Right; but are there any penalties for drivers who violate the federal laws about grade crossings? Maybe for commercial carriers, but otherwise, it would be handled under state motor vehicle laws. The engineer in the case I mentioned wasn't cited for anything, or AFAIK noted as "at fault" in any way on the police report. But if it's incorrectly documented to begin with (listing him as a "vehicle operator" when he
wasn't), then by the time the report gets to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, it can cause problems if someone along the way doesn't notice the error(s). A lot of information can get lost or overlooked in the check-boxes and narrative of "who ran into whom, and
how."
The motorist was definitely at fault, but he was elderly, and apparently watched two vehicles ahead of him "run the lights" (and probably ignoring the horn), so he might have thought he was "clear to proceed" too. I don't think the motorist was cited, possibly because he was hospitalized after the crash.
Unfortunately, it seems like drivers involved in crossing collisions around here are cited maybe half the time, and it depends on the jurisdiction and/or circumstances of the incident. Maybe there's some "Well, he (or she) got his (or her) car crunched, so s/he won't do
that again" going on. I dunno.
It all comes under one of OLI's
"Three E's," specifically
Education. There needs to be more of it.
But we digress. (That hardly ever happens on this forum, right?
) As to the original question, if a local or state law covers something not in federal law, then it might stand. (Example: One city along our local line has an ordinance against parking within ten feet of a track. It might be rarely imposed, but there's a $50 fine for it. I like that.) But for anything intended to regulate a railroad,
federal preemption will probably apply. If the local law appears to interfere with the regular business of the railroad, it's probably going to get overruled quickly.
Sometimes preemption doesn't work out so well. I don't know the exact wording of the federal law about train crew drug/alcohol testing after an incident, but I believe it says crew members aren't required to be tested in certain circumstances. (Basically, anything beyond their control, such as a trespasser who gets hit by a train.) It might not
prohibit them from being tested, but testing isn't
mandatory as it would be under other conditions.
In one local case in which two trespassers were fatally injured, a surviving trespasser's defense attorney made much of the fact that the engineer wasn't required to be tested for intoxication afterward, calling that "a conspiracy between the FRA and the railroad." {WT* emoticon here} The DA could have blown a hole in that by asking the state trooper who investigated the incident if he saw any signs of either crew member being under the influence of anything, and mentioned a state law prohibiting intoxication of certain railroad employees while on duty. But if the DA did counter with that, I didn't see it reported in the paper.
Nothing preempts the Law of Unintended Consequences. {shaking head}