Train crossing: Deaths aren’t municipal negligence

Re: “Attorney says pedestrian gates at deadly rail crossing will ‘save lives,’” (Matt Driscoll column, 9/18).

We should feel terrible sadness at the sudden loss of friends or family members.

Once we are able to move beyond that (as difficult as it may be for those most directly affected), can you explain why it is the public’s responsibility (and public funds spent) to do the critical thinking for pedestrians crossing at this intersection?

The families are suing the city. What neglect is the city responsible for? Failure to post the obvious? “Yes, this is a train crossing!” “No, don’t cross unless you look both ways!”

We teach our youngest children to look both ways. Why would a train crossing be any different?

Since we, as a society, are prone to being distracted and unfocused, should the local government have a duty to take over and protect us from ourselves?

As a youngster, I was taught to take responsibility for my choices. And sometimes those choices have impactful consequences.

Installing the extra fences and gates at a busy train crossing will clearly have benefits. But this is not “overdue corrections” nor municipal negligence.

That crossing has been there for decades, and folks have been crossing there for just as long.