OldPoleBurner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> All that was covered in my very first post.

Really? Where? I don't see any reference to a link we can use to go to a web site with data that supports your claim about crossings with sound walls being more dangerous than those without them.

> 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!

So why haven't you taken your case to the FTA? Impress them with your vast, 40-year knowledge and provide them with some statistically verifiable data about how unsafe this is! (As an aside, on September 13th I'll begin my 41st year in the industry, not that that makes any difference whatsoever.)

> 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.

Wrong! Obedience to the crossing signal is exactly the point! Obey the signal and one won't get run over. Disobey it and the outcome may likely be exactly what happened here!

> 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.

Or, one could just wait til the gates go up, the lights stop flashing, and the bell stops ringing, couldn't one?

> 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.

The train didn't suddenly swerve to hit her. She walked in front of it. She's 100% to blame.

> 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.

I'm sure you'll make an excellent witness for the plaintiff (if it comes to that). Maybe they'll explain to you about her actual age.