"Outdated" Traffic Laws That Could Be Tweaked...

[thenetwork]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

[LilianaUwU]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Considering that the one time I was on a bus (granted, a city bus) and a railroad signal started flashing, we were almost ready to cross and get hit... it's a good idea to make them stop.

[kalvado]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Considering that the one time I was on a bus (granted, a city bus) and a railroad signal started flashing, we were almost ready to cross and get hit... it's a good idea to make them stop.

presumably, closing sequence gives any vehicle enough time to either stop or finish the crossing, and then have a quick coffee before the train shows up.
Same idea as with all-red phase on a traffic light.

[ran4sh]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)

[jmacswimmer]

US 301 on the Maryland eastern shore has an RR crossing where marked pull-offs are provided for vehicles required to stop. Obviously not feasible at every single crossing in existence, but I thought it was a neat way to address the issue, especially given that US 301 is a high-speed divided highway at this crossing.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0407313,-76.0142126,3a,39.4y,224.21h,88.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAxxGQLsQdHuLqVku7SJFmA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.235196468700181%26panoid%3DAxxGQLsQdHuLqVku7SJFmA%26yaw%3D224.20813158922726!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.039462,-76.0154207,3a,43y,226.42h,89.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slHX3u3qZraUed7B_99izJA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.895636259669331%26panoid%3DlHX3u3qZraUed7B_99izJA%26yaw%3D226.4239369176042!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[Big John]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)

It is a yield or stop sign, and I've mostly seen the yield sign.

[kalvado]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)

As far as I understand, some (many?) states adopted some paranoid procedure after a train crashed in a full school bus in 1930s. It is something like - full stop, engine off, open door and window, listen for the train before proceeding. Way beyond stop sign requirements.

[1995hoo]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

Isn't it already in the MUTCD or similar, that passive railroad crossings (the ones with no lights or gates) are required to have stop signs now? Which means all traffic will be stopping anyway not just certain classes of motor vehicles (I doubt that school buses specifically would be given an exemption if regular buses are not)

As far as I understand, some (many?) states adopted some paranoid procedure after a train crashed in a full school bus in 1930s. It is something like - full stop, engine off, open door and window, listen for the train before proceeding. Way beyond stop sign requirements.

Part of that comes from a seminal court case that you read in torts class during your first year of law school. I don't remember whether it was Judge Learned Hand or Judge Cardozo who wrote the ruling, but it emphasized that a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would "stop, look, and listen" at a railroad crossing. That rule pretty much became universal for a good many years until courts and legislatures realized that in more urban areas it was impractical such that it was necessary to put the onus on the railroads to use automated gates and to do away with "stop, look, and listen" for most motorists where automated gates were in place. Judges Learned Hand and Cardozo were so well-respected that a lot of judges were reluctant to depart from the longstanding precedent even as they questioned its continued viability.

[thenetwork]

I have seen some crossings marked as EXEMPT from normal bus/railroad procedures.  Maybe the law needs to be tweaked to allow for more of those scenarios.

Are there still Train vs. Vehicle (car/bus/train...) collisions at railroad crossings?  Absolutely!  But I would say over 90% of those collisions are due to driver negligence/stupidity -- not reading warning signs (NO low-clearance vehicles), ignoring the DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS suggestions, or thinking they can clear the tracks or "beat the train" when they obviously safely can't. 

Just like people pulling out into traffic or turning left in front of oncoming traffic.  You can't fix stupid!

[jeffandnicole]

I have seen some crossings marked as EXEMPT from normal bus/railroad procedures.  Maybe the law needs to be tweaked to allow for more of those scenarios.

Most (not all) Exempt crossings are crossing with no or very little railroad traffic.  One notable example is the RR Crossing on the AC Expressway Connector, which had 12 or so crossings per day.  The AC Train Station is just east of this crossing. 

US 301 on the Maryland eastern shore has an RR crossing where marked pull-offs are provided for vehicles required to stop. Obviously not feasible at every single crossing in existence, but I thought it was a neat way to address the issue, especially given that US 301 is a high-speed divided highway at this crossing.

US 322 in NJ (55 mph here) has a similar example, although the right lane isn't specifically marked for such vehicles required to stop.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/wEuDYpp8WKpMqkzj8

[Big John]

^^ Notable exception in the CN track parallel to Ashland Ave in Green Bay/Ashwaubenon WI. It is a mainline track, but its proximity to the road makes it exempt at all crossings in the area, in addition to no train horn.

