Files in this item



application/pdfTES-132.pdf (858kB)
(no description provided)PDF


Title:An Analyses of Drivers' Responses to In-Vehicle Receiver (IVR) after Experiencing Two Modes of Operation
Author(s):Benekohal, Rahim F.; Rawls, Carmen G.
Subject(s):On-board warning system, in-vehicle receiver (IVR), ITS, railroad crossing safety, driver opinions on traffic control devices at railroad crossing , audible and visual warning messages
Abstract:This report contains the results of the third survey (out of four surveys) that was conducted six months after the IVR system was operational. Drivers who had the IVR in the audible (visual) mode for the first three months would have switched to the visual (audible) mode for the next three months. The audible and visual groups gave similar average effectiveness ratings to all of the warning devices except the flashing lights, clanging bell, and IVR. The audible group rated these three devices higher than the visual group. The IVR average effectiveness rating from the audible group was 3.8 using a 5.0 scale, significantly higher than 2.7 from the visual group. The visual warning message from the visual IVR was not as effective in attracting attention of the drivers as the beeping sound from the audible IVR. This is reflected in its effectiveness rating. The effectiveness rating for the audible mode of IVR was significantly higher than that of the advance warning and the crossbuck signs, similar to that of the train horn, and lower than that of the flashing lights, the crossing gate, and the clanging bell. The effectiveness rating for the visual IVR was significantly lower than that of all other warning devices, except the advance warning sign. The effectiveness rating of the visual IVR was similar to that of the advance warning sign. A significantly higher proportion of the audible group (72%) compared to the visual group (47%) trusted the IVR to give an accurate warning of a train approaching/occupying the equipped crossings.
Issue Date:2004-03
Genre:Technical Report
Publication Status:published or submitted for publication
Peer Reviewed:not peer reviewed
Sponsor:The Illinois Department of Transportation
Rights Information:No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
Date Available in IDEALS:2013-11-18

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics