Citation

Wigglesworth EC. Aust. Road Res. 1990; 20(4): 61-75.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1990, Australian Road Research Board ARRB)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This review is concerned only with 'open' railway level crossings, i.e. those that have a static array of signs warning of the presence of a crossing, but are not equipped with gates, boom barriers, flashing lights or other device that is activated by an approaching train. It rejects the possibility of using some form of quantitative analysis as a basis for ranking these crossings. It then comments on an earlier series of field studies into human factors at railway crossings, where it was found that many drivers exhibited the same looking behaviour at open and protected crossings. These findings are thought strongly to suggest that advance warning signs at open crossings should differ from crossings with active protection. The paper then emphasises that, as the law now stands, the duty of care requires the provision of some active device that will tell the driver if a train is approaching. In order to improve safety at open crossings, these proposals are offered. First, the most reasonable way to meet the duty of care seems to be to provide a visual warning of an approaching train, probably train-mounted, and probably linked with the train's klaxon. To emphasise the need for a different behavioural response at open crossings, the second proposal is to install different warning signs at open as compared with active crossings. Third, the longer term objective should be to ensure that open crossings do not occur on bitumen roads but are confined to gravel roads. The review concludes with a note on the need to provide dedicated funding for the increased protection of railway level crossings.

Language: en