Raising the bar: A cultural-historical deconstruction of rail level
crossings and their future relevance Anjum Naweed1, Grégoire S. Larue2 1Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science, Central Queensland University, AUSTRALIA 2Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, Queensland University of Technology AUSTRALIA Corresponding Author: [email protected]
SUMMARY The rail level crossing is a place of rich contrasts. As a primary means of communicating potential train movements, it informs driver and pedestrian behaviours and by separating rail from road traffic, reduces elementary safety risk. Despite this, a rail level crossing does not seek to engineer out the hazard (i.e. the trains or road vehicles, depending on the view taken), but represents an engineering control to manage collision potential. This paper reviews current level crossing research through the lens of a cultural-historical representation of rail level crossings and discusses rail level crossing design from a systems perspective to identify key factors for sustainability. Once a technical marvel and remarkable feat of engineering, this paper questions if level crossings have had their day, or whether they are still relevant for enhancing the liveability, accessibility, productivity and requisite safety of modern society.
1. INTRODUCTION millions, the benefits in terms of optimising traffic flow and mitigating safety risk is abundantly clear The humble rail level crossing can be perceived for areas with a lot of traffic. However, the through many different lenses. From the socio- treatment of passive crossings is a little different, cultural perspective, it is an environment where two where any reason to change the status quo different transport modalities meet. From a human typically involves upgrading passive crossings to factors perspective, it is an intersection that users active crossings. This is because it is cheaper than such as drivers and pedestrians draw on to inform grade separation, but also because statistics their actions and behaviours. From a design typically show that active crossings are safer than perspective, it is an arrangement of elements for passive crossings when exposure is taken into effectively communicating train movements. And consideration. This promulgates an assumption from a safety perspective, a control for order and that change from passive to active has incremental moderating separation of rail and road traffic to gains that must translate to increased safety. reduce elementary safety risk. Although there are invariably more perspectives, they are all united by This paper will review current level crossing a single truth: a rail level crossing does not research and, using examples and evidence from engineer out the hazard (i.e. the train or the road the literature, develop a sociocultural and historical vehicles depending on the view of the representation of rail level crossings, discuss their stakeholder), but represents an engineering control design from a systems perspective and identify key to manage collision potential. factors for questions of their sustainability in design. The focus of this paper is predominantly on In Australia, there are ~23,500 level crossings active level crossings, though passive crossings divided into: (1) active crossings—the apogee of are discussed in the context of the practice to traditional level crossing engineering with boom “upgrade” passive control to active control. barriers, pedestrian gates, alarm bells, flashing lights, and pedestrian gates—and; (2) passive 2. LEVEL CROSSING HISTORY OF DESIGN crossings, the nadir which have stop or give way Historically, level crossings became commonplace signs. While the latter are not automatic, they rely in the 1830s in Great Britain when the building of on drivers, (motor)cyclists, and pedestrians to railways began on a very large scale. Danger in comply and perform their own checks. the road-rail interface was ostensibly recognised The State of Victoria in Australia is currently as trains driven by steam-driven locomotives were undergoing a level crossing removals program for faster, heavier, took a very long time to stop—and ~50 active level crossings, which protect a variety needless to say, took just as long to get going of central and regional arterial intersections. Even again—and so we arrived at a fundamental though level crossing removal can cost many
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
principle of level crossings that has gone on to without signal boxes, level crossing keepers had to underpin their design philosophy ever since: telephone the signalman for information, and to ask for permission for crossing use. At the turn of Large mass + low braking capacity = long the century, the road/rail relationship and risk stopping distance => right of way profile changed; the advent of motorcars, which By the late 1830s, expansion of rail turned into a were faster than horses, covered long distances major socio-economic priority for Britain and and were becoming more and more prevalent, general rules arounds level crossing regulation invariably increased safety concerns, and with the were needed to maintain safety and achieve use of larger motorised road vehicles (e.g. trucks, standardization. The Highway (Railway Crossings) lorries), increased safety risk. act in 1839 said: 3. MODERNISATION OF LEVEL CROSSINGS “Wherever a railroad crosses or shall hereafter Accidents at non-public level crossings (requiring cross any turnpike road or any highway or hand-operation by the road user) attracted statute labour road for carts or carriages in GB, “operator error” because they had the effect of the proprietors or directors of the said railroad transferring the responsibility for safety to the road shall make and maintain good and sufficient user [2]. While an occupation as a level crossing gates across each end of such turnpike, or keeper implied more responsible behaviour, use of other road as aforesaid at each of the said crossing keepers did not eliminate “operator error”, crossings, and shall employ good and proper for example in cases where the keeper did not persons to open and shut such gates, so that obtain permission from the Signalman before the persons, carts or carriages passing along operating them [2]. such turnpike or highway shall not be exposed to any danger or damage by the passing of any carriages or engines along the said railroad…” [1]. The term “highway” referenced a public road, used by wheeled vehicles such as carriages, but also footpaths and bridleways. Built by trustees, a “turnpike” road charged tolls for its use. The act effectively meant that the use of gates and corresponding crossing keepers (for manual operation) became a legal requirement at public rail level crossings [2]. In 1842, a Railway Regulation Act [3] introduced the requirement to fence railways to separate them from private land and prevent trespass. In 1845, a follow-up Railways’ Clauses Act stated that the gates on railway crossings should be added so as to “fence” the railway line when closed. At this time, it had also become normal practice to consider factors such as the volume of road traffic and periods when heavy flow of road traffic would constrain gate closure and trigger congestion. The 1845 Act therefore stated: “If the line of the railway cross any turnpike road or public highway, then […] either such road shall be carried over the railway, or the railway shall be carried over such road by means of a bridge” [4]. The crossing keeper relied on timetables and Figure 1: Level crossing leaflet advising a of a sounds of approaching trains to “activate” the gate. new automatic level crossing and advising By the 1860s, the advent of the signalling system against “zig-zagging” British Rail [from 2] meant that signal boxes were often placed very Level crossing modernisation was characterised by close to level crossings and signals were systematic introduction of unsupervised automatic interlocked mechanically with the gates so trains “half”-barriers, automatic flashing lights, and could only pass when gates were across the road. audible bells—in other words, what we now refer to The signalman would decide when to activate the as “active” level crossings. This happened after the gates to avoid delaying the train [2]. At locations first World War, and by the mid-1950s, became
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
common in some parts (e.g. France, Holland) with Constitution of Australia allowed rail construction Britain welcoming its first active crossing in 1961. and extension in any State with the consent of that State. While different railway conventions and Modernisation brought with it timing sequences for gauges were already prevalent, this had the effect flashing signals and moving “half-barriers.” of introducing greater diversity into what we Automatic crossings depended on the level recognise as the Australian rail environment today. crossing equipment detecting a train as it approached, passed and departed. This was In the context of contemporary level crossing achieved with equipment such as track circuits, design, various rail Standards have tried to create axle counters, induction loops, and wheel sensors, consistency and integrity in level crossings [e.g., 6, all of which worked in different ways. And because 7]; they mandate the control, command, and the crossing was unsupervised, the half-barrier signalling requirement for level crossings, the meant there were fewer chances of vehicles operational measures related to their use, and becoming “trapped” on the level crossing itself. compatibility with the relevant operations. Amongst other things, Standards also contain advice for the In the context of Britain, the change brought about application of signs and markings to railway distrust with automation and resistance to crossings and avoidance of traffic queuing through technology, triggering leaflet campaigns describing various treatments that recognise the hierarchy of how the crossings worked, and warning against the controls approach for managing and mitigating risk. dangers of driving (“zig zagging”) around barriers The aim is to choose crossing features and (see Figure 1). Leaflet campaigns such as these choices that are not ill-defined for the location. In have changed over the years, and appealed to the example of the Australian Standard [6] varying audiences and target demographics, but however, there is no guidance on when a they still reflect much about disconnects in level crossing should progress from one hierarchical crossing compliance, for instance the tendency to step in the type of control to the next (e.g. passive go around lowered barriers (see Figure 2). to active control) elimination as such guidance is left to risk assessment models [8]. 4. CONTROLLING LEVEL CROSSING RISKS At the beginning of this paper, level crossings were described as an intersection that users drew on to inform their actions and behaviours. By the mid- 1840s, active level crossings were fenced and featured large red discs on fences to denote “stop”. Importantly, they were “activated” by a gate keeper. With modernisation and the advent of fully automatic, and therefore, unsupervised crossings in the mid-1950s, flashing lights, half-barriers, and/or bells communicated the same warning messages—this has not changed to this today. But as an arrangement of elements for communicating train movements, how well are level crossings designed? Norman’s six principles of design [9] are a basic but still well-accepted framework and Figure 2: Page on level crossing safety taken useful for exploring answers to this question. from Roald Dahl’s Guide to Railway Safety The six principles, with examples in the context of booklet, commissioned by British Rail in 1991 active level crossings, are: (1) visibility, which is and distributed in UK primary schools to pupils knowing what all possible options are, and knowing [5] (illustration by Quentin Blake) immediately how to access these options, for Modernisation of level crossings brought new example, being able to see level crossing signage, requirement for thinking and investigating road or flashing lights, and being able to easily discern configuration, with issues such as speed, minimum when the crossing is active; (2) feedback, which is road width, signal design, curvature, and crossing about sending back information to the user about sighting distance becoming important. This laid the their action and what has been accomplished, groundwork for Standards. In Australia, the first which enables the user to continue that activity, for steam railway began in 1854 in Melbourne Victoria. example, observing a train go through the crossing From then, there was a steady rise in growth and while the user is stopped shows road-rail expansion around the country. In the 1890s, separation has been controlled; (3) constraints, following loss of the vote to make railway into a which show the limits of the interaction, for federal responsibility across the six colonies, the example, the duration in which level crossing
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
barriers are down and the crossing is activated; (4) are unresponsive to the current suite of level mapping, which refers to the relationship between crossing warning signs” [13]. controls and their effects in the world, for example, The rhetoric here suggests there is nothing an inactive level crossing means a user can drive necessarily wrong with level crossings—people through without stopping, or that there is no trains have stopped responding to them, which is making approaching; (5) consistency, which refers to the them not work as effectively as they used to. It is extent to which the same action has to the cause important therefore to consider how much of these the same reaction every time, for example each issues are about people, or a sign of level crossing level crossing that the user encounters has the technology not keeping up with modern transport same look and feel every time; and (6) affordance, systems. Some studies have identified insights into which is how easy it is to intuitively figure out how the role of manifest “error-traps” in level crossings. to use something, for example, lowered barriers means a vehicle cannot enter. In one study, an active level crossing in Victoria ~20km east of Melbourne (Aviation Rd Level Norman’s [9] six principles highlight a range of Crossing) was studied for two days [14-16]. This 3- important considerations for active level crossings track crossing featured automatic barriers for all as far as usability is concerned. The practice of road users, had roundabouts on either side, and a using warning lights, bells, and/or barriers has train station in close proximity (see Figure 3). Over remained unchanged for many years, which means 700 “violations” (defined as such based upon road that regardless of design, there is no doubt that the rules) were recorded in various categories. A total meaning of flashing lights, ringing bells and of 198 vehicles were observed to physically stop lowering barriers has become an integrated part of on the level crossing. A large number of flashing level crossing engagement culture. Functionally, light violations were observed, where 90 vehicles an activating level crossing advises a change in entered the crossing more than 2 seconds after the routine driving state, and in terms of arrangement, lights had begun flashing (i.e. before the gates had aims to optimise detection through visual, and stared lowering). A total of 53 road-users auditory channels. For this reason, examining level reportedly entered the level crossing before the crossings through the lens of the six principles lights had stopped flashing with many entering does not necessarily highlight any issues—by and before the gates were fully raised. large, level crossings are visible, and consistently designed, they carry high affordance in that they are relatively easy to know how to use as far as access is concerned. However, level crossing design also creates some “error traps” which tell us more about their design from the perspective of the contemporary road environment. 5. LEVEL CROSSING “ERROR TRAPS” In the mid-1800s, level crossing design evolved incrementally but relatively quickly to an established design that has since endured, though inefficiencies in its design have been implicated. In Australia for example, the resurgence of focus started with a series of inquests in 1989 where a “lack of awareness of the approaching train” was deemed a key issue in numerous level crossing accidents [10]. In 2000, the Coroner indicated that little progress had been made on an “inexpensive and effective means of warning motorists of an approaching train” [11]. In 2007, the Kerang level crossing disaster resulted in 11 fatalities and triggered parliamentary inquiries with specific recommendations made for the trial and adoption of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) infrastructure [12]. And then in 2013, the findings into the inquests of 26 level crossing deaths (including Figure 3: Topographical view of Aviation Rd those at Kerang) reiterated the need to: Level crossing [adapted from 14]. Level “Investigate and implement new level crossing crossing arrangement depicted in red. Yellow infrastructure which is designed to alert road arrows show direction of frequent pedestrian vehicle drivers to an approaching train whom violations. Green rectangle exhibits the only pedestrian walkways
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
For pedestrians, the largest number of “violations” The study showed that speeding on the roads—on was entering the crossing more than 2s following approach to level crossings—was an endemic activation via the no entry gates, which are actually issue in this region with ~30% of vehicles driving designed as an egress for people trapped on the over the limit (the fastest vehicle driving 139 km/h line. Many pedestrians jaywalked under side rails in an 80 km/h speed zone). In a number of areas, and around barriers while active; in general, the risky level crossing traversals were found to be public using the level crossing was not averse to unavoidable, for instance, road trains (Quads and placing themselves at risk in order to “beat” or B-Triples) had a tendency to take a long time to catch a train approaching the station. Time stamps drive through a level crossing as a natural of level crossing activation showed that the consequence of reaching their balance speed for crossing was active for 59% of the time in morning steep climbing grades. Conversely, they may also periods with trains taking up to 4 minutes to arrive find it difficult to reduce speed from much less following first activation. The maximum closure effective braking when travelling downhill, which is time observed was 18 minutes 52 seconds [16]. a particular problem when the level crossing cannot be seen because of curved roads or Issues with level crossing design may also exist in cuttings (see Figure 4). Table 1 considers the non-urban areas. In a second study, a series of different aspects of Norman’s principles of design active level crossings in the Pilbara (remote associated with level crossing in the two studies, Western Australia) were studied over 3 days [17, highlighting potential disconnects or “error traps.” 18]. Over 900 observations of vehicles traversing crossings were undertaken (see Figure 4). Level crossing study examples Design Principle Melbourne, VIC Pilbara, WA [14-16] [17, 18] Visibility Vehicles unable to Unable to see direction of see if level travel in southbound crossing is direction; Unable to active detect if vehicles are queued on other side (i.e. short stacking) Feedback Barrier lowered but a train has not arrived – time has been wasted; speeding through the crossing before it is active, or before the barriers lower, means that there is no need for waiting Constraints Vehicles routinely Due to stop on level weight/grade crossing; Quad road pedestrians routinely train will only “jump” closed gates; move at 18 short-stacking km/h Mapping — — Consistency Vehicles/pedestrians Trains entering crossing arrived at before fully level deactivated (i.e. crossings at while barriers/gates different are raising; short- times stacking Affordance Lights flash but barrier does not Figure 4: (Top) Rail level crossing in the Pilbara lower for a few seconds (i.e. there is on a steep grade; (middle) example of typical a grace period) quad road train going through a level crossing; Table 1: Indication of design issues observed (bottom) example level crossing with a cutting across the Victoria and Pilbara level crossing creating challenges for train sighting [from 18] studies as they relate to Norman’s principles
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
6. CONTROLLING LEVEL CROSSING RISKS Thus, all level crossings are designed to apply an action rule for the overarching goal of safety—they Drawing on the hierarchy of controls approach instruct the user to stop and/or give way (passive prescribed within Occupational Health and Safety crossings), or simply to stop and wait until it has legislation, risk assessment principles focus on the deactivated, as with active crossings. However, the quantitative nature of risk [19]—as embodied by goal as defined by the user is more than just about Standards and regulation. For this reason, they their own safety; it is a decision shaped by their tend to treat risk very objectively [20]. Risk destination, whether they believe there is time or assessment models, such as ALCAM [8], provide a opportunity to stop, whether they believe they will rich database of information for different crossings, be stopped for an unnecessarily long time, and allowing the development of individual profiles. also by their prior experience. By their design, Models such as this typically quantify risk in terms passive crossings aim to achieve safety and of likelihood, exposure, frequency, duration, and stability in that they convey an action (i.e. stop or consequence. give way), but their design also maintains some Quantitative risk assessment aims to identify the flexibility in decision latitude. For active crossings, potential sequence of undesirable events that it may become relatively easy for the user to view transform a hazard to an unsafe scenario, that flexibility to have been taken from them when, determining the probability and consequence of for example, it takes what they view as an each event and its outcomes [19]. It is therefore a unreasonable amount of time before the train tool that enables decision support in that the arrives at the level crossing. results go on to inform corresponding decisions The level crossing user, be it a motorist, cyclist or about technical risks, which should then be taken pedestrian, engages with level crossings through to consultation and debate to address other factors real-world decision-making—by constantly making (e.g. social and political). As a high hazard sense of their environment. This is a cognitive environment, level crossings are the ideal context activity [25, 26] where decisions involve for such an approach, particularly as they are uncertainty, and where decision makers are guided amenable to reliability engineering. However, the by their own set of rules. Also known as heuristics, downside of these approaches is that they attempt or “mental models,” the users own rules account to “extract risk” from the sociocultural environment for the environment [25] and allow them to in which it exists [21], which has the effect of integrate risks and goals. These have value in that treating it is a fixed entity that can be reduced to a they reduce mental effort when there is a lot snapshot in time. information, and they guide action when the Assessments of the presentation of a hazard at information is ambiguous or insufficient [27]. In a level crossings can therefore be viewed in very complex and highly dynamic environment like rail narrow terms, and insufficiently consider the fact level crossing intersections, controlling risk is that many road-rail intersections are inherently potentially less about managing safety and more complex in terms of technology, systems, and about managing uncertainty; therefore being able interactions. They may often also place a greater to make effective decisions must also be focus on equipment failure than behaviour and associated with being able to manage uncertainty. other human factors [22]. 8. THE SOCIOCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT OF 7. RISK AND RULES FROM THE LEVEL THE LEVEL CROSSING INTERSECTION CROSSING USERS’ PERSPECTIVE There is little doubt that the 2018 road-rail As part of the road environment, interaction with environment is a great deal different than it was in rail level crossings is predicated on the assumption the 1850s—it is different age altogether, but like that the rules of engagement dispel any ambiguity much of the existing rail infrastructure and other around risk, and that if users follow the rules, the aspects of the rail industry, level crossing design risks will be managed, almost incidentally. has endured change and become culturally bound. However, the use of rules implies rigidity rather In practice, this technology now sits as part of a than flexibility and that there is a single best modern road-rail system which features more response. Rules can be classified into three types: diverse vehicles and caters to the mobility needs of (1) goal, (2) process, and (3) action [23]. Rules ever-increasing population numbers in a society focused on achieving a goal or that provide that has become a “clock-time culture” where time guidance on how a process is to be followed are is seen as a commodity that cannot be wasted flexible rules, in that they allow some decision [28]. latitude. Conversely, action rules specify the Human behaviour around level crossings is outcome to be achieved, often in the absence of invariably a reflection of the system, and also the defining the goal, and are of most value when constraints within which it operates. Level crossing stability of processes is required [24]. users routinely finding themselves in risky
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
