ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer

New Proposal on Railroad Crossing Safety Will Do More Harm Than Good

By Halli Brownfield

ADVERTISEMENTS

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) reports that the Federal Highway Administration has proposed a policy that will require yield or stop signs at every railroad crossing in America. This policy may seem like a good public safety measure, but in reality it is anything but.

Studies show that the indiscriminate placement of stop signs at all rail road crossings would not enhance rail crossing safety. As the AAJ points out in its reponse and opposition to this policy submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, research has shown that collisions are more likely to occur at highway-rail grade crossings that have Stop signs than with any other form of warning. Stop signs should be used only after an engineering analysis has demonstrated that they are appropriate. The use of stop signs as a warning device at a particular railroad crossing may be inappropriate for many reasons. In the case of high speed rail crossings, a train may simply be traveling so fast that a motorist won't be able to see it approaching when it stops at the stop sign but cannot clear the crossing before the train arrives. In other situations, stop signs may be too far from the track for drivers to get a clear view of it. Currently, State and local highway agencies are vested with the discretion to decide whether to install Stop signs. This policy should not be changed.

As the AAJ points out, "the new requirement would afford immunity for those entities charged with monitoring such crossings where they clearly should not be entitled." In sum, not only would this policy do nothing to increase public safety, it would prevent individuals injured in rail crossing collisions where the use of a stop sign as the only form of a warning is negligent from holding anyone responsible for their negligence. Such a policy is contrary to the public interest.

For more information see:

http://www.atlanet.org/pressroom/PressReleases/2008/aug8.aspx

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Halli Brownfield

Full post as published by Cleveland Personal Injury Lawyer on September 05, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 10/31/26 11:05:27)