Integrating driving and traffic simulators to study railway level crossing safety interventions : a methodology

Safety at Railway Level Crossings (RLXs) is an important issue within the Australian transport system. Crashes at RLXs involving road vehicles in Australia are estimated to cost $10 million each year. Such crashes are mainly due to human factors; unintentional errors contribute to 46% of all fatal collisions and are far more common than deliberate violations. This suggests that innovative intervention targeting drivers are particularly promising to improve RLX safety. In recent years there has been a rapid development of a variety of affordable technologies which can be used to increase driver’s risk awareness around crossings. To date, no research has evaluated the potential effects of such technologies at RLXs in terms of safety, traffic and acceptance of the technology. Integrating driving and traffic simulations is a safe and affordable approach for evaluating these effects. This methodology will be implemented in a driving simulator, where we recreated realistic driving scenario with typical road environments and realistic traffic. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating comprehensively potential benefits and negative effects of such interventions: this methodology evaluates driver awareness at RLXs , driver distraction and workload when using the technology . Subjective assessment on perceived usefulness and ease of use of the technology is obtained from standard questionnaires. Driving simulation will provide a model of driving behaviour at RLXs which will be used to estimate the effects of such new technology on a road network featuring RLX for different market penetrations using a traffic simulation. This methodology can assist in evaluating future safety interventions at RLXs.

An innovative information gathering and data analysis platform for railway level crossing safety data

This paper describes an innovative platform that facilitates the collection of objective safety data around occurrences at railway level crossings using data sources including forward-facing video, telemetry from trains and geo-referenced asset and survey data. This platform is being developed with support by the Australian rail industry and the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation. The paper provides a description of the underlying accident causation model, the development methodology and refinement process as well as a description of the data collection platform. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of benefits this project is expected to provide the Australian rail industry.

A large scale quantitative study of pedestrian railway level crossing behaviour : deliberate violations, errors and deterrence

Every year a number of pedestrians are struck by trains resulting in death and serious injury. While much research has been conducted on train-vehicle collisions, very little is currently known about the aetiology of train-pedestrian collisions. To date, scant research has been undertaken to investigate the demographics of rule breakers, the frequency of deliberate violation versus error making and the influence of the classic deterrence approach on subsequent behaviours. Aim This study aimed to to identify pedestrians’ self-reported reasons for engaging in violations at crossing, the frequency and nature of rule breaking and whether the threat of sanctions influence such events. Method A questionnaire was administered to 511 participants of all ages. Results Analysis revealed that pedestrians (particularly younger groups) were more likely to commit deliberate violations rather than make crossing errors e.g., mistakes. The most frequent reasons given for deliberate violations were participants were running late and did not want to miss their train or participants believed that the gate was taking too long to open so may be malfunctioning. In regards to classical deterrence, an examination of the perceived threat of being apprehended and fined for a crossing violation revealed participants reported the highest mean scores for swiftness of punishment, which suggests they were generally aware that they would receive an “on the spot” fine. However, the overall mean scores for certainty and severity of sanctions (for violating the rules) indicate that the participants did not perceive the certainty and severity of sanctions as very high. This paper will further discuss the research findings in regards to the development of interventions designed to improve pedestrian crossing safety.

In-vehicle railway level crossing warning systems : can intelligent transport systems deliver?

Intelligent Transport System (ITS) technology is seen as a cost-effective way to increase the conspicuity of approaching trains and the effectiveness of train warnings at level crossings by providing an in-vehicle warning of an approaching train. The technology is often seen as a potential low-cost alternative to upgrading passive level crossings with traditional active warning systems (flashing lights and boom barriers). ITS platforms provide sensor, localization and dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) technologies to support cooperative applications such as collision avoidance for road vehicles. In recent years, in-vehicle warning systems based on ITS technology have been trialed at numerous locations around Australia, at level crossing sites with active and passive controls. While significant research has been conducted on the benefits of the technology in nominal operating modes, little research has focused on the effects of the failure modes, the human factors implications of unreliable warnings and the technology adoption process from the railway industry’s perspective. Many ITS technology suppliers originate from the road industry and often have limited awareness of the safety assurance requirements, operational requirements and legal obligations of railway operators. This paper aims to raise awareness of these issues and start a discussion on how such technology could be adopted. This paper will describe several ITS implementation cenarios and discuss failure modes, human factors considerations and the impact these scenarios are likely to have in terms of safety, railway safety assurance requirements and the practicability of meeting these requirements. The paper will identify the key obstacles impeding the adoption of ITS systems for the different implementation scenarios and a possible path forward towards the adoption of ITS technology.

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 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.

