Challenging conventional rural rail level crossing design: Evaluating three new systems thinking-based designs in a driving simulator

The road-rail interface is hazardous for both road vehicles and trains, with collisions often resulting in serious injury and deaths of drivers and passengers. This is a major problem worldwide, and there is currently no appropriately effective low-cost solution for rural areas. Grade separation is prohibitively costly for most rail level crossings. This research evaluated three proposed new, relatively low-cost design solutions: GPS Average Speed interface, Simple but Strong crossing and Ecological Interface Design crossing. These new designs were compared with the conventional passive and active rural rail level crossings in a driving simulator. The findings suggest that there is a preference for the standard rail level crossings, probably because this is what drivers are used to. Of the new designs, the Ecological Interface Design rail level crossing seemed to perform the best in the simulator study, and could be implemented at a lower cost than conventional active rail level crossings. However, all three designs had apparent strengths and weaknesses. These findings highlight possible design solutions that should be further tested in real-world field trials.

[1]  Patricia Delhomme,et al.  Applying an extended theory of planned behavior to predicting violations at automated railroad crossings. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Thanuja Gunatillake,et al.  REDUCING COLLISIONS AT PASSIVE RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS IN AUSTRALIA , 2002 .

[3]  Christina M. Rudin-Brown,et al.  Driver behaviour at rail level crossings: responses to flashing lights, traffic signals and stop signs in simulated rural driving. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[5]  Liping Fu,et al.  Estimating countermeasure effects for reducing collisions at highway-railway grade crossings. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Jessica Edquist,et al.  Effectiveness of traffic light vs. boom barrier controls at road-rail level crossings: a simulator study. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Integrating Human Factors Methods and Systems Thinking for Transport Analysis and Design , 2017 .

[8]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Checking for trains: An on-road study of what drivers actually do at level crossings , 2013 .

[9]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Malleable Attentional Resources Theory: A New Explanation for the Effects of Mental Underload on Performance , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Li-Sian Tey,et al.  Measuring driver responses at railway level crossings. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy? , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[12]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Vanessa Beanland,et al.  Where do novice and experienced drivers direct their attention on approach to urban rail level crossings? , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  Michael G Lenné,et al.  When paradigms collide at the road rail interface: evaluation of a sociotechnical systems theory design toolkit for cognitive work analysis , 2016, Ergonomics.

[15]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Ecological IVIS design: using EID to develop a novel in-vehicle information system , 2012 .

[16]  Andry Rakotonirainy,et al.  A simulator evaluation of effects of assistive technologies on driver cognitive load at railway-level crossings , 2016 .

[17]  Natassia Goode,et al.  Is it really good to talk? Testing the impact of providing concurrent verbal protocols on driving performance , 2017, Ergonomics.

[18]  Christian Wullems,et al.  Towards the adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices in regional areas of Australia : a review of current technologies and reliability issues , 2011 .

[19]  Asad J. Khattak,et al.  Driver behavior at highway–rail grade crossings with passive traffic controls: A driving simulator study , 2016 .

[20]  E. C. Wigglesworth,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF THE RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING BOOM BARRIER PROGRAM IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA , 1991 .

[21]  Christina M. Rudin-Brown,et al.  Human Factors Issues of Accidents at Passively Controlled Rural Level Crossings , 2014 .

[22]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Variability in decision-making and critical cue use by different road users at rail level crossings , 2016, Ergonomics.

[23]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[24]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis , 2006, Ergonomics.

[25]  Penelope Sanderson,et al.  The multimodal world of medical monitoring displays. , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[26]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[27]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological Interface Design: Progress and Challenges , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[28]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[29]  Mohd Rapik Saat,et al.  Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Challenges for Shared Operations of High-Speed Passenger and Heavy Freight Rail in the U.S. , 2014 .

[30]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  On Applying the Skills, Rules, Knowledge Framework to Interface Design , 1988 .

[31]  Catherine M. Burns,et al.  Ecological Interface Design , 2004 .

[32]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Waiting for warning: Driver situation awareness at rural rail level crossings , 2013 .

[33]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Using the decision ladder to understand road user decision making at actively controlled rail level crossings. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[34]  Guy Wallis,et al.  Evaluating Driver Behavior Toward Innovative Warning Devices at Railway Level Crossings Using a Driving Simulator , 2013 .

[35]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  More than meets the eye: Using cognitive work analysis to identify design requirements for future rail level crossing systems. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[36]  Gemma J M Read,et al.  Designing a ticket to ride with the Cognitive Work Analysis Design Toolkit , 2015, Ergonomics.

[37]  J. Gibson,et al.  A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving , 1938 .

[38]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  On-Road Evaluation of Intelligent Speed Adaptation, Following Distance Warning and Seatbelt Reminder Systems: Final Results of the TAC SafeCar Project , 2006 .

[39]  Chi-Kang Lee,et al.  Investigation of Key Factors for Accident Severity at Railroad Grade Crossings by Using a Logit Model. , 2010, Safety science.

[40]  Michael H. Cale,et al.  Can Minor Changes in the Environment Lower Accident Risk at Level Crossings? Results from a Driving Simulator-Based Paradigm , 2013 .

[41]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .