Where do novice and experienced drivers direct their attention on approach to urban rail level crossings?

Young, Kristie Lee; Lenné, Michael G.; Beanland, Vanessa; Salmon, Paul M.; Stanton, Neville A.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.01.017

Cited by 31 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the RLX context, situation awareness may be distributed across traffic signals (e.g., inactive signals convey there is no train coming, so drivers do not visually confirm this; see Lenné, Beanland, et al 2013;Lenné, Salmon, et al 2013;Young et al 2014), or other road users (e.g., if one vehicle stops, this could cue other nearby vehicles to stop even if they have not directly observed the train; see Salmon, Lenné, Beanland, et al 2014;Young et al 2015).…”

Section: Reducing Collisions Requires Understanding Factors Involved mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drivers 2014;Young et al 2014;Young et al 2015). Although it is encouraging that road users' support each other, this is contingent on other road users being present, which cannot be guaranteed.…”

Section: Influence By Other Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reducing Collisions Requires Understanding Factors Involved mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently in road safety there has been a shift from individual driver-centred views, which emphasise human error as the leading cause of road crashes, to systems approaches that view both safety and accidents as emerging from interactions between agents (Larsson, Dekker, and Tingvall 2010). Lenné, Beanland, et al 2014;Young et al 2015).Even when users attend to identical information, it will be combined in distinct ways (Stanton et al 2009a(Stanton et al , 2009b Stanton et al 2010). These differences can give rise to "cognitive incompatibilities" when road users have conflicting goals or fail to consider each other (Walker, Stanton, and Salmon 2011) and these incompatibilities are particularly pronounced at intersections (Salmon, Lenné, Walker, et al 2014 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prompts elicited information including type of RLX, its location, the decision made and information used to make the decision (see Table 2). The survey focused on situations in which a train was approaching because our previous research has provided detailed data on drivers' behaviour at RLXs when trains are absent (Lenné, Beanland, et al 2013;Lenné, Salmon, et al 2013;Salmon, Beanland, et al 2013) and comparing train-present and train-absent conditions (Salmon, Lenné, Beanland, et al 2014;Young et al 2014;Young et al 2015).[ …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Variability in decision-making and critical cue use by different road users at rail level crossings

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collisions at rail level crossings (RLXs) are typically high-severity and high-cost, often involving serious injuries, fatalities and major disruptions to the transport network. Most research examining behaviour at RLXs has focused exclusively on drivers and consequently there is little knowledge on how other road users make decisions at RLXs. We collected drivers', motorcyclists', bicyclists' and pedestrians' self-reported daily experiences at RLXs for two weeks, focusing on behaviour, decision-making and information use in the presence of a train and/or activated RLX signals. Both information use and behaviour differed between road users. Visual information (e.g., flashing lights) was more influential for motorists, whereas pedestrians and cyclists relied more on auditory information (e.g., bells). Pedestrians were also more likely to violate active RLX warnings and/or cross before an approaching train. These results emphasise the importance of adopting holistic RLX design approaches that support cognition and behaviour across for all road users.Keywords: rail level crossings; grade crossings; decision-making; situation awareness Practitioner summary: This study explores how information use and decisionmaking at rail level crossings (RLXs) differs between road user groups, using a two-week self-report study. Most users make safe decisions, but pedestrians are most likely to violate RLX warnings. Information use (visual vs. auditory) also differs substantially between road user groups. IntroductionRail level crossings (RLXs; also called highway-rail grade crossings) are complex sociotechnical systems in which human (e.g., vehicle operators, pedestrians) and nonhuman (e.g., boom gates, flashing lights, trains, road vehicles) agents interact. RLX systems encompass diverse agents including train drivers, rail infrastructure, signals, signal operators, vehicle drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists (Read, Salmon, Investigation revealed the truck driver failed to detect the train, despite several passive and active warnings (for analysis, see Salmon, Read, et al. 2013). This has prompted research examining the functioning of RLX systems and warnings, to understand why some warnings are ineffective and how they might be improved. Reducing collisions requires understanding factors involved in not onlycollisions, but also user behaviour more broadly. Human factors are a major contributor to RLX collisions (Caird et al. 2002; Edquist et al. 2009), yet our understanding of influences on behaviour at RLXs remains poor. Previous research has relied on methods that provide limited insight into cognitive processes; for example, roadside observations (Neisser 1976; Plant and Stanton 2013a). Schemata are formed through experience and direct subsequent exploration and interpretation of our environment, meaning that information-seeking (and, consequently, decision-making based on that information) will be jointly determined by the RLX environment and our schema. Neisser (1976) argued that schemata have greatest inf...

show abstract

Section: Reducing Collisions Requires Understanding Factors Involved mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Influence By Other Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reducing Collisions Requires Understanding Factors Involved mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations