Citation

Naweed A, Rainbird S, Chapman J. Ergonomics 2015; 58(6): 883-896.

Affiliation

a Central Queensland University, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science , Wayville , Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00140139.2014.1001448

PMID

25597849

Abstract

Various countermeasures are used to mitigate signal passed at danger (SPAD) events on railways, yet they continue. While risk factors that destabilise cognitive processes have been identified, less has been published on the relationship between these factors and the informal strategies that drivers themselves adopt to reduce individual SPAD risk. This study aimed to address this gap and used a participative approach to collect and thematically analyse data from 28 drivers across eight rail organisations in Australia and New Zealand. The results showed not all formal countermeasures were considered effective, and identified several informal strategies. These aimed to reduce task disruption, service distortion and maintain connectedness to signals. While some evidenced redundancies in the task and cab, others did not reduce baseline risk. This paper explores the relationship between the established risks and identified strategies towards evaluating the utility of formal and informal mitigations. The research has application to the investigation of collision risk in all transport domains.

Language: en