Railroad concern for crossing safety

[mudchicken]

We seem to be stuck with the brainwashed M&M boys. Refuse to have a war of wits with the two clearly unarmed (and clearly emotionally altered) individuals. Just tell them to GO AWAY! and go back to sucking-up to their ambulance chasing cronies. Their warped agenda isn't ("ain't" for their benefit) going to fly here.

[JoeKoh]

gobard
stop look listen and live.its that simple.missouri doesn't get it.
welcome to the forum
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

Reply to Missouri.

Yours is another rhetorical distraction.

1. Your argument for the Florida crossing seems to be that traffic volume has some bearing upon right-of-way. This is false. Federal law dictates that maritime traffic has precedence over land-based traffic, and railroads have priority over other land-based vehicles for obvious reasons of control. Just ask people stopped in Chicago at one of the many lift bridges for barges through the middle of the city, even for some guy in his sailboat!

The approach circuits for crossings are speed-based, so that a minimum of 20 seconds must elapse before the train enters the crossing, whether it is 60 mph or 15 mph. Most railroads exceed this minimum. Stats on crossing accidents are used by states to upgrade rail crossings. So what you are really saying is that Florida isn't doing their job. Good for you!

2. Regardless of an NTSB cover-up in Bourbonnais (yet more conspiracy theories), even if the gates had failed, all gated tracks have flashing lights as a safety redundancy. If by chance you are claiming that the entire crossing circuit failed, realize that crossings have failsafes so that even if the electricity was cut, battery back-up automatically TURNS ON the crossing lights.

3. Failure to interconnect traffic signals is not a failure of the railroad, but of the municipal government which changed the traffic patterns.

4. Regarding the Oregon case: had the crossings been "iced up" as you claim, general track warrant orders would be issued to train crews for the simple reason: a) track circuits would fail to operate properly, under which case the train must stop before all crossings and operate the length of the line at restricted speed, and b) "iced up" crossings cause flange blockage which can derail a train. I suspect what you really mean to say is that severe weather made conditions hazardous, but we might very well ask why extra caution was not taken by the drivers of the cars, since conditions for the track vs. the road might have been drastically different (snow melts faster on steel rails because of ambient temperatures). Additionally, road engines have automatic sander activation whenever the locomotive bell is activated (along with the horn), so your argument about providing traction for braking is simply moot.

I can think of at least one instance where crossing equipment (grandfathered under Federal law) was not upgraded to updated newer safety standards because the State admitted that not enough grade-crossing accidents had occurred at the crossing to justify the expediture. Which means that enough people were smart enough to stop for the train without having to install extra traffic restrictions, and that the State considered safety sufficient over cost.

And in NS v. Shanklin, the Supreme Court decision was that the State accepts responsibility for grade-crossing safety devices as setting the threshold for safety of particular crossings (with no liability to the railroad), even if those devices (as installed with Federal funding) are regarded as insufficient under Federal MUTCD guidelines.

The best to all of you.

[Anonymous]

Let's see OLI guy. The crossing in Florida has 55,000 vehicles a day and the train approaches at 60 mph just asking for trouble. Ask the employees that hit another truck in 2000 at the same crossing.

Ask the crossing equipment experts who say the NTSB completely covered up the gate failure in Bourbonnais. The state of Illinois found the gates failed. The train engineer didn't see the truck go around. The only person that said the truck went around was the track supervisor who now has a kush job with the signal company.

Fox River was caused by the crossing lights not being interconnected with the traffic lights and the bus was trapped which 3 or 4 people a month get caught in the same trap.

The one in Oregon ---Wasn't that where the fire chief showed up and it was his family. The train was going full steam ahead with the approaches to every crossing in the state iced up. Like how hard could it be to take a maintenance truck and blow out some cinders or sand BEFORE the train comes through. They turned around and killed more people the next winter the same way.

So your new message should be "WHERE THE HELL IS THE SAFETY EQUIPMENT!!"

[mccannt]

To those of you who think that the railroads don't give a damn about grade crossing safety, guess again...

There is probably no group of people who care more about grade crossing safety than railroaders. These are the men and women who have to live (and sometimes die) with the consequences of colliding with someone or something that should not be on the tracks.

Ask Amtrak engineer Billy Parker about what he thought in the seconds before his Miami-bound streamliner sliced into a fully-loaded gasoline tanker at a Fort Lauderdale grade crossing in 1993. The stupidity of the driver in placing his big rig squarely in the path of a train not only cost him his life, but also those of five other motorists whose only mistake was being within the spread of the massive fireball resulting from the tanker's explosion.

Ask the engineer of the City of New Orleans that collided with a semi-trailer loaded with steel at a Bourbonnais, Ill. grade crossings on the evening of March 15, 1999. Subsequent reports showed that the trucker went around the lowered crossing gates. The train engineer didn't kill the 11 people who died in the lead sleeper, that trucker did.

Ask the engineer of the Chicago-bound Metra commuter train that collided with a school bus at a grade crossing in Fox River Grove, Ill. That engineer applied his emergency braking systems as soon as he saw the bus fouling the tracks...but how quickly can you stop a train traveling at 70 mph?

Ask the BNSF engineer whose collision with a motor vehicle in Culver, Ore. resulted in the death of a mother and three of her four children. He didn't place that vehicle in the path of the train...but he has to live with the tragic consequences every day for the rest of his life.

As an Operation Lifesaver presenter and area coordinator, I work with railroaders regularly. I hear them talk about collisions and near misses. I hear the concern in their voices and see it in their eyes and their body language. You cannot convince me that railroads, and the men and women who work for them, care little or nothing about grade crossing safety.

[Anonymous]

Hello Mike--May I respectfully point out that your expeience as a juror involves but ONE crossing incident. Imo, to say that one experience reflects all "truth" is stretching things too far. Also, you did not state the facts of the case--you only presented your OPINION. Without you giving us more facts, I think you came down much too hard on the RR industry.

Could a railroad/locomotive engineer be at fault when a motor vehicle is struck at a crossing? Of course such a thing is POSSIBLE. BUT after reading a few posts on this topic, plus having viewed various news broadcasts as well as one of Railroad Videos' cab rides (Amtrak trip from Philly to Pgh on the old Pnnsy main), my opinion is that for the engineer or RR to be at fault is EXTREMELY RARE!

When I was a little boy I learned to "Stop, Look & Listen" at all RR X-ings. (Maybe the schools don't teach that anymore.) I also figured out that if there is more than one track at a x-ing, after a train passes you do not move across until the train is far enough down the track to let you see if a train is coming towards the x-ing on one of the other tracks.

My "hardened position" is that 99-plus% of the time, a grade crossing accident is the fault of the auto driver or pedestrian, or perhaps the municipality for not improving the roadway or paying to improve signalling or install an overpass or underpass, NOT the RR engineer or the RR Company.

If crossings need to be improved, and the RR was there first, most if not all of the cost should be paid for by the taxpayers. And that's not intended as "socialism" btw--it is simple fairness. After all, gasoline taxes and auto registration fees are supposed to pay for roads. If not, the problem is that the taxpayers are not paying enough attention to how governments spend our money!

One final point: I read a suggestion some years ago that instead of using flashing red lights at grade x-ings, the traffic signal should show a solid red light, like a regular traffic signal.

To motorists, a flashing red light means STOP, THEN GO if there is no cross traffic. The idea of a solid red light makes sense to me, and I'm curious why we still have the traditional flashing red lights.

If you want to make a positive contribution to grade x-ing safety, why not push Operation Lifesaver and state governments & the Congress to adopt laws requiring solid red lights? I think that would really help a lot more than bashing the RR industry.

[csxengineer98]

after reading most of this thread, i just had to put a few of my words in. YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN GOING DOWN THE RAILS, HAVE A WOMAN..ON A CELL PHONE PULL OUT IN FROUNT OF YOU....WITH 2 KIDS IN THE BACK WAVING AT YOU WITH SMILES ON THIER FACES!!!!!! I MISSED THEM, BUT JUST!!!! she never stoped, looked or anything... just motored around the gates talking away... only to look up at me as im blowing the horn... in shock as if i shouldnt have been thier!!!! i will never forget that day... it was bad enougth that she didnt have any care for her own life..but to see the kids in the back seats.... makes your heart stop... as for opporation life saver...anything that will educate the public about rail road safty..im all for.... god knows we have a country full of stupid people.... and people like you...the will find an engineer at fult make me sick.... its not like we can stear the train to hit the car...or to avoid it for that fact.... a train takes over a mile to stop sometimes longer depending on some outside forces..a car only needs a few feet if they came up to a rr crossing preparing to stop anyways.... people like you are that think it should be someone elses fult...lets blame the rest of the world becouse im stupid are the people that kill me!!!! lets put the blame where it realy belongs... on stupid people...and the people that suport the "lets blame eveyone else" additude... and besides....if you are so bent on wanting crossing made beter...lets start by taking your pay checks.... becouse from what you want to do...thats what you want to do to mine!!!! take my livly hood and pay away so the stupid no brained mindless drowns can drive thier cars around and never have to take any real responsibilty for thier actions!!!!!!!!!!!!
csx engineer!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

expected response

[Anonymous]

