To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings

Vanessa Beanland; Paul M Salmon; Ashleigh J Filtness; Michael G Lenne; Neville A Stanton

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.004

Back

To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings

Vanessa Beanland, Paul M Salmon, Ashleigh J Filtness, Michael G Lenne and Neville A Stanton

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.108, pp.209-219

2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.004

Files and links (2)

pdf

To stop or not to stop - Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings12.16 MBDownload View

Accepted VersionCC BY-NC-ND V4.0, Open Access

url

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.004View

Published Version

Abstract

rail level crossings

passive warnings

stop signs

rail road crossing

Many rail level crossings (RLXs) have only passive protection, such as static signs instructing road users to stop, yield, or look for trains. Stop signs have been suggested as a low-cost option to improve safety at passive RLXs, as requiring drivers to stop should encourage safe behaviour. However, field observations have noted high rates of non-compliance at stop-controlled RLXs. To explore this further, we conducted an on-road study to identify factors that influence compliance at stop-controlled RLXs. Twenty-two drivers drove a 30.5 km route in rural Australia, encompassing three stop-controlled RLXs. In over half of all cases (59%) drivers stopped completely at the RLX; on 27% of crossings drivers executed a rolling stop, and on 14% of crossings drivers violated the stop controls. Rolling stops were defined as a continuous deceleration to <10 km/h, but remaining above 0 km/h, before accelerating to >10 km/h. Behavioural patterns, including visual checks and decision-making, were similar when comparing drivers who made complete versus rolling stops. Non-compliant drivers did not differ from compliant drivers in approach speeds, but spent less time visually checking for trains. Post-drive interviews revealed some drivers wilfully disregarded the stop sign, whereas others did not notice the stop sign. Those who intentionally violated noted trains were infrequent and suggested sight distance was good enough (even though all crossings had been formally assessed as having inadequate sight distance). Overall the results suggest most drivers exhibit safe behaviour at passive RLXs, but a notable minority disregard or fail to notice signs. Potential avenues for redesigning passive RLXs to improve safety are discussed.

Details

Title: To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings
Authors: Vanessa Beanland (Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast - Faculty of Arts, Business and Law
Paul M Salmon (Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast - Faculty of Arts, Business and Law
Ashleigh J Filtness (Author) - Monash University
Michael G Lenne (Author) - Monash University
Neville A Stanton (Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast - Faculty of Arts, Business and Law
Publication details: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.108, pp.209-219
Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.
Date published: 2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.004
ISSN: 0001-4575
Grants: A new complex systems approach to road trauma: Applying systems thinking to the fatal five, FT140100681, Australian Research Council (Australia, Canberra) - ARC
Application of contemporary systems-based methods to reduce trauma at rail level crossings, LP100200387, Australian Research Council (Australia, Canberra) - ARC
Driving as a model for investigating and improving visual search abilities, DE150100083, Australian Research Council (Australia, Canberra) - ARC
Organisation Unit: Centre for Human Factors and Systems Science; School of Law and Society
Language: English
Record Identifier: 99450359902621
Output Type: Journal article

Metrics

263 File views/ downloads

451 Record Views

20 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Domestic collaboration; International collaboration
Web Of Science research areas: Ergonomics; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary; Transportation

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: InCites