Use of ITS to improve level crossings safety : open issues

Level crossing crashes have been shown to result in enormous human and financial cost to society. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) [5] a total of 632 Railway Level crossing (RLX) collisions, between trains and road vehicles, occurred in Australia between 2001 and June 2009. The cost of RLX collisions runs into the tens of millions of dollars each year in Australia [6]. In addition, loss of life and injury are commonplace in instances where collisions occur. Based on estimates that 40% of rail related fatalities occur at level crossings [12], it is estimated that 142 deaths between 2001 and June 2009 occurred at RLX. The aim of this paper is to (i) summarise crash patterns in Australia, (ii) review existing international ITS interventions to improve level crossing and (iii) highlights open human factors research related issues. Human factors (e.g., driver error, lapses or violations) have been evidenced as a significant contributing factor in RLX collisions, with drivers of road vehicles particularly responsible for many collisions. Unintentional errors have been found to contribute to 46% of RLX collisions [6] and appear to be far more commonplace than deliberate violations. Humans have been found to be inherently inadequate at using the sensory information available to them to facilitate safe decision-making at RLX and tend to underestimate the speed of approaching large objects due to the non-linear increases in perceived size [6]. Collisions resulting from misjudgements of train approach speed and distance are common [20]. Thus, a fundamental goal for improved RLX safety is the provision of sufficient contextual information to road vehicle drivers to facilitate safe decision-making regarding crossing behaviours.

Incorporating human-factors in car-following models : a review of recent developments and research needs

Over the past decades there has been a considerable development in the modeling of car-following (CF) behavior as a result of research undertaken by both traffic engineers and traffic psychologists. While traffic engineers seek to understand the behavior of a traffic stream, traffic psychologists seek to describe the human abilities and errors involved in the driving process. This paper provides a comprehensive review of these two research streams. It is necessary to consider human-factors in {CF} modeling for a more realistic representation of {CF} behavior in complex driving situations (for example, in traffic breakdowns, crash-prone situations, and adverse weather conditions) to improve traffic safety and to better understand widely-reported puzzling traffic flow phenomena, such as capacity drop, stop-and-go oscillations, and traffic hysteresis. While there are some excellent reviews of {CF} models available in the literature, none of these specifically focuses on the human factors in these models. This paper addresses this gap by reviewing the available literature with a specific focus on the latest advances in car-following models from both the engineering and human behavior points of view. In so doing, it analyses the benefits and limitations of various models and highlights future research needs in the area.

The nature of errors made by drivers [Austroads Publication no: AP-R378-11]

It is important that we understand the factors and conditions that shape driver behaviour – those conditions within the road transport system that contribute to driver error and the situations where driver non-compliance to road regulations is likely. This report presents the findings derived from a program of research investigating the nature of errors made by drivers, involving a literature review and an on-road study. The review indicates that, despite significant investigation, the role of different error types in road traffic crashes remains unclear, as does the role of the wider road transport system failures in driver error causation.

To err (on the road) is human? An on-road study of driver errors

Human error, its causes and consequences, and the ways in which it can be prevented, remain of great interest to road safety practitioners. This paper presents the findings derived from an on-road study of driver errors in which 25 participants drove a pre-determined route using MUARC's On-Road Test Vehicle (ORTeV). In-vehicle observers recorded the different errors made, and a range of other data was collected, including driver verbal protocols, forward, cockpit and driver video, and vehicle data (speed, braking, steering wheel angle, lane tracking etc). Participants also completed a post trial cognitive task analysis interview. The drivers tested made a range of different errors, with speeding violations, both intentional and unintentional, being the most common. Further more detailed analysis of a sub-set of specific error types indicates that driver errors have various causes, including failures in the wider road 'system' such as poor roadway design, infrastructure failures and unclear road rules. In closing, a range of potential error prevention strategies, including intelligent speed adaptation and road infrastructure design, are discussed.

Error, Bias, and Long-Branch Attraction in Data for Two Chloroplast Photosystem Genes in Seed Plants

Sequences of two chloroplast photosystem genes, psaA and psbB, together comprising about 3,500 bp, were obtained for all five major groups of extant seed plants and several outgroups among other vascular plants. Strongly supported, but significantly conflicting, phylogenetic signals were obtained in parsimony analyses from partitions of the data into first and second codon positions versus third positions. In the former, both genes agreed on a monophyletic gymnosperms, with Gnetales closely related to certain conifers. In the latter, Gnetales are inferred to be the sister group of all other seed plants, with gymnosperms paraphyletic. None of the data supported the modern ‘‘anthophyte hypothesis,’’ which places Gnetales as the sister group of flowering plants. A series of simulation studies were undertaken to examine the error rate for parsimony inference. Three kinds of errors were examined: random error, systematic bias (both properties of finite data sets), and statistical inconsistency owing to long-branch attraction (an asymptotic property). Parsimony reconstructions were extremely biased for third-position data for psbB. Regardless of the true underlying tree, a tree in which Gnetales are sister to all other seed plants was likely to be reconstructed for these data. None of the combinations of genes or partitions permits the anthophyte tree to be reconstructed with high probability. Simulations of progressively larger data sets indicate the existence of long-branch attraction (statistical inconsistency) for third-position psbB data if either the anthophyte tree or the gymnosperm tree is correct. This is also true for the anthophyte tree using either psaA third positions or psbB first and second positions. A factor contributing to bias and inconsistency is extremely short branches at the base of the seed plant radiation, coupled with extremely high rates in Gnetales and nonseed plant outgroups. M. J. Sanderson,* M. F. Wojciechowski,*† J.-M. Hu,* T. Sher Khan,* and S. G. Brady

The effectiveness of designated driver programs

Designated driver programs aim to reduce alcohol related crashes by encouraging and facilitating a safe means of transport for those who have been drinking and by influencing attitudes and knowledge. This review discusses the use and effectiveness of designated driver programs in preventing drink driving and ultimately reducing alcohol related road trauma. The limitations of studies examining designated driver programs and recommendations for further research are also discussed. The available evidence suggests that while designated driver campaigns can successfully increase the awareness and use of designated drivers, it is less clear whether these programs lead to a reduction in drink driving and/or alcohol related crashes. Differences in the way that designated driver programs have historically been implemented may account for the inconsistent evidence for their effectiveness in reducing drink driving. There are also a variety of methodological problems relating to the evaluation of designated driver programs which need to be addressed by future research.