Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings

Railway level crossings are amongst the most complex of road safety control systems, due to the conflicts between road vehicles and rail infrastructure, trains and train operations. Driver behaviour at railway crossings is the major collision factor. The main objective of the present paper was to ev...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Accident Analysis and Prevention
Main Author: Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2011
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79961169668&doi=10.1016%2fj.aap.2011.06.003&partnerID=40&md5=c65db157742b61538e4cdb323a70153e
id 2-s2.0-79961169668
spelling 2-s2.0-79961169668
Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
2011
Accident Analysis and Prevention
43
6
10.1016/j.aap.2011.06.003
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79961169668&doi=10.1016%2fj.aap.2011.06.003&partnerID=40&md5=c65db157742b61538e4cdb323a70153e
Railway level crossings are amongst the most complex of road safety control systems, due to the conflicts between road vehicles and rail infrastructure, trains and train operations. Driver behaviour at railway crossings is the major collision factor. The main objective of the present paper was to evaluate the existing conventional warning devices in relation to driver behaviour. The common conventional warning devices in Australia are a stop sign (passive), flashing lights and a half boom-barrier with flashing lights (active). The data were collected using two approaches, namely: field video recordings at selected sites and a driving simulator in a laboratory. This paper describes and compares the driver response results from both the field survey and the driving simulator. The conclusion drawn is that different types of warning systems resulted in varying driver responses at crossings. The results showed that on average driver responses to passive crossings were poor when compared to active ones. The field results were consistent with the simulator results for the existing conventional warning devices and hence they may be used to calibrate the simulator for further evaluation of alternative warning systems. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

00014575
English
Article
All Open Access; Green Open Access
author Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
spellingShingle Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
author_facet Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
author_sort Tey L.-S.; Ferreira L.; Wallace A.
title Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
title_short Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
title_full Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
title_fullStr Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
title_full_unstemmed Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
title_sort Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings
publishDate 2011
container_title Accident Analysis and Prevention
container_volume 43
container_issue 6
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.aap.2011.06.003
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79961169668&doi=10.1016%2fj.aap.2011.06.003&partnerID=40&md5=c65db157742b61538e4cdb323a70153e
description Railway level crossings are amongst the most complex of road safety control systems, due to the conflicts between road vehicles and rail infrastructure, trains and train operations. Driver behaviour at railway crossings is the major collision factor. The main objective of the present paper was to evaluate the existing conventional warning devices in relation to driver behaviour. The common conventional warning devices in Australia are a stop sign (passive), flashing lights and a half boom-barrier with flashing lights (active). The data were collected using two approaches, namely: field video recordings at selected sites and a driving simulator in a laboratory. This paper describes and compares the driver response results from both the field survey and the driving simulator. The conclusion drawn is that different types of warning systems resulted in varying driver responses at crossings. The results showed that on average driver responses to passive crossings were poor when compared to active ones. The field results were consistent with the simulator results for the existing conventional warning devices and hence they may be used to calibrate the simulator for further evaluation of alternative warning systems. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
publisher
issn 00014575
language English
format Article
accesstype All Open Access; Green Open Access
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1814778510602928128