Rock on Train, rock on! Couldn't have said it better myself!
Ken

[Anonymous]

Mike, I have heard just about enough of your crap! We are brainwashed? huh? What do you think happens at work for us? A company sponsored rally and subliminal message laden safety meeting. Let me tell you something. You can bet your sweet *** that we are professionals! I take my job and safety (us and the public) very seriousely. Funny thing about your approach to your so called "truth." It doesn't hold water with me.
I've got a little story for you. Two days ago we are approaching a grade crossing (gated). We are shoving, I'm on the point protecting the movement. I'm in constant radio contact with the engineer giving car counts to the crossing. One guy speeds up to make it when he sees us coming (in a sedan) annother guy stops and decides that he is gonna make a run for it. Guess what he was driving. Yeah, he was driving a tandem axle fuel delivery truck. He barely makes it across. The crossing arm missed the back of the tank by 2 or 3 feet. If you think that is close, the car behind him decided that he should go as well. He had to swerve to miss the second gate and nearly rear ended the fuel truck. I got a bad feeling about 5 car lengths away and radioed for the engineer to plug it. I knew that one of those idiots were gonna make a run for it. We were going maybe 10 mph and had a short cut of cars, luckily. Now tell me about us bad guys. The crossing was gated, had bells, broad daylight, c'mon Mike. You and your "Ultra hazardous," crossings. Yeah right. Maybe Ultra hazardous for us idiots that have to be on the point of a shove like sitting ducks waiting to get smashed. This crap happens every day. I was complaining to the engineer about this and he said that was nothing. He has seen cars/ trucks go through the second set of arms breaking the crossing arm, not just one time. You know that plugging a train can and has resulted in derailment. When I have to do things like that because of people that think that their time is more valuable than their or my life, I get pissed. Now what do you suggest for my little girl or mom and dad if I were to get smashed because of somebody that thought that their time was more important than my life? By the way, this has happened more than once to me. Maybe you don't want to know the "truth."

[Anonymous]

Per the request of the Admin, very helpfull Editors at Kalmbach, Ed (my NEW hero!!) and all fellow railfains this will be my last response and I hope there will be no more for this thread.
We had some....well...intersting conversations. And now it becomes time to stop passing off who's to be blamed, but how can we make X-ngs safer!

Thanks again to those who helped each other keep leavel heads on a HOT and very personal debate. Most of us do not agree with Mikes opinion. At least we all belive that these crashes can still be prevented.....how is still another story.

Keep a clear cool head, And have a SAFE and happy new year...Icemanmike-Milwaukee

[Anonymous]

GE vs. EMD anyone? Mike's just not going to get it! Just kidding about that first part.

[csxns]

Mike you are talking about my brothers.Past Present Future Railroaders.Mike where would the good ole USA be right now without RAILROADS.

[Anonymous]

You certianly sound like a professional. Professional wrestler maybe. But that is about par for the course when you have people worked to death and brainwashed at the same time. I think Tom needs to redirect his attitude to a bunch of foul mouthed railroaders who can't handle the truth. Wake up guys
Mike

[Anonymous]

No problem, buddy. I whole heartedly agree with you. Mike is off of his rocker! His opinion sounds exactly like what an attorney would say in court, exhagerating (? spelling), fabricating and twisting facts. If somebody were standing in front of me spouting that crap to me, I guarentee that I probably would hit them in the mouth. I am proud of what I do for a living and we are professionals.
Ken

[edblysard]

Hi Train,
Read your reply, agree, Read my post, 1/3/03 @1:36am on the posting titled railroaders ideas on improving crossing safety, and let me know if you agree..
Ed

[cabforward]

**having read another of your 'communiques', i have to say it was marginally coherent and virtual gibberish.. you asked two questions which were interesting: one was about self-preservation, the other suicidal tendencies on the driver's part.. i dont see how anyone could assume anything about the state of mind of someone who is attempting to cross in front of a speeding train before the train makes the crossing.. i see only 5 possibilities: intoxication; on'drugs'; suicidal tendencies; anger directed at the railroad; lack of ability in recognizing the proximity of a life-threatening situation.