[ElishaGOtis]

Probably one of the more unusual ones are the default speed limits. TN and MS have a default rural limit of 65, yet no roadway that's 2 lanes undivided in those states have limits higher than 55. Conversely, other states that have a default limit rural limit of 55 (i.e. VA, NC, and FL) yet most rural freeways are 65-70.

[Ned Weasel]

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

Right turns on red.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/

[thenetwork]

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

Right turns on red.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.

[jeffandnicole]

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

Right turns on red.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.

Outside of cities, I'd say this is pretty much true 98% of the time.  For the other 2%, it's probably a transportation agency being way overly cautious at certain intersections, or catering to a small group of people, usually anti-road people.  I've also seen cases where over-55 communities that have a signal at or near their community may have a cranky group of people that don't want people turning on red for whatever reason.

[74/171FAN]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

[jdbx]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.

[kphoger]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.

That is, of course, still against the law.

The only time I've personally been pulled over for a stoplight infraction, it was because I had not come to a complete stop before RTOR.  (Cross-traffic's light was just turning green, and the first car in line in the right lane was—oops!—a police officer.)

[wanderer2575]

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

Right turns on red.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/20/business/right-on-red-turn-bans/

At least in my area, for the few NOTR intersections there are, 90% of them are due to limited visibility issues.

What mystifies me are part-time prohibitions:  "NTOR 6am to 11pm," sometimes also with an additional "Mon-Fri" tab.  Does visibility improve during the off hours and weekends?  Lower traffic and pedestrian volume so a lower chance of T-boning someone you can't/don't see, let's roll those dice!  The only sensible explanation that comes to my mind is that it's an attempt to reduce the number of stupid risky turns in front of a speeding vehicle.  In which case it ought to be NTOR full-time.

[kphoger]

What mystifies me are part-time prohibitions:  "NTOR 6am to 11pm," sometimes also with an additional "Mon-Fri" tab.  Does visibility improve during the off hours and weekends?  Lower traffic and pedestrian volume so a lower chance of T-boning someone you can't/don't see, let's roll those dice!  The only sensible explanation that comes to my mind is that it's an attempt to reduce the number of stupid risky turns in front of a speeding vehicle.  In which case it ought to be NTOR full-time.

Visibility improves after 11pm and declines after 6am. 

[1995hoo]

I think there are some places where the part-time prohibition reflects that the pedestrian traffic is not present during the off hours. I can think of a good number of intersections where turns on red are prohibited from 7 AM to 7 PM, for example. A good number of those are in areas where the predominant land usage is office buildings (and perhaps some ancillary businesses like restaurants serving those office buildings).

On the other hand, I can think of some intersections—all of them near sports or music venues—where maybe a prohibition from 5 PM to midnight might be more appropriate, although I've never seen that.

[Dirt Roads]

This morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate).  North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.

[For the record, this interchange actually worked better during construction when the left turn movements were temporarily governed by stop signs/yield signs instead of traffic signals].

[jeffandnicole]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I don't remember where I read or saw it, but I'm pretty sure that there is a statistic that most red light camera tickets actually are for people rolling through on the right turn, rather than the situation most people think of with a car blasting straight through an intersection on red.

This is by far the most common reason why the camera goes off. While yes, it's illegal, it a low level violation that rarely results in crashes. It's also why most intersections with cameras also allow RTOR, because otherwise the violation count wouldn't justify the money spent on the camera system.

[kphoger]

This morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate).  North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.

Don't similar states just put up a sign saying it's OK to turn left at that particular one?


EDIT — nevermind . . . https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nvd8fQ4se32uqT318

[1995hoo]

This morning, I got stuck at a nearby DDI off-ramp waiting to make a left turn (exactly what the DDI concept was supposed to eliminate).  North Carolina and other states should "tweak" their No Left Turn on Red laws to specifically allow left turns on red at DDIs.

....

Virginia allows left on red, but every time I've gone through a DDI in Virginia, I've encountered "No Turn on Red" signs for the left turns. Example here in Haymarket. I wonder whether the reason is that on a DDI ramp, the driver has to turn his head a lot further to the right than he does at a 90-degree crossroads.