Effects of driver familiarity and prolonged or intermittent right-side failure on level crossing safety

This paper investigates the adverse effects of familiarity and human factors issues associated with the reliability of low-cost warning devices at level crossings. The driving simulator study featured a repetitive, low workload, monotonous driving task in which there were no failures of the level crossing (control) or prolonged or intermittent right-side failures (where the device reverts to a safe failure mode). The results of the experiment provided mixed support for the familiarity hypothesis. Four of the 23 participants collided with the train when it first appeared on trial 10 but safety margins increased from the first train to the next presentation of a train (trial 12). Contrary to expectations, the safety margins decreased with repeated right-side failure only for the intermittent condition. The limited head movement data showed that participants in the prolonged failure condition were more likely to turn their head to check for trains in the right-side failure trials than in earlier trials where there was no signal and no train. Few control participants turned their head to check for trains when no signal was presented. This research highlights the need to consider repetitive tasks and workload in experimental design and accident investigation at railway level crossings.

Driver’s behavioural changes with new Intelligent Transport System interventions at railway level crossings: A driving simulator study

Improving safety at railway level crossings is an important issue for the Australian transport system. Governments, the rail industry and road organisations have tried a variety of countermeasures for many years to improve railway level crossing safety. New types of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) interventions are now emerging due to the availability and the affordability of technology. These interventions target both actively and passively protected railway level crossings and attempt to address drivers’ errors at railway crossings, which are mainly a failure to detect the crossing or the train and misjudgement of the train approach speed and distance. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of three emerging ITS that the rail industry considers implementing in Australia: a visual in-vehicle ITS, an audio in-vehicle ITS, as well as an on-road flashing beacons intervention. The evaluation was conducted on an advanced driving simulator with 20 participants per trialled technology, each participant driving once without any technology and once with one of the ITS interventions. Every participant drove through a range of active and passive crossings with and without trains approaching. Their speed approach of the crossing, head movements and stopping compliance were measured. Results showed that driver behaviour was changed with the three ITS interventions at passive crossings, while limited effects were found at active crossings, even with reduced visibility. The on-road intervention trialled was unsuccessful in improving driver behaviour; the audio and visual ITS improved driver behaviour when a train was approaching. A trend toward worsening driver behaviour with the visual ITS was observed when no trains were approaching. This trend was not observed for the audio ITS intervention, which appears to be the ITS intervention with the highest potential for improving safety at passive crossings.

Driving simulator evaluation of the failure of an audio in-vehicle warning for railway level crossings

It is impracticable to upgrade the 18,900 Australian passive crossings as such crossings are often located in remote areas, where power is lacking and with low road and rail traffic. The rail industry is interested in developing innovative in-vehicle technology interventions to warn motorists of approaching trains directly in their vehicles. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the benefits of the introduction of such technology. We evaluated the changes in driver performance once the technology is enabled and functioning correctly, as well as the effects of an unsafe failure of the technology? We conducted a driving simulator study where participants (N=15) were familiarised with an in-vehicle audio warning for an extended period. After being familiarised with the system, the technology started failing, and we tested the reaction of drivers with a train approaching. This study has shown that with the traditional passive crossings with RX2 signage, the majority of drivers complied (70%) and looked for trains on both sides of the rail track. With the introduction of the in-vehicle audio message, drivers did not approach crossings faster, did not reduce their safety margins and did not reduce their gaze towards the rail tracks. However participants’ compliance at the stop sign decreased by 16.5% with the technology installed in the vehicle. The effect of the failure of the in-vehicle audio warning technology showed that most participants did not experience difficulties in detecting the approaching train even though they did not receive any warning message. This showed that participants were still actively looking for trains with the system in their vehicle. However, two participants did not stop and one decided to beat the train when they did not receive the audio message, suggesting potential human factors issues to be considered with such technology.

Modelling risk at low exposure railway level crossings : supporting an argument for low-cost level crossing warning devices with lower levels of safety integrity

This paper describes a risk model for estimating the likelihood of collisions at low-exposure railway level crossings, demonstrating the effect that differences in safety integrity can have on the likelihood of a collision. The model facilitates the comparison of safety benefits between level crossings with passive controls (stop or give-way signs) and level crossings that have been hypothetically upgraded with conventional or low-cost warning devices. The scenario presented illustrates how treatment of a cross-section of level crossings with low cost devices can provide a greater safety benefit compared to treatment with conventional warning devices for the same budget.