none of these indicate the presence of a rational, functioning intellect. maybe you could investigate the cases of people who survive these encounters and report to us on what these people were thinking ( i use the term loosely ) when they regained conciousness, or, if uninjured, what reason did they give when they were cited for disregarding the BELLS, LIGHTS, GATES, and OTHER TRAFFIC stopped on both sides of the track(s)..

i began reading this forum only recently, but this must be the longest thread ever in this entire forum, all over whether engine drivers should find some way to give crossing violators a second chnce at life, so they can break traffic laws elsewhere and kill innocent persons at a later date.. INCREDIBLE!!

how can there be controversy
about approaching a r.r. crossing; making a full, complete stop; looking both ways; listening for horns and bells; proceeding when it s safe to do so..?? many trucks and buses are posted with signs at the rear: this vehicle stops at all r.r. crossings.. if they can do it, why can't everyone?

mr. mike: if you have a problem with the way crossings are protected, why don't you drop this forum and write letters to local, state and federal agencies and get them to enforce old laws or write new ones? you wont change any minds here..we know what we believe..what do you believe? would you stop harassing contributors to this forum and do something about the 'problem' which plagues you so terribly, but noone else? you've had your 15 minutes, so leave us and work your mission somewhere else..we've heard your points, 6 times, at least.. we get it, o.k.? via con dios! if you make any news, we'll read it in the papers.

[Anonymous]

Thank you. gdc

[Anonymous]

Mike, You keep pointing out that the RR's can do something to the crossings, as pointed out countless times, It's not there's to mess with! the city owns it! any thing to do with it has to be taken up with the city. I can't come to your house and steal your front door, can I? so why would the RR be able to tamper with the cities crossing?? Also, Please instead of pointing out that web site you keep pointing out, Point out some valid changes that could be made, Explain to us how the crossings could be safer, what the RR can do. Do you want trains to slow to 15mph to go cross crossings? it don't matter! it's unsafe at any speed!! the train WILL go thru the crossing, it's upto the city to protect the crossing! You claim operation lifesaver is a joke, Well guess again, my friend, you think the railroads do it to make money? OL makes no money! it's to tell the public the dangers of action stupid at crossings!, Also explain how Stop Look and Listen don't work? I'd like to know, Safety first & commen sense is all it takes, and sure there's unavoidable accidents, car stalls on tracks, etc. Buy again, how is it the rr's fault??? is it up to them to make sure your cars up to par, or make sure you know how to drive a stick shift with out stalling? I don't get it Mike, Call me stupid or something, I don't see how it's the RR's fault, And I have sat and watched RR crossings on one of the most active tracks on the east coast, the CSX riverline, People are stupid, they try anything to get past a crossing, It's down for a reason! tell'em mike! tell'em! they dont know! oh wait.. That's Operation lifesavers job, whice you say is a fake. please mike, clarify here, I'll wait for your response. Thank you.

And for the record, I am currently not emplyed by any RR, I'm a stupid high school drop out ( I can't be that dumb, I know enough to stop at crossings), living at home, that like's RR stuff. have a great day

[Anonymous]

Hello gdcwcc,

I have this afternoon brought your posting (and the postings of others who are rightly concerned as to the nasty timbre this topic has taken) to the attention of Tom Chmielewski, editor of Trains.com (and the guy who OKs my checks). He is taking the proper steps to deal with it.

Paul Schmidt
Contributing Editor
Trains.com

[wabash1]

It is not worth anyones time to argue with this guy as he has answered all the questions. Yes he has. in court the judge tells you to make your decision on facts. IN his last post hes affirmed the statement that he assumed that the driver should have been given the right to be able to see how fast the train was comming by cutting the brush, they already let you know that the train could be seen. but not knowing how fast it was going couse this driver ( a teenager from what i gather) to make the bad decision and try and beat the train. if the brush was cut then he coould have made a better decision along with other people to break the law and beat the train. make it easier to break the law. I cheer for the railroad as it is not their responsibility to help people break the law and help them get killed. i have yet to hear one shread of evidence that the railroad is at fault. I am sorry that you fell into the legal system way of brain washing and that they still have you in this state of mind. you are to assume nothing and with this you convicted a inocent party. if you see a train you stop and wait not guess how fast its going so you can beat it. engines are over 20ft high these must have been some monster bushes with a head light and 2 ditch lights. ok now lets look at your side a minute. if the brush was cut then the person could have made a guess as to how fast the train is going, if this is in a curve its easier than straight on. i still cant see where the driver is inocent. and sinse he/she is dead cant come here and defend the actions they made. as far as i am concerned we proved our case and court is now closed

