was negligent or engaged in culpable conduct.... This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for impeachment, or to prove other matters, if controverted, such as ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures. 12 . Because Pa. R.E. 407 does not exclude evidence of subsequent measures when offered to prove issues other than negligence, such as the feasibility of precautionary measures, evidence concerning the impact, if any, caused by the Township’s installation of stop signs at the intersection upon overall traffic patters also may be admissible for the limited purpose of establishing that such a- traffic control device is appropriate under Starr. See Hyndman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 396 Pa. 190, 152 A.2d 251 (Pa.1959) (<HOLDING>); Phatak v. United Chair Co., 756 A.2d 690
holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place holding that evidence of subsequently erected warning signs was admissible in a negligence action for the limited purpose of showing that warning signs were a precautionary step that could have been taken without hindering the defendants operation holding that release unambiguously released defendants from negligence liability even though the release did not include the word negligence because there was no other rational purpose for which the exculpatory language could have been intended holding that whether waiver form satisfied miranda was immaterial because of the adequacy of the subsequent oral warning holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible