The rotating STOP sign is an interesting feature that seems to have disappeared from usage. On one hand, the STOP sign would seem to reinforce the need for an unconditional stop and wait, which is what many people believe the red flashing lights mean. Yet a STOP sign actually means stop and yield, which is somewhat different than the meaning of the red flashing lights. A STOP sign allows a driver to proceed after stopping if a driver feels that he or she can do so without getting hit.

Who needs a tragedy? Let's say some lawyer came to you and said that because of a particular situation, he could take millions off some faceless industry you don't care about... not even off them, actually off their insurance company. And he's got a cause that, one way you look at it is a righteous cause, and the other way you look at it is only slightly unethical. You get 2/3 of the money at absolutely no cost or risk to you. The lawyer says most Americans tend to say "hell yes". How about you?

Remember this is money that is taken from this faceless industry generally (at worst in higher insurance costs), and this money will DIRECTLY help your rail preservation because you can direct it thusly.

I understand your point. A train with side reflectors might reduce crashes, which would in turn, reduce liability for the railroad. Moreover, even if a run-into-train crash happens to the fully reflectorized train, the reflectors might lower the liability because they demonstrate that the railroad anticipated the possibility of such a crash and took the extra precaution of adding reflectors to prevent such a crash.

I agree with these points, however my objection is to another point. That would be the broader issue of the industry conceding the point that their trains pose a hazard because drivers have difficulty seeing them. I think that the concession of that point raises the baseline liability by the introduction of a whole new hazard. So, while the conscientious addition of reflectors might reduce liability by reducing crashes, the introduction of the point that train visibility is a road hazard raises the liability. I do not know how those two opposing forces balance out in the case of trains that are fully and perfectly equipped with reflectors. However, even if those forces balance in favor of a perfectly equipped train lowering the overall liability, I think that while a perfectly reflectorized train will be easy enough to produce, it will be almost impossible to maintain. Dirt, snow, and graffiti will compromise the performance of reflectors. Application of reflectors on top of improper substrate will cause them to fall off over time.

In the age of reflectors, when a car runs into the side of a train at night, plaintiff’s lawyers will not only want to know the condition of the reflectors on the freight car that was struck, but also the condition of the reflectors on all of the preceding cars that passed over the crossing during the time that their client approached. Railroad companies will have to be able to answer these questions with proof of their answers.