[Anonymous]

Tom,
I too feel that this issue has brought up many valid points and insights. What exactly do you mean by time to move on? So we have a chance to really address what is a serious problem in this country with hundreds of people dying due a variety of issues ranging from education of the average driver, railroad taking some pro-active action along with the governmental agencies, etc.. You feel its time to move on. I think we can carry on an active discussion without the name calling and maybe make some progress on some of the issues that are behind this. It most definitely a problem not just related to any particular issue. What are the odds of your magazine doing an article covering all of the issues so that they can be addressed even further? From the sounds of your attitude not very good. Has your magazine ever done an article of that nature? We can just continue to read about all these avoidable deaths and say well at least it wasn't anybody I know, right? I knew I had a valid reason to stop reading your magazine aside from the rapidly increasing price.

Mike

[Anonymous]

First of all let me be the first to say Thank you for your comments. I was curious about the socialism aspect of this because Europe doesn't have near the problem we do in this country with crossings. They appear to take the design aspect a lot more seriously than we do. Of course when the "bottom line" is at stake, cost become's a large factor in the equation. I used to work for a "profit" company and now work for a governemt agency. Let me tell you I will never work for a "profit" company again if I can help it. The difference in mentality is truly amazing. I was concerned though by your comment about the presumption that everybody sees the trains. That is a large assumption that I feel is weighed a little to heavy. What about the presumption of self-preservation? Do you honestly think all these people are suicidal? Probably not. In the case I was on a large factor that was overlooked was that very issue. You can't assume that someone was trying to kill themselves. I am curious about the situation in Canada, could you relate some of what you are familiar with in regards to crossings up there. Such as the types of gates, are most protected?,etc. I look forward to finding out about this as best you can relate it to us down here in the states. Take care and thank you for the info.. By the way was up in Collingwood in November, Beautiful Country!!!
Mike

[Anonymous]

To everyone,

Perhaps you can never say enough about a truly life or death issue, and it's not surprising that this one raised such emotional responses. If you are just coming to this threat, you will find that most of the responses that follow are reasoned and heartfelt, and some, particulary from the engineers, achingly eloquent. Even when anger showed through, the postings shared opinions worth noting. It is clear we all feel dearly for innocent victims not behind the wheel, and anger over what is overwhelmingly an avoidable tragedy.

I thank those of you who took part in this thread who kept a reasoned approach, and others who took an opportunity to learn from it. But where this debate has turned from finding solutions to angry restatements of hardened positions, it is perhaps time to move on. I am certain we will, tragically, have many opportunities to revisit this issue.

Tom Chmielewski
Editor, Trains.com
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

To everyone,

Perhaps you can never say enough about a truly life or death issue, and it's not surprising that this one raised such emotional responses. Most of the responses were reasoned and heartfelt, and some, particulary from the engineers, achingly eloquent. Even when anger showed through, the postings shared opinions worth noting. It is clear we all feel dearly for innocent victims not behind the wheel, and anger over what is overwhelmingly an avoidable tragedy.

I thank those of you who took part in this thread who kept a reasoned approach, and others who took an opportunity to learn from it. But where this debate has turned from finding solutions to angry restatements of hardened positions, it is perhaps time to move on. I am certain we will, tragically, have many opportunities to revisit this issue.

Tom Chmielewski
Editor, Trains.com
[e-mail]

[Jackflash]

Can I go too??? jackflash

[Anonymous]

First I'd like to mention that I'm not a railroad
employee, just a fan. And I'm not American, an ex-brit now a Canadian (or as Jesse Helms likes to say, I live in Soviet Canuckistan). So I also happen to be socialist. This is relevent because the fact that railroads are 'evil capitalist corporations' has no bearing on this discussion. Do you think that state run railways don't hit people on grade crossings?, I ways deeply affected as a 6 year old child when a classmate lost his legs to a train. Who was to blame?, his parents, not the state run railway. Even if a railroad ran for the public good and nothing else, it there to fulfill a purpose, to get goods and people from point A to B. We have police, firemen, nurses and the military to protect the people, we don't (or shouldn't need) the railroads to do this too.

Many of the posts I've seen refer to incidents where the victims were aware of the train and this didn't seem to disuade them from thier suicidal course of action, so what improved warnings do to protect these people?.

The whole arguement boils down very simply. Trains don't have a choice about changing velocity (direction or speed). People do. ergo the responsibility is thiers and thiers alone. How can we fix this problem, more education such as operation lifesaver. Will this work?, partially, some people can be taught better habits, but the issue is far larger than the scope of OL. More and more people are refusing to accept personal responsibility for thier actions, this is what must change. There will always be people who are too selfi***o think of the consequence of their actions and the Railroads and Governments will never be able to do anything about it.
Graham

[Anonymous]

When will the railroad help in a joint effort Ed? There was an incredible 70Ft. of right of way in this case that would of given a driver over 500ft. of sight distance. I'm not talking about private property. They also refused to acknowledge that the sight distance was a problem, even though they have known about sight distance problems since the 70's. The average driver has no idea about sight distance (although through education they should). Why don't you take your obviously high amount of industry knowledge and ask the railroad if you can become a member of "operation lifesaver" and talk about these issues in an open forum in which people can learn from your experiences. I have challenged Paul to have an article about this, I think he should include people like yourself who have seen first hand some of the problems. If you would of sat in the jury box as a railfan and listened to the arrogance about it not being there problem you may be able to understand a little about my serious reservations of the way the industry is run.
Mike

[Anonymous]

I recall somewhere that I saw a sign once that said "Caution Dangerous Crossing" and then had a stop sign. I love the stop sign idea because it makes incredible sense, but the law does not require stop, look and listen. I think in the interim stop signs should be at all crossing as well. The law states that if the lights are on,you hear or see a train then you are to stop look and listen. In this accident there was almost zero visibility because of the sun in regards to seeing the lights and also some cars in front crossed the tracks. It was a very bad situation because of the age of the driver(inexperienced) and the conditions of the crossing the assumption has to be made for self-preservation. That is every possible means for attempting to cross the track was made. I talk about the sight distance because if it would have been cleared ($1500) this person would of had that avenue as well to assess the situation for safe crossing. What I'm trying to say in my rambling on is that with all parties interested in safe crossings that brush would have been cleared and this person would of been able to determine more easily at a minimal cost that a train is close to the crossing. Please consider this when you travel your area as well.
Mike

[edblysard]

Yes, you can and should excerise your right to free speech. So heres a little free explaination as to why a railroad wouldnt cut back the brush. And I noticed one of the sites you promotes mentioned buildings in the way? Who owns the building? If its not railroad property, how can they alter it?
If the brush is on public property, and the railroad takes it upon itself to clear it away, then, in following lawsuits, the railroad would be held accountable for all the public property it didnt clear, at every crossing. By doing so, the railroad would be setting a legally arguably precedent that it has a moral duty to clear any obstruction, regardless of who owns it or whos property its on. If its private property, then the landowner sues the railroad for destruction of private property, the railroad has to argue the point that it acted in the public interest, and in the end, they would still lose. If they didnt, then again, it sets a percedent that would require the railroad to invade private property to protect the public at every crossing. Which means it, the railroad, will have assumed not only the responsibility morally, but also legaly to protect the citizens from their own foolishness.
If a traffic accident kept happening at a intersection, say the business across the street trucks kept hitting cars there, and you lived on the corner, what would you do if the business across the street tore down your front porch because it felt that contributed to the accidents? What if your pourch blocked sight in one direction? Whos responsability is it to fix the problem? Yours because its your pourch, or the business across the street because it their trucks that keeps getting hit? By altering any grade crossing, without the approval or legal instruction of the controling enity, the railroads open themselves up to even more litigation by assuming legal responsibility for every individule who crosses there, reguardless of the individules actions, or lack there of.
And you still seem to miss the fact that, unless the driver suffers a mental impairment, every peoson on this planet should be able to take on look at a locomotive, moving at any speed, and realize that if it hits them, they will get hurt. So the burden of not getting hit rest upon them. Do you allow your kids to play on the freeway, and then sue the city because the city didnt keep your kids off the road? And any prudent person dosnt allow themselve or their children to do such silly things, and to assume that just because the railroads make money, lots of it, the should somehow be held accountable for the lack of common sense citizens show is absurd. Yes, railroads will help in a joint effort, but they would be fools themselves to take on the legal responsibility soly by themselves..
Ed