17/06/2026
No one could question the commitment of Lara Jensen, Cathy Broad and other families who have advocated for improved level crossing safety following unimaginable personal tragedy.
Their efforts have ensured these issues remain part of the public conversation, and every rail worker shares their desire to prevent further deaths and serious injuries.
However, supporting safer level crossings does not mean every proposed solution should be accepted without scrutiny.
The current debate often assumes that anyone questioning the proposed mandatory train lighting legislation is somehow opposing safety. That is simply not the case.
There is evidence suggesting additional train lighting may improve train conspicuity in certain circumstances. The more important question is whether the specific legislative model being proposed is the most appropriate, balanced and evidence-based way to improve safety outcomes.
Sadly, missing from much of the current debate is the experience of train crews themselves.
Western Australia has previously undertaken trials involving additional locomotive lighting. Feedback from some participating drivers raised concerns regarding distraction, glare, visibility impacts during night operations and the practical operation of the systems. Whether one agrees with those concerns or not, they are the views of the workers expected to operate trains under any mandated lighting regime.
It seems unusual that legislation is being proposed to mandate a specific operational control across the rail industry without greater consideration of the experiences of the train crews who would be required to work with it every day.
The Bill also raises a number of practical questions. Why is activation required 1,000 metres from a level crossing? What evidence supports that distance? How is compliance intended to be achieved in practice across thousands of kilometres of rail network?
These are not arguments against safety. They are questions that should be asked before Parliament imposes new obligations, compliance requirements and potential penalties on rail operators and workers.
Of particular concern are offence provisions carrying penalties of up to $50,000 for an individual. Unlike many rail safety obligations that sit primarily with accredited operators, this Bill appears capable of imposing significant personal liability on individual rail workers, including train crew, for matters relating to the operation and compliance of the prescribed lighting systems.
Train crews are often the victims of level crossing incidents. They witness the collision, live with the trauma and carry the consequences long after the event. It is therefore concerning that legislation intended to address a risk primarily arising from road user behaviour may expose rail workers to additional compliance obligations, enforcement action and significant financial penalties.
Level crossing incidents are complex events involving infrastructure, sighting distances, crossing protection, road design and road user behaviour. Improving train visibility may form part of the solution, but it is unlikely to be the solution on its own.
Everyone wants safer level crossings. The real question is whether this Bill represents the best way to achieve that outcome.
Good safety policy is built on evidence, risk assessment and consultation with the people who perform the work. Rail workers and their unions deserve to be part of that conversation.
The state's union for train drivers says a draft bill mandating more lights on trains is "fundamentally flawed" and would not fix motorists' behaviour at level crossings.