situations, lending support to Rasmussen’s the interchange and leave my car there it would be Practices Migration model [29], which suggests a drama just to get across the road” [32]. that the pressures within dynamic society degrade At another active level crossing protecting a tram our defences, causing entire systems to migrate to line, “impatient motorists, in some recorded increasing areas of risk. In the context of level instances, have weaved through crossing boom crossings, this then manifests as a standardisation gates, others have become trapped after stopping” of “violations”; at a conceptual level however, it [33]. reflects the propensity for level crossing users to make decisions based on uncertainty and/or see “Upgrading some crossings” with “electronic risk as a more flexible boundary than the rigid one pedestrian gates”, while removing others would viewed by those involved in level crossing risk ‘significantly improve safety’” according to another mitigation. article where a Railway Crossing Safety Strategy has also identified a “$3 billion plan to remove 20 level crossings in South Australia” [34]. At another crossing, safety upgrades at pedestrian gates are also on the agenda; “The pedestrian gates will close at the same time as traffic boom gates lower when a train approaches. They will have an emergency exit, designed to allow people to leave the railway tracks safety if they have already entered the crossing” [35]. Inconsistencies with gates and timing are also conveyed in another article where “frustrated motorists are fed up with traffic jams;” “I go across that crossing every night from work and I’m always Figure 5: Active level crossing being raised by stuck there. My longest (wait time) I think is 23 a “good Samaritan” during a fail-safe situation minutes.” The motorist in this article goes on to say (i.e. level crossing has activated as a safety “for six months everybody that has gone along that measure due to an issue with the system) [30] line has had an even more extended wait time because sometimes the boom gates don’t rise A popular perception of level crossing is that they when they used to” [36]. have not changed since they were first invented, and hence have not been able to keep up with their Traffic congestion and frustration is a recurring changing environment around them. Even though theme; “One resident described the traffic as level crossings have changed, this has happened ‘sheer mayhem’”, “I’d like to see separation of road at a slower pace, but very little since the 1960s, so from rail…We’ve been talking about it for 30 the argument in this paper generally supports this years.” The local council CEO then goes onto say view. Importantly, it also questions the efficacy of “a rail/road separation would be ‘good in an ideal the practice of upgrading passive crossings to world’ but was not feasible under the present plan’” automatic. While this may have the effect of [37]. reducing one or more types of risk, it may also Though these newspaper articles reflect the change the error profile, opening up potential for rhetoric in only one district, it is consistent. Level others. crossings are held responsible for everything— 9. PUBLIC RHETORIC AROUND LEVEL frustration, chronic congestion, pedestrian deaths CROSSINGS due to an absence of automatic gates, and accusations of inconsistent timing, improper Examining the current public rhetoric around activation, and so on. How much of these issues different active level crossings at a specific district, are about the people, or about level crossing as retold by the tabloids, varies. Level crossing technology not keeping up with modern transport upgrades that feature “automated active pedestrian systems. What are implications of this for gates” are welcomed to “stop pedestrian crossings sustainability? Have level crossings had their day? rail lines ahead of oncoming trains” with further The years following their first introduction in Britain, orders “made on a priority basis” [31]. automatic level crossings bred distrust and At another crossing, the newspaper was contacted resistance, and it seems that, 60 years on, they are by “more than 30 people complaining about traffic not enough. It is difficult to envisage a future where delays, failing boom gates and incorrect the human-level crossing relationship does not sequencing of the boom gates and traffic lights,” result in these sorts of views; it is also difficult to with one commuter indicating, “If I were to drive to envisage a future that level crossings, in their present form, somehow co-exist with other types of
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
