Tenkink E, Van der Horst R
TNO Institute for Perception, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
Accid Anal Prev. 1990 Jun;22(3):229-39. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(90)90015-d.
The behavior of car drivers at two Dutch railroad grade crossings with automatic flashing warning lights was analyzed. Car drivers were videotaped while approaching either the red flashing lights or the white flashing "safe"-signal. Approach speeds, positions, and time intervals were semiautomatically measured from videos of more than 900 drivers: 660 while confronted with the red lights and 272 while passing the white light. Of the latter group, head movements during the approach to the crossing were also registered. Red light compliance was relatively good, as no driver was observed to cross later than 6 seconds after the onset of the red lights, despite train-arrival times of well over 60 seconds. The level of red light compliance was further quantified in terms of both the deceleration and time-to-stopping-line as accepted by drivers. From a comparison with earlier research on red light compliance at signalized road intersections it appeared that red light compliance was better at railroad crossings than at road crossings. It is concluded that faulty red light compliance is not a major cause for car-train accidents and that emphasis should be placed on the ability of the present device to attract attention and to signal unambiguously. The high degree of compliance also causes unexpected driver actions, such as emergency braking and hesitations. A yellow phase may reduce these problems. Some drivers tended to proceed immediately after a train had cleared the road instead of waiting for the end of the red signal (typically some 3 to 5 seconds after the train had passed). This tendency might reveal a major cause of dramatic errors when a second train is approaching. Immediate extinction of the red signal is suggested, or even better, a separate signal to announce the arrival of the second train. Behavior during the white signal phase also showed indications of uncertainty. In some 10% of cases drivers tended to decelerate more strongly than necessary and to make extra head movements. It is recommended that the present white flashing signal be reconsidered.
对荷兰两个设有自动闪烁警示灯的铁路平交道口处汽车驾驶员的行为进行了分析。在汽车驾驶员接近红色闪烁灯或白色闪烁“安全”信号时，对他们进行了录像。从900多名驾驶员的视频中半自动测量了接近速度、位置和时间间隔：660名驾驶员面对红灯时的情况，以及272名驾驶员通过白灯时的情况。对于后一组，还记录了接近道口过程中的头部动作。红灯遵守情况相对较好，尽管列车到达时间远超过60秒，但未观察到任何驾驶员在红灯亮起后6秒之后穿越道口。根据驾驶员接受的减速和到达停车线的时间，进一步量化了红灯遵守程度。与早期关于信号控制道路交叉口红灯遵守情况的研究相比，铁路道口的红灯遵守情况似乎比道路交叉口更好。得出的结论是，错误的红灯遵守情况不是汽车与火车事故的主要原因，应强调现有设备吸引注意力和明确发出信号的能力。高度的遵守情况也会导致驾驶员出现意外行为，如紧急制动和犹豫。设置黄灯阶段可能会减少这些问题。一些驾驶员倾向于在列车驶离道路后立即继续行驶，而不是等待红色信号结束（通常在列车通过后约3至5秒）。当第二列火车接近时，这种倾向可能揭示了严重错误的一个主要原因。建议立即熄灭红色信号，或者更好的是，设置一个单独的信号来宣布第二列火车的到来。白色信号阶段的行为也显示出不确定性迹象。在约10%的情况下，驾驶员倾向于过度减速并进行额外的头部动作。建议重新考虑现有的白色闪烁信号。
