Prior driver performance and expressed attitudes toward risk as factors associated with railroad grade crossing violations.

Railroad `gate runners' identified by photo surveillance instrumentation were contrasted with a sample of general `users' of the same grade crossing. The two samples were contrasted in terms of the prior driving histories of the drivers involved. In addition, drivers in the sample of general users were administered a paper and pencil questionnaire addressing drivers' perceptions of the risks associated with grade crossing actions and similar actions at signalised intersections. Risk perception attributes of violators were inferred from relationships identified in the general user sample between driver history data and responses to the risk perception questionnaire. From the driver history data, it was determined that `violators' were over-represented in the age ranges 16-30 and 31-60. With respect to gender of violators, the male/female ratio in the violator group did not differ from that of the general user population. Possible trends between the probability of grade crossing violations, prior traffic convictions, and prior crashes were identified but could not be substantiated at the level of statistical significance adopted for the present study. In general, the present data suggest that a driver's prior history of violations and crash involvement combined with his or her generalised orientation to the assessment and acceptance of risk may be related to an increased likelihood of `gate running'. In partial defence of the behaviour in question, the report also discusses how the acquisition and maintenance of such behaviours may be linked to inconsistencies between the signals used to warn drivers at grade crossing locations and the presence of the threat with which these signals are intended to be correlated. In the absence of a high degree of signal/threat correlation, signalisation loses its effectiveness, especially when a segment of the user population perceives signalisation to be `advisory' as opposed to regulatory in nature and whose behaviour may also in part, be motivated by the very risk which most drivers seek to avoid. (Author/publisher)