 8-2:
Data for railroad/motor vehicle accidents at public grade crossings)

Coincidently, about 22% of the safety devices at crossings are gates, and about 22% of accident deaths occur at these crossings.
Based on the relative volume of motorist traffic, a death is 5 times more likely at non-gated crossings than at gated crossings

IN ESSENCE, ALMOST 80% OF DEATHS OCCUR AT RELATIVELY LIGHTLY-TRAVELED CROSSINGS NOT EQUIPPED WITH GATES.

About 37% of deaths at gated crossings are due to motorists driving around or through gates.
It is common knowledge that mechanical malfunctions have caused gates to be in an inappropriately open or closed positions.

THUS, IF GATES DID NOT MALFUNCTION, PROBABLY MORE THAN 90% OF THE DEATHS WOULD OCCUR AT RELATIVELY LIGHTLY-TRAVELED CROSSINGS NOT EQUIPPED WITH GATES.

CONCLUSION:

INSTALLING RELIABLE GATES WOULD ELIMINATE MOST GRADE-CROSSING DEATHS!

YOU ARE 4-14 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED OR INJURED AT A RAILROAD CROSSING WITH CROSSBUCKS OR STOP SIGNS THAN A CROSSING WITH AUTOMATED GATES

Type of Warning	Deaths Per 100,000 Units of Average Daily Traffic	Injuries Per 100,000 Units of Average Daily Traffic
Stop Signs	0.72	.14
Crossbucks	0.21	0.07
Automated Gates	0.05	0.02

ADT = Average Daily Traffic

Note: Of the 155,370 public railroad crossings in the United States in the year 2000, only 34,296 -- or 22% -- were equipped with automated gates. The most popular type of warning device was crossbucks -- 71,468 -- while 11,630 of the crossings had stop signs.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Railroad Safety Statistics – Annual Report 2000.

MISUNDERSTANDING CROSSBUCKS

Many drivers are uncertain or are misinformed about the application of the crossbuck and advance railroad warning signs and about driver responsibilities at passive crossings.

Stephen Richards and K. W. Heathington, “Motorists Understanding of Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Traffic Control Devices and Associated Traffic Laws,” Transportation Research Board No. 1160, 1988.

. . . in the active crossing application, the crossbuck is really no more than a marker that helps identify the intersection; yet, as a stand alone passive device, we expect the motorist to somehow accord some deeper meaning to it. Where else in the practice of traffic control do we permit the use of the same sign to have different meanings in different applications?

Tom Zeinz, “Improving Passive Warning Effectiveness: A Case For a New Crossbuck,” Proceedings, 1991 National Conference on Highway-Rail Safety, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July, 1991.