Part of being human is making mistakes in judgement.
Until they eliminate grade crossings there will always be grade crossing incidents.
Yes, there will always be incidents to long as grade crossings remain. However, the point is that people
aren't using good judgement. Stopping or continuing on when a traffic signal goes yellow is a judgement call; People can and do get it wrong despite their best intentions (which can be an issue with "red light" cameras). But driving around lowered crossing gates isn't a judgement call - it's a clear violation.
There could be an issue at unguarded crossings, but there shouldn't; Trains are big and that horn blast is loud - You
know if a train is in sight, and if so you stop. But since people can't be counted on to do the right or even sensible thing anymore, we're back to needing a means of enforcement - the cameras.
Why are Americans so opposed to Cameras in Public Areas that assist LE and Security Officials in their efforts to decrease Crime and acts of terrorism? They work fine in Europe which has a much higher rate of terrorist acts!
That actually argues
against wider use of camera enforcement, if greater use in Europe
isn't preventing the problems they're designed to catch. Indeed, grade crossing or traffic light violations (or terrorism) weren't as big a problem several decades ago when the cameras (largely) didn't exist. The problem is not the lack of enforcement but rather the lack of voluntary compliance. Stores and businesses didn't used to have cameras watching shoppers or security tags on merchandise, but now with those technologies they have a bigger shoplifting problem than before.
I'm not big fan of surveillance cameras in general either, but driving around lowered grade crossing arms or trying to beat a train is clearly the responsibility of the person behind the wheel. I don't have a problem with someone so obviously at fault being photographed in the act.
For those concerned about governments using camera enforcement to generate revenues rather than improve safety, dedicating all revenues from fines (over and above whatever is necessary to install and maintain the camera system) to one specific purpose, be it traffic safety or perhaps some sort of tax reduction scheme, instead of using them for general revenues ought to calm those fears.
I've mentioned this previously, and while I am certain it would be (much) more difficult to implement than it reasonably should, any revenues from grade crossing camera fines could pay for the installation and maintenance of
additional cameras and general crossing improvements (center dividers, four-quadrant gates, etc.). The enforcement and safety measures could well pay for themselves.