I don't disagree. To be simplistic, the EU philosophy is more to avoid crashes than build to mitigate them. Perhaps an important distinction is that there are far more highway/rail crossings in the US with less than full gates. There have been a number of significant accidents involving heavy road vehicles being stuck by passenger trains (Burbonaise, IL for one)
I was fascinated to see an example of the differences in philosophy during a visit to Dublin last year. The dispatcher (signaler) had a video screen showing a crossing with full gate that would turn on when a train was approaching. The dispatcher was to watch the screen and when the gates were fully closed, he'd hit a button giving the approaching train a clear signal. Should the gates not properly deploy, the train would be held by the signal before it approached the crossing. When you consider that the system has to have enough built in time to have the train stop, vehicular delays can easily be several minutes.
In answer to a question, I was told that crossings with less than full gates did not have this feature because the motorist was then expected to respond to the warning at the crossing and stop.

In the US, the vehicle driver is expected to be responsible to stop regardless of the warning system at the crossing. On the other hand, the court system usually punishes the railroads when a vehicle is stuck, regardless of who was at fault.