Edit topic

Updated your discussion topic below.

Subject
Enter a subject for your topic. Maximum 150 characters.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Hopefully someone out there knows "goboard" or can give him/her a heads-up on this one...... I was reading one of "goboard's" posts regarding crossing crashes and he/she said something very interesting about safety equipment being "grandfathered" by federal law when existing crossings do not have a crash history BEYOND the time at which standards were upgraded. For example, if the law mandated 12" lenses on side-of-street flashers, yet there were 27 fully functional state locations with 8" flashers and no crash history, then the state could elect to "leave well-enough alone" and NOT waste public funds to simply replace something that was working fine. I was hoping to e-mail him/her off this forum but the e-mail link was not in the member profile. FYI - I'm a professional rail safety analyst looking for any federal precedent that justifies the decision to NOT spend money in locations where there is no demonstrated NEED..... I would rather spend our limited funding on higher-risk locations that would upgrade warning from crossbucks to flashers, than to replace equipment that works fine but may be outdated. Thanks in advance for any help....... Respectfully submitted, aaman
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
E-mail Subscribe
Check the box below if you want to receive e-mail notifications when replies are made to this thread.

Receive notifications