Download
1 / 41
420 likes | 540 Vues
Improving Safety at Level Crossings Australian Developments Dudley Roach Rail CRC Australia. Australian Railways. Action Plans. Prior to 2002 considerable activity but little consistency or coordination.
E N D
Improving Safety at Level CrossingsAustralian DevelopmentsDudley RoachRail CRC Australia
Action Plans • Prior to 2002 considerable activity but little consistency or coordination. • Important but uncoordinated initiatives by State Level Crossing Committees (SLCC), road agencies and the rail industry. • The Australian Railway Crossing Strategy Implementation Group (ARCSIG) was formed by the Australian Transport Council (ATC) via the governments' National Transport Coordinating Committee, the Standing Committee on Transport (SCOT) and its Rail Group.
Railway Level Crossing Safety Strategy and the National Road Safety Action Plan 2003-2006 Developed by the Australian Transport Council
Level Crossings in AustraliaAn Overview 9400 Level Crossings in Australia 'Active' railway level crossings Automatic Signals and/or Boom Gates (n= 2649 or 28% in Australia) 'Passive' railway level crossings static signs and/or pavement markings (n= 6060 or 64% in Australia)
Level Crossings in AustraliaAn Overview • Each year there are about 100 crashes between road vehicles and trains at level crossings in Australia. • These result in 8 fatalities on average. • Average 0.7% of fatal road crashes. • Number of fatalities per 100 fatal level crossing crashes was slightly higher than the number of fatal road crashes per 100 road crashes.
Big Bad Rail In recent years the number of railway accident fatalities in Australia has fallen from 12/yr to 8/yr. Level crossing crashes are often severe and dramatic and are reported emotively in the media to the detriment of rail. Level crossing fatal accidents still constitute about half of the national rail toll. Average 0.7% of national road toll.
Upgrading There are 6060 crossings with passive protection. About $350,000 is needed to install boom gates, bells and flashing lights at a rail crossing.
A New Approachfor Australia Not financially viable to obtain an engineering upgrade solution. The merits of human factor research needed to be tested. Government funded programs focussed on factual information and law enforcement. Improving drivers’ understanding and behaviour through training, information, education and awareness is justified.
The Development of a Community Intervention Program for Level Crossing Education Evaluates educational intervention programs targeting different road user groups. Uses a multidisciplinary approach drawing on perspectives from psychology and sociology.
Objectives • Develop, trial and evaluate a research based, community intervention and education program to promote safe level crossing pedestrian and driver behaviour • Decrease the level of ‘at risk’ pedestrian and vehicle driver behaviour at level crossings • Increase pedestrians’ and vehicle drivers’ knowledge of appropriate level crossing behaviour
Objectives (cont.) • Examine the current organizational and social context of level crossing safety • Develop a model and strategies for intersectoral collaboration to improve level crossing safety • Identify and quantify (through mathematical modeling) causes of rail accidents and subjective probabilities of occurrence of accidents from different groups of people
Benefits to Industry • Reduction in deaths and injuries • Reduction in litigation and financial costs • Raising the public profile and corporate responsibility • Leadership in managing safety risks • Development of strategic alliances and partnerships to sustain risk management processes
Activities • Target road drivers’ attitudes, knowledge, perceptions and behaviour. • Focus on heavy vehicles, older and younger driver samples. • Determining the key factors that contribute to unsafe driving behaviour. • Evaluates of road safety interventions needed to provide the rail industry with the necessary information to assist in implementation of strategies to improve level crossing safety in Australia.
Crash Statistics • Currently, exact statistics of LC incidents are difficult to determine. • Most jurisdictions in Australia use different methods of categorizing and recording crashes. • Lack of definitive evidence available relating to the extent and nature of level crossing crashes.
Level Crossing Crash Fatalities by Mode ofTransport (Australia 1997-2000)
Fatal Crashes Sample of 87 fatal crashes: • 66% point of impact at front of the train. • 16% at the side of the train. • Remaining being unknown. • 67% in a rural areas • 18% occurred in a capital city • Remainder of cases the location was unknown.
Fatal Crashes [Cont.] Sample of 87 fatal crashes: • 10% occurred at crossings with boom gates. • 41% at other actively protected crossings. • 44% at passively protected crossings. • Remaining being unclassified.
Fatal Crashes [Cont.] Sample of 87 fatal crashes: • 83% of crashes occurred in daylight (excluding dawn or dusk) . • 63% occurred on a weekday during the day. • 14% occurred at night. • 2% at dawn. • 1% at dusk.
