I doubt that slowing down from 96 feet per second (66 mph) to 80 fps (55 mph) would have helped much.

The victim's new noise-canceling headphones were a major problem.

However, if this Google street view from May 2017 shows the current design of the crossing, I can see how someone using such headphones could walk into the crossing without knowing until it was too late.

Look at the photo, then rotate it to the right (looking north) -- the only crossing gate is on the east side of the tracks, intended for westbound automobile traffic. There is no crossing gate visible which would have stopped an eastbound pedestrian!

Now, rotate the view to look south. The same problem exists for pedestrians walking westbound -- the only crossing gate is west of the tracks. It will stop eastbound automobiles, but does not protect westbound pedestrians.

QUESTION for our local mouse: is this the current state of the crossing, or has SMART added extra gates to protect pedestrians in these two situations?

The comments on the Press-Democrat article accuse SMART of "cutting corners" and "not complying" with regulations about the design of the crossing. Is the above one of the things they are objecting to?