More unneeded regulation?

Regarding the article on regulation of pedestrian crossings at train tracks, I’d like to offer two comments. First, I fail to see how this restriction on individual behavior protects the public. Certainly it’s tragic if a pedestrian gets killed because they failed to take reasonable precautions at a crossing, but other members of the public are not placed at risk by the individual’s behavior.

This is like the issue of whether motorcycle riders should be required to wear helmets. To me it’s like making it illegal to be overweight or to fail to exercise. After all, either of these personal choices are known to cause far more deaths than unsafe crossing of railroad tracks.

Unless a behavior injures or endangers people other than the individual, it should be none of the government’s business.

Second, the risk is that if a pedestrian chooses to ignore a crossing signal, that individual could be killed. Since the threat of a horrific death doesn’t appear to be disincentive enough, is it realistic to think that the additional threat of a ticket will deter the behavior?

In the long run, this type of regulation serves only to erode the relationship between the public and law enforcement.

Tom Kupferer

Naperville