Intelligent Transport Systems. There is a political transport systems deliver?, in Conference dimension to all this that suggests, unless there is on Railway Excellence (CORE). 2014: a radical rethink in approach, available options, Adelaide (5-7 May). and how we view “violations” level crossings will 14. Naweed, A., et al., Level with me: Human continue to be upgraded. factors in pedestrian and road-user violations at a notorious Victorian railway 10. CONCLUSION level crossing. Road and Transport Fully automatic level crossings are arguably a Research, 2016. 25(2): p. 40-47. technical marvel and an undeniably remarkable 15. Australasian Centre for Rail Innovation, feat of engineering. This paper questioned if they Evaluation of a level crossing enforcement are moribund, or whether they still have relevance system: Level crossing user behaviour for enhancing the liveability, accessibility, study. 2017. Retrieved productivity and requisite safety of modern society. https://www.acri.net.au/ It seems that level crossings are treated as a 16. Australasian Centre for Rail Innovation, scapegoat for many perceived problems with their Evaluation of a level crossing enforcement interaction. It is more than likely the case that the system: Level crossing observational design of level crossings, and the inherent “error study. 2015. Retrieved traps” will continue to create problems if they are to https://www.acri.net.au/ remain in their current form. If this is the case, 17. Naweed, A., R. Gale, and G.S. Larue, upgrading crossings to active controls may not be Near misses in remote locations: the best option for minimising risk—unless it is the Invesigating rail level crossing incidents in best option available. the Pilbara, in AusRAIL 2016. 2016: Adelaide (22-23 November). 11. REFERENCES 18. Australasian Centre for Rail Innovation, 1. Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839 Near misses in remote locations: CHAPTER 45 2 and 3 Vict. 1839. Investigating rail level crossings in the 2. Hall, S. and P. van der Mark, Level Pilbara. 2017. Retrieved Crossings. 2008, Hersham, Surrey, UK: https://www.acri.net.au/ Ian Allan Publishing. 19. Aven, T. and E. Zio, Some considerations 3. Railway Regulation Act 1842 1842 on the treatment of uncertainties in risk CHAPTER 55 5 and 6 Vict. 1842. assessment for practical decision making. 4. Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 Reliability Engineering & System Safety, CHAPTER 20 8 and 9 Vict. 1845. 2011. 96(1): p. 64-74. 5. Dahl, R., Roald Dahl’s Guide to Railway 20. Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). Safety. 1991, UK: British Rail. 2012: Government of South Australia. 6. Standards Australia, AS1742.7-2007 21. Lupton, D., Risk. 1999, London, UK: Manual of uniform traffic control devices Routledge. Part 7: Railway crossings. 2007. 22. Creedy, G.D., Quantitative risk 7. Standard, R.G., Level Crossing Interface assessment: How realistic are those Requirements GK/RT0192 [Issue 2]. 2012, frequency assumptions? Journal of loss RSSB: London: UK. prevention in the process industries, 2011. 8. Australian Level Crossing Assessment 24(3): p. 203-207. Model (ALCAM) Technical Committee, 23. Hale, A.R. and P. Swuste, Safety rules: Australian Level Crossing Assessment procedural freedom or action constraint? Model Technical Manual. 2007. Retrieved Safety science, 1998. 29(3): p. 163-177. alcam.com.au/ 24. Grote, G., Promoting safety by increasing 9. Norman, D., The design of everyday uncertainty–Implications for risk things: Revised and expanded edition. management. Safety science, 2015. 71: p. 2013, New York: USA: Basic Books (AZ). 71-79. 10. Johnstone, G., Railway Level Crossing 25. Klein, G., Naturalistic decision making. Inquests. 1989. Retrieved Human factors, 2008. 50(3): p. 456-460. 11. Johnstone, G.D., Accidents at Railway 26. Klein, G.A., Streetlights and shadows: Crossings: A Coroner's Viewpoint. 2000. Searching for the keys to adaptive decision Retrieved making. 2011: MIT Press. 12. Parliament of Victoria Road Safety 27. Shah, A.K. and D.M. Oppenheimer, Committee, Report of the Road Safety Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction Committee on the Inquiry into Improving framework. Psychological bulletin, 2008. Safety at Level Crossings. 2008. Retrieved 134(2): p. 207. 13. Wullems, C., et al., In-vehicle railway level 28. Cœugnet, S., et al., Time pressure and crossing warning systems: Can intelligent driving: Work, emotions and risks. Transp
Raising the bar: A cultural-hist. deconstruction of rail level crossings Anjum Naweed, Grégoire S Larue
Res Pt F: Traf Psych Behav, 2013. 20: p. 34. Boisvert, E., Rail safety boost, in CoastCity 39-51. Weekly. 2017 (24 May), Messenger 29. Rasmussen, J., Risk management in a Newspapers: Adelaide, South Australia. dynamic society: a modelling problem. 35. Kroehn, C., Pedestrian gates for 5 Safety Science, 1997. 27(2–3): p. 183-213. hotspots, in Guardian Messenger. 2006 30. Wullems, C. and A. Naweed, Systematic (26 July), Messenger Newspapers: integration of human factors int he Adelaide, South Australia. specification of requirements for new 36. Brown, J., Rail crossing jams are driving railway technologies, in Conference on us nuts, in Guardian Messenger. 2005 (24 Railway Excellence (CORE). 2014: August), Messenger Newspapers: Adelaide (5-7 May). Adelaide, South Australia. 31. Vasenszky, E., Rail crossing work 37. Vasenszky, E., Edging closer, in Guardian welcomed, in Guardian Messenger. 2005 Messenger. 2005 (7 September), (24 August), Messenger Newspapers: Messenger Newspapers: Adelaide, South Adelaide, South Australia. Australia. 32. Garvis, S., Rail hub is a ‘debacle’, in Guardian Messenger. 2008 (30 July), Messenger Newspapers: Adelaide, South Australis. 33. Todd, A., Level crossing idiots, in Guardian Messenger. 2007 (1 August), Messenger Newspapers: Adelaide, South Australia.