Fatal Crashes [Cont.] Sample of 87 fatal crashes: • 85% occurred in fine weather. • 84% of crashes occurring on a dry road. • 46% due to unintended road user error. • compared with 22% of other fatal road crashes. • 26% of drivers were in the 60+ age group • Compared with 10% in that age group for other fatal crashes.
Summary Over 80% of fatal accidents at railway level crossings in Australia happen in daylight, in fine weather and on straight, dry roads. And the majority of all accidents occur even with an appropriate warning system in place.
Summary Unlike other fatal road crashes, accidents at railway crossings were less likely to involve fatigue, speeding, drugs or alcohol. Instead these crashes were more likely to be attributed to driver error.
Focus Groups of Train Drivers Interviews to explore train drivers’ experiences of: • ‘Incidents’ and ‘near misses’ (including frequency, reporting, and characteristics). • Motorist behaviour observed at level crossings. • Vehicle types involved in level crossing incidents. • The impact of level crossing incidents on train crew.
Train Drivers’ Opinions • In non-urban areas: • 60% of ‘near misses’ are due to poor visibility (such as angle of approach). • 30-40% actually due to the motorist. • In urban areas: • Impatient drivers evade the boom gates. • Traffic queued across the track gridlocked. • Trucks are particularly susceptible to gridlock.
Cameras at Level Crossings • RailCorp recently rolled out CCTV cameras across its network in NSW. • Signs tell if a camera is in operation. • Cameras monitor and record any offence or infringement, which may be reported to the Roads & Traffic Authority or appropriate law enforcement agencies. • Data is analysed statistically for research purposes related to level crossing safety.
Level Crossing Safety Camera Program Between August and November 2004, motorists were recorded over 28 separate days at a busy crossing with a high record for incidents.. The purpose of this filming was to find out: • what sort of road rule offences were being committed at railway level crossings • how often these non compliances were occurring • how reliable traffic safety cameras are for collecting information on these behaviours.
Level Crossing Safety Camera Program • Over 5,000 offences during the 28 days of observation. The three most common breaches of the road rules were: • 64% - motorists racing the barrier while it was still opening after the train had passed • 24% - motorists entering the crossing even though the road ahead was blocked and they couldn’t drive clear of the tracks without stopping. These are referred to as ‘gridlock’ • 11% - motorists racing the barrier while it was closing. Drivers committing gridlock offences are at the greatest risk of being hit by a train.
Level Crossing Safety Camera Program • A second trial of the camera at the same location is currently occurring and is due to continue for a number of months. • A report on the results of the first trial is currently being finalised and will be released November 2005. • A location to erect another surveillance camera at a level crossing is currently being identified.
PROPOSALS TO UNDERTAKE RESEARCH INTO REDUCING THE RISK OF CRASHES AT RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS IN AUSTRALIA
Project 1 Increasing The Conspicuity Of Locomotives and Rollingstock • Outcomes: • A comprehensive review of all options for enhancing locomotive conspicuity under Australian operating conditions. • Recommendations for improving locomotive conspicuity under Australian conditions. • Outcomes of visibility trials of the most promising conspicuity enhancement treatments under Australian operating conditions. • A definitive answer as to whether worthwhile conspicuity improvements can be made to locomotives under Australian conditions.
Project 2 Adequacy of Warning Signals for Road/Rail Drivers With Colour Vision Deficiency. • Outcomes: • Specifications developed as guidelines for the development of new warning signals to provide the least confusion to drivers with colour vision defects. • Field tests involving an examination of signals in operation to determine the optimum signals working characteristics.
Project 3 Ranking of the Safety of Passive Crossings • Outcomes: • Project output will be a method for ranking the (un)safety of passive crossings that will allow efficient allocation of limited resources for remedial work. • The ranking system will be based on objective data as well as expert judgment.
Project 4 The Effect of Road Surface on Approaches to Level Crossing on Drivers’ Awareness of Trains. • Outcomes: • Examination of the distraction to drivers caused by the condition of the road surface. (potholes and corrugations). • Evaluation of the effectiveness of speed restricting devices such as speed bumps. • Evaluation of the effect of smooth road surface in the vicinity of the crossing in an otherwise poorly maintained road. • Simulated laboratory experiments costing is dependent on the scope of the project.
Project 5 The Consequences of Increased Train Speed and the Liebowitz Illusion. Outcomes: • Examination of the illusion of velocity and size - the larger the object, the more slowly it appears to be moving. (The Liebowitz Illusion). • Experimental data from the field and the laboratory using computer generated images as well as driving simulator experiments.
