You are on page 1of 21

Warnings and Behavior: A Study

of Pedestrian Behavior at Grade


Crossings

Gavin Huntley-Fenner, Ph.D.


Managing Scientist
Exponent, Inc.
May, 2008
Outline

• Introduction

• Case Study

• Implications
Basic grade crossing taxonomy is
evolving

1996 FRA data 2004 FRA data


Current distribution of active
devices at public crossings
6.3%

38.0%

55.7%

% of public grade crossings

2004 FRA data


Decrease in highway rail incidents
is a familiar story (e.g., fatalities)
Counter-trend: Pedestrian incidents
have increased markedly

• Pedestrian incidents
have increased by
In the same time frame
20%
MV incidents fell
• Constitute between
by about 6%
10% and 20% of all
incidents
Pattern of pedestrian incidents is
counter intuitive
2005 FRA data; Y axis is in log scale – PUBLIC & PRIVATE crossings combined

1000 905 865


Crossbucks only
Gates • Similar numbers of
123 motor vehicle
# of incidents

incidents at gates &


100
crossbucks

10 • 10x more pedestrian


10 incidents with gated
crossings than with
crossbucks
1
Motor Pedestrians
Vehicles
Federal Railroad Administration. (December 2006). Railroad Safety Statistics 2005 Final Report . U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C.
Pedestrian specific factors are
acknowledged as important …

• “Railroads often act as physical dividers


between important, interrelated elements of
communities.”
• “ … Railroads have always attracted juveniles
as ‘play areas’”
• “ … passengers frequently use short cuts
before or after boarding a train.”
• “… some people are prone to vandalism .”

Source: 2007 Railroad Grade Crossing Handbook Revised Second Edition


… but historically the approach to
influencing behavior is similar
Motorists and pedestrians have
different mindsets

• Pedestrians have minimal


threat of law enforcement

• Pedestrians may trespass Pedestrians interpret


– easy to travel off signs and signals at
roadway crossings differently

• Many pedestrians have a


sense of control over the
right-of-way
… and multiple interpretations of
signals are possible
Stop sign?

Red light?

State Drivers’ Manual

“Bells or other audible warning devices


may be included … to provide
additional warning for pedestrians and
bicyclists”
FHWA Railroad Grade
MUTCD 8D.01 Crossing Handbook
Some interpretations may be at odds

Stimulus Two interpretations Behavior

“Warning”
Information about a possible Train approaching do
negative consequence – a not enter crossing
message that something
undesirable may occur

“Signal”
Information useful in Train approaching
Lights flashing guiding behavior toward an soon get into boarding
Alarm sounding
optimal desired outcome position on platform
Case Study: Evidence for “signal”
interpretation of active warnings
Location Method Data

• Suburban commuter • Surveillance was covert • # of trains


rail station in the US
• 3 days of recording • # of people crossing
between 7am and 9am
• Timing of crossing
• Directly at crosswalk
• Manner of crossing
• Recorded data only
while bell sounded &
lights flashed
Schematic layout of the station

Camera
Northbound view

Trestle:
5730’

Overpass:
3481’
Data summary

• 60 pedestrians in crosswalk
• 28 female and 32 male

Train Day 1 Day 2 Day 3


07:30 NB Local ; SB Express - - 4 • 87% crossed while bell
07:40 NB Local ; 7:43 SB Local - 6 6
sounded
07:52 SB Express - - -
- 8 people crossed pre-
07:58 NB Local ; 8:01 SB Local 5 9 7
08:10 SB Express 2 - - train, 2 of them ran
08:17 NB Local 5 3 2
08:22 SB Local - - - • 13% waited until bell
08:40 SB Local 1 2 - stopped and train left
station
Summary of case study results

• Pedestrians were willing to enter crosswalks


even while bells are sounding

• Some crossed just before the train arrived

• Most crossed after a train had left the station

• A few pedestrians waited for the bells to stop


even after the train had departed
Results of the study echo findings of
FRA panel

“ … Observations of pedestrian
behavior often reveal that many
pedestrians do not think of
themselves as part of the overall
traffic stream, and therefore not
really subject to traffic control
devices ...”

“… effective devices are a


necessary complement to law
enforcement initiatives and public
outreach and education efforts in
the enhancement of pedestrian
safety at grade crossings.”
Implications
• Auditory alarms warn AND reduce
uncertainty

• Pedestrians use the safety information


provided together with other information
about when/whether to cross
- Perceptual factors (looming, monocular
parallax )
- Timing of alarm bell
- Physical layout
- Visual Signs?
- Threat of enforcement?
Rules differ but behavior is similar
Some
considerations
Rule Right of Way guiding behavior

Enter crosswalk Drivers always yield


only on walk signal to pedestrians
What manner of
Do not enter if don’t crossing is
walk is flashing or possible?
solidly lit
• Is hazard
present?

• How fast can I


travel?
Do not enter Trains yield for
crossing while gate no one • When can I
is down begin to cross?

When lights are


flashing stop before
proceeding into
intersection
Bibliography
Abraham, J., Datta, T.K., Datta, S. (1998). Driver behavior at Rail-
Rail-Highway crossings. In Transportation Research Record 1648,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 28- 28-34.
Ayres, T., Wood, C., Schmidt, R., Young, D., & Murray, J. (2000).
(2000). Affordance perception and safety intervention: IEA 2000/HFES
2000 congress.
Ayres, T.J.; Gross, M.M.; Wood, C.T.; Horst, D.P.; Beyer, R.R. and and Robinson, J.N. (1989). What is a warning and when will it
work? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. pp. 426-
426-430.
Caird, J.K., Creaser, J.I., Edwards, C.J., & Dewar, R.E. (2002). A human factors analysis of highway-highway-railway grade crossing
accidents in Canada (Rep. No. TP 13938E). Montreal, Canada: Transport
Transport Development Centre, Transport Canada.
Dewar R.E. (2002). Pedestrians and Bicyclists. In Dewar, R.E. & Olson, PL., (Ed) Human factors in traffic safety. Lawyers &
Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ 87551-
87551-0040, pp. 557-
557-612.
Edworthy, J. and Hellier, E. (2000). Auditory Warnings. In W. Karwowski,
Ka rwowski, (Ed), Encyclopaedia of Ergonomics, Volume 1. New York
: Taylor & Francis, pp.625-
pp.625-627.
Federal Highway Administration. (2003). Manual on Uniform Traffic Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways.
Washington, D.C.
Federal Railroad Administration. (2003). Railroad Safety Statistics:
Statistics: Final Report 2001. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Washington, D.C.
Huang, H. and Zegeer, C. (2000). The Effects of Pedestrian Countdown
Countdown Signals in Lake Buena Vista, Florida Department of
Transportation, November 2000
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, E. S. (2001).
(2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-
267-286.
Mortimer, R.G. (1988). Human Factors in Highway-
Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Accidents. Automotive Engineering and Litigation,
Litigation,
Volume 2. Garland Law, New York; pp. 35- 35-69.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2003). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect,
affect,
reason, risk, and rationality. Paper presented at the Conceptualizing
Conceptualizing and measuring risk perceptions, Washington DC.
Virkler, M.R. (1998). Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay.
Delay. In Transportation Research Record 1636, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 88- 88-91.
Ward, N.J. and Wilde, G.J.S. (1996). Driver approach behaviour at railway crossings before and after enhancement of
lateral sight distances: An experimental investigation of a risk perception and behavioural compensation hypothesis.
Safety Science, 22, 63-
63-75.