A couple of other thoughts. For one thing, I don't believe in the validity of attractive nuisance laws. I believe them to be the misguided progeny of self-serving lawyers. Secondly, it's funny you should mention Chico, as I lived there for a while. In the year plus that I lived there, I seem to recall there were 3 or 4 college students killed while walking (trespassing) ON the tracks. In most if not all cases, they were drunk and one had a Walkman on. I have no pity for such fools. Can you give me a sensible argument why it should take a sign to indicate the danger of occupying an active and busy railroad track? This relects a lack of proper education about RR safety issues from both a parental and academic standpoint, and should be a matter of common sense to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. To require RRs to install cameras everywhere to identify trespassers is not only expensive, but would not be effective in the intended purpose as it requires time and money to send a RR cop. As far as the nature of railroads hauling dangerous cargo and the overall nature of railroading, I have considerable issue with city and other local governments that have allowed trackside development that obscures vision at crossings. A separation distance of at least 100 ft. from ROW should be mandatory for all residences and businesses. Afterover 100 years of development, this is of course impractical. It reflects the lack of forethought in how this country was allowed to develop with respect to these issues. I have similar feelings about people who move into residences that are adjacent to RR tracks, and then complain about the activity on them. Cameras at every crossing would be fairly expensive to implement, and the image would have to be displayed in a large format to be seen by motorists. I do have what I consider to be an interesting idea for backup of crossing protection. With GPS systems penetrating every level of technology, it would be fairly practical to have the RRs use a central computer that monitors train location. Track circuits are rapidly being usurped by GPS as train location identifiers. The system would send an IP protocol (via wireless broadband) message to a pager type device that activates an independant flashing light at the crossing (with its own battery) when train location approaches the known coordinates of crossings. It would at least offer a cost-effective backup for the rare moments when the primary system fails. Such a system would only require an independent battery, an IP capable wireless card, and a dedicated red light in the crossbuck or cantilever. This covers the weak area in crossing protection. As far as trespassers are concerned, I stand by my original statement. Let Darwin take care of them.