Making the case for low cost railway level crossings

This paper discusses the challenges of making a case for the adoption of low cost railway level crossings in Australia. Several issues are discussed in this paper including legal issues associated with the treatment of low-exposure passive crossings with low cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs); principles of operation and deployment for LCLCWDs; and technical and human factors aspects of safety and availability. The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Rail Innovation’s affordable level crossings project aims to address a number of these technical and human factors issues through research and field trials.

In search of the antecendents for risky driving at railway level crossings

This paper discusses human factors issues of low cost railway level crossings in Australia. Several issues are discussed in this paper including safety at passive level railway crossings, human factors considerations associated with unavailability of a warning device, and a conceptual model for how safety could be compromised at railway level crossings following prolonged or frequent unavailability. The research plans to quantify safety risk to motorists at level crossings using a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) method, supported by data collected using an advanced driving simulator. This method aims to identify human error within tasks and task units identified as part of the task analysis process. It is anticipated that by modelling driver behaviour the current study will be able to quantify meaningful task variability including temporal parameters, between participants and within participants. The process of complex tasks such as driving through a level crossing is fundamentally context-bound. Therefore this study also aims to quantify those performance-shaping factors that contribute to vehicle train collisions by highlighting changes in the task units and driver physiology. Finally we will also consider a number of variables germane to ensuring external validity of our results. Without this inclusion, such an analysis could seriously underestimate the probabilistic risk assessment.

A human factors investigation into the unavailability of active warnings at railway level crossings

This paper discusses human factors issues of low cost railway level crossings in Australia. Several issues are discussed in this paper including safety at passive level railway crossings, human factors considerations associated with unavailability of a warning device, and a conceptual model for how safety could be compromised at railway level crossings following prolonged or frequent unavailability. The research plans to quantify safety risk to motorists at level crossings using a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) method, supported by data collected using an advanced driving simulator. This method aims to identify human error within tasks and task units identified as part of the task analysis process. It is anticipated that by modelling driver behaviour the current study will be able to quantify meaningful task variability including temporal parameters, between participants and within participants. The process of complex tasks such as driving through a level crossing is fundamentally context-bound. Therefore this study also aims to quantify those performance-shaping factors that contribute to vehicle train collisions by highlighting changes in the task units and driver physiology. Finally we will also consider a number of variables germane to ensuring external validity of our results. Without this inclusion, such an analysis could seriously underestimate risk.

Adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices : an Australian case study

The objective of this chapter is to provide rail practitioners with a practical approach for determining safety requirements of low-cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs) on an Australian railway by way of a case study. LCLCWDs, in theory, allow railway operators to improve the safety of passively controlled crossing by upgrading a larger number of level crossings with the same budget that would otherwise be used to upgrade these using the conventional active level crossing control technologies, e.g. track circuit initiated flashing light systems. The chapter discusses the experience and obstacles of adopting LCLCWDs in Australia, and demonstrates how the risk-based approach may be used to make the case for LCLCWDs.

Low cost railway level crossings

The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Rail Innovation is conducting a tranche of industry-led research projects looking into safer rail level crossings. This paper will provide an overview of the Affordable Level Crossings project, a project that is performing research in both engineering and human factors aspects of low-cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs), and is facilitating a comparative trial of these devices over a period of 12 months in several jurisdictions. Low-cost level crossing warning devices (LCLCWDs) are characterised by the use of alternative technologies for high cost components including train detection and connectivity (e.g. radar, acoustic, magnetic induction train detection systems and wireless connectivity replacing traditional track circuits and wiring). These devices often make use of solar power where mains power is not available, and aim to make substantial savings in lifecycle costs. The project involves trialling low-cost level crossing warning devices in shadow-mode, where devices are installed without the road-user interface at a number of existing level crossing sites that are already equipped with conventional active warning systems. It may be possible that the deployment of lower-cost devices can provide a significantly larger safety benefit over the network than a deployment of expensive conventional devices, as the lower cost would allow more passive level crossing sites to be upgraded with the same capital investment. The project will investigate reliability and safety integrity issues of the low-cost devices, as well as evaluate lifecycle costs and investigate human factors issues related to warning reliability. This paper will focus on the requirements and safety issues of LCLCWDs, and will provide an overview of the Rail CRC projects.

How safe is safe enough? : a socio-technical view of low-cost level crossing safety

Low-cost level crossings are often criticized as being unsafe. Does a SIL (safety integrity level) rating make the railway crossing any safer? This paper discusses how a supporting argument might be made for low-cost level crossing warning devices with lower levels of safety integrity and issues such as risk tolerability and derivation of tolerable hazard rates for system-level hazards. As part of the design of such systems according to fail-safe principles, the paper considers the assumptions around the pre-defined safe states of existing warning devices and how human factors issues around such states can give rise to additional hazards.