motorist behaviour at rail crossings

7/23/2019 Motorist Behaviour at Rail Crossings

1/17

1

AustraliasAustraliasAustraliaspremierpremierpremier

rail research centrerail research centrerail research centre

Motorist Behaviour At Railway LevelMotorist Behaviour At Railway Level

Crossings: The Present Context InCrossings: The Present Context In

AustraliaAustralia

Angela WallaceAngela Wallace

Rail Safety 200827th & 28th February

Rendezvous Hotel, Melbourne

AustraliasAustralias

premier railpremier rail

research centreresearch centre

VehicleVehicle--train Collisionstrain Collisions

Account for only a small percentage of all

road trauma

Three times more likely to involve fatalitiesthan all other types of road crashes

Potential for catastrophic consequences

Motorist error strong contributing factor incollisions

Less likely to involve speed, fatigue ordrugs/alcohol


2/17

2




Rationale for Research ProgramRationale for Research Program

Need for new direction in managing

risk at level crossings

No known research that has explored

issues related to specific road user

groups

Need to better understand the scopeand nature of motorist behaviour todevelop countermeasures



Study 1Study 1


3/17

3




Delphi technique

Consensus of an expert panel

List of 45 Australian experts

1st round (n=24)

2nd round (n=27)

Two rounds completed 1st round (open-ended questions)

2nd round (rating items using Likert scales)

Method: QuantitativeMethod: Quantitative




Themes

Risk taking, inattention, complacency

Low expectations of trains

Engineering issues (sighting distances,

short-stacking with trucks, angles ofapproach, glare/blinding sun)

Road user groups at risk

Heavy vehicles, older drivers, youngerdrivers and rural road users

Results: DelphiResults: Delphi


4/17

4




Metropolitan train drivers

All road user groups a potential problem

Some road users drive around boom gates

Trucks overhang crossing / queue anddamage closing boom gates

Freight/Regional train drivers

Trucks the major problem

Results: Focus GroupsResults: Focus Groups



Study 2Study 2


5/17

5




Participants: QualitativeParticipants: Qualitative

122 participants

Older drivers (60+ yrs)

Regional (n=20)

Metropolitan (n=23)

Younger drivers (17-24 yrs)

Regional (n=28)

Metropolitan (n=25)

Heavy vehicles

(n=26)




Results: QualitativeResults: Qualitative11

Older drivers Compensatory behaviours

Blamed other motorists for puttingthem at risk at crossings

Degenerative problems

Younger drivers Low risk perception, yet high levels of

risk taking

Poor knowledge of road rules atcrossings


6/17

6




Results: QualitativeResults: Qualitative22

Heavy vehicle drivers

Risk taking by some

Blamed engineering of crossings

Blamed other motorists for putting themat risk at crossings




Risk ratings of high-risk behaviours totarget intervention in Study 3 Ascertain differences between regional and

metropolitan train drivers

Ascertain differences between experts and traindrivers

47 train drivers Regional (n=22), Metropolitan (n=25)

32 experts Same list used in Delphi method (Study 1)

Method: QuantitativeMethod: Quantitative


7/17

7




4.64.65

4.7

4.75

4.8

4.85

4.9

4.95

Train Drivers

(M=4.29)

Experts

(M=4.06)

Beat the train

Around boomgates

Queue overcongestedcrossings

Drive in front oftrain

Results: QuantitativeResults: Quantitative

AustraliasAustraliasAustralias premierpremierpremier


Study 3Study 3


8/17

8




RecruitmentRecruitment

Heavy Vehicles Qld Trucking Association

9 companies approached

4 agreed to participate

Paper-based surveys

Incentives given for full participation

Younger Drivers (17-24 yrs) RACQ assisted (1000 letters sent)

Online surveys


Older Drivers (60+ yrs) RACQ assisted (1000 letters sent)

Paper-based surveys





InstrumentsInstruments

Questionnaire (pre & post)

Demographics

Crash history

Intention and actual behaviour

Attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy

Environmental constraints

Perceived risk

Health (older)

Self-rated driving ability (older & younger)


9/17

9




Intervention Mapping

Based on theory and evidence

Provides a detailed framework for interventions tooccur in a systematic and logical approach

Interventions that are appropriate, practical andacceptable

Radio message to raise awareness

90 second duration

Intervention group (level crossing safety)

Older driver control group (vision), younger drivercontrol group (wearing seatbelts)

Exposure after Time 1 questionnaire completed

InterventionIntervention11




Older drivers unexpected dangers planning trips dont let others rush you

Younger drivers risk-taking, inattention

involvement of friends in crash speed of trains and stopping distances little difference in time wasted at crossings

compared to traffic intersections

Heavy vehicle drivers rare events catastrophic consequences stopping distances of vehicle short-stacking problems visibility issues

InterventionIntervention22


10/17

10




Sample SizesSample Sizes

1188109Time 2

(Post-test)

45149152Time 1

(Pre-test)

HeavyVehicles

YoungerDrivers

OlderDrivers




Results: Older DriversResults: Older Drivers11

Driving Ability

substantial decline in hearing

restricted range of movement in neck

increased difficulty adjusting to glare andnight-time driving

Weak correlation for driving intention

[r= .196, p < .05]


11/17

11




Results: Older DriversResults: Older Drivers22

Familiarity Boom gates

DBQ significant factor (p


12/17

12




Perceived Risk of CollisionPerceived Risk of Collision

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

T1 Mean

Younger

Older

Trucks

0=Not at all to 5=Very likely




Younger DriversYounger Drivers 33

Familiarity

Boom gates

Actual driving behaviour (p


13/17

13




Heavy VehiclesHeavy Vehicles 11

Environmental constraints

concerns

S bend and blinding sun

Other motorists

disregard by general motorist for truck limitations

Risk-taking

small subset prepared to run lights & admit poor

scanning habits





Shift-workers

more likely to take risks

Beliefs about environmental constraints (p


14/17

14





Familiarity

Boom gates

No significant results

Flashing lights

DBQ (p


15/17

15




Strengths of Research ProgramStrengths of Research Program

Contribution of knowledge to developeducational countermeasures

Variety of data collection methods

Triangulation approach

Inclusion of train drivers perspective

Intervention development

Guided by theory

Groundwork for future campaigns




Limitations of Research ProgramLimitations of Research Program

Self-report data

Socially desirable responding

Exploratory nature

Limits conclusions and generalizability

Limited budget

One-off intervention as opposed to a range ofinterventions for one road user group

Poor response rate

Heavy vehicle industry


16/17

16




ConclusionsConclusions11

Majority of drivers report driving safely

Some drivers report taking risks and holdintention to take risks in the future

Poor knowledge about road rules generally

Familiarity and unsafe driving at crossings (allgroups)

Gained an understanding of what influencesdrivers in different road user groups




ConclusionsConclusions22

Heavy vehicles major problem for the future How risks are managed will require major effort by

industry and transport authorities

Older drivers expected to be involved inmore collisions at passive crossings

Due to associated degenerative conditions andageing driving population

Younger drivers continual road safetyproblem Recognize their risk taking, but continue to take

risks

Output of this research Conceptualized as the ground-work information for

the development of educational interventions topromote safe crossing driving behaviour


17/17




Industry RecommendationsIndustry Recommendations

Review the current near-miss reportingsystem

Link collision data with individual crossings

Conduct more accurate analysis of cost ofcollisions to ensure more appropriatefunding allocation

Continue investigation of advance warningsystems at crossings with large truck volumes

Continue to develop educationalinterventions for specific road user groups

Major trial of coupling enforcement with

educational countermeasures

motorist behaviour at rail crossings

Documents