All that was covered in my very first post.

As was the federal law that the local cities and NIMBYs are using to undermine proper railway designs - subverting the original intent of congress.

And yes, I got it first hand - UTA's hands were tied by that political myopia. And it's not that they didn't already understand the problems with that crossing. Like I said, any signal engineer would have agreed with my assessment, as did those officials I offered my opinion to. At the time of my report, they were already fighting the city over it. But they lost apparently - and so did that little girl.

This is why I am critical of the city, and not so much the UTA. But nevermind the blame game, those sound walls must come down!

The presence of the crossing signal and the obedience level to it, are beside the point. Neither the signal nor the obedience are ever going to be perfect. But such a signal is only one of numerous features of a crossing, needed to make it safe.

My point is that other critical safety features commonly found at crossings, such as adequate visibility from a safe location, must also be present to make it safe enough. Note also, that good visibility goes a very long way in prompting proper obedience to the signals. It actually is even more effective than the signal itself in preventing accidents.

The whole point is that blame is irrelevant - blaming the victim has never prevented a single accident - ever. But the more safety features that are present (as explained in my previous posts), the less likely is an accident - thus safer is the crossing.

Break the causal chain in as many places as you reasonably can - the fewer accidents there will be - no matter who some shyster can blame. This is all part of commonly accepted "Industry Standards", that flatly were not met at this crossing; because of city hall and NIMBY extremism.


OPB