Why do some writers in this thread object to designing the highway correctly in the first place. Face it! People goof from time to time; and that sometimes results in accidents, injuries and death.
But if the highway was designed right in the first place, the opportunity to screw up wouldn’t even exist where avoidable hazards have been removed. There wouldn’t be any arguing over fault if the accident couldn’t happen in the first place. And don’t forget that there are a lot more highway hazards than just at railroad crossings. All are a threat to public safety.
And yes, our politicians do over-ride proper engineering by allowing too high, too wide, too long, too heavy - TOO BIG trucks on the road, without first beefing up the highways. Now if it costs too much to beef up the roads to a higher standard, then DON’T BEEF UP THE TRUCKS!
If we are not going to hold highway designers and politicians accountable, why is the professional railway designer still held accountable. If he leaves an un-mitigated hazard, his P.E. license is in jeopardy. His licence can be challenged anytime someone gets hurt because of his negligence, and in egregious cases, time in jail results. To protect themselves, railway designers, like all scientists, always submit to peer review, hoping to catch hazards before they hurt anyone.
So why not the highway designer as well! As usual, there is a double standard. Railroad people get screwed while the highway designers go scott free.
Even if us railroaders like to look down on truckers, they make no more mistakes than we do, but their mistakes are far more likely to result in an accident. Most of our human errors are protected against by a thick layer of procedure, failsafe equipment, and a very safety conscious work culure. Yes there is room for improvement, but while we take all this for granted most of the time, the trucker has no such protection at all.
The relative accident rates and causal studies