Obviously train safety systems should be formally verified and eliminate human error (only permit safe leeway to humans).
But apart from the safety mechanisms, there is also the concept of securing passengers.
What we know so far is that originally, cars weren't equipped with safety belts, until they were.
Imagine a thought experiment: the trains are equipped with safety belts, on a voluntary basis. Initially everyone scoffs at them, except for a minority. Time passes until an accident happens. Then everybody learns that the forward facing passengers that were facing forward had the lowest casualty reports, next are the people facing backwards, since a decelerating train mostly just pushes them harder into their own seats, and their safety depends on the discipline of any occupant who happens to sit on the forward facing seat. People start preferring the safest seats forward facing with belts (you only depend on your own discipline). People sitting in a forwards facing seat who refuse to put on the belt will be asked to find a different seat or put on the belt. In many places it will turn out a lot of passengers are standing upright "by necessity" even though no law of nature or authority mandates or permits railroad operators to sell more tickets than they have safe seats. But first that would require figuring out what new lucrative job prospects can be opened for insurance companies, and any population around the world may think out loud why insurance on offenses appear to be legal and often even encouraged by court systems!
It turns out its never really possible to draw an objective line between accidental and intentional offenses, so at a fundamental level we should either permit insurance that covers you when caught committing murder, grand larceny or what have you (done); OR we should ban all insurance from covering offenses (accidental and intentional). Insurance "allows the system to stably continue without shocks reverberating through the economy in the face of adverse events" is a poor justification for permitting the insurance of offenses, especially since it typically results in the wrong questions being asked, and instead of figuring out who paid the least to insurance scams, perhaps some real questions could delve up real solutions that save lives instead of defend the income streams of lawyers profiting on the misery of civilians.
But apart from the safety mechanisms, there is also the concept of securing passengers.
What we know so far is that originally, cars weren't equipped with safety belts, until they were.
Imagine a thought experiment: the trains are equipped with safety belts, on a voluntary basis. Initially everyone scoffs at them, except for a minority. Time passes until an accident happens. Then everybody learns that the forward facing passengers that were facing forward had the lowest casualty reports, next are the people facing backwards, since a decelerating train mostly just pushes them harder into their own seats, and their safety depends on the discipline of any occupant who happens to sit on the forward facing seat. People start preferring the safest seats forward facing with belts (you only depend on your own discipline). People sitting in a forwards facing seat who refuse to put on the belt will be asked to find a different seat or put on the belt. In many places it will turn out a lot of passengers are standing upright "by necessity" even though no law of nature or authority mandates or permits railroad operators to sell more tickets than they have safe seats. But first that would require figuring out what new lucrative job prospects can be opened for insurance companies, and any population around the world may think out loud why insurance on offenses appear to be legal and often even encouraged by court systems!
It turns out its never really possible to draw an objective line between accidental and intentional offenses, so at a fundamental level we should either permit insurance that covers you when caught committing murder, grand larceny or what have you (done); OR we should ban all insurance from covering offenses (accidental and intentional). Insurance "allows the system to stably continue without shocks reverberating through the economy in the face of adverse events" is a poor justification for permitting the insurance of offenses, especially since it typically results in the wrong questions being asked, and instead of figuring out who paid the least to insurance scams, perhaps some real questions could delve up real solutions that save lives instead of defend the income streams of lawyers profiting on the misery of civilians.