3.8 Proceedings Paper

Identification Determinant Variables of the Injury Severity Crashes at Road-Railway Level Crossing in Indonesia

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.185

关键词

Road-Railway Level Crossing (RLC); Accident; Fatality

资金

  1. PITTA funds from Universitas Indonesia [847/UN2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accident between road and railway traffic at the railway level crossings (RLCs) is a significant issue in developing countries particularly in Indonesia. The Indonesia national traffic accident data (IRSMS) recorded approximately 900 accidents at RLCs between 2013 and 2016. In this study, accessed for 154 RLCs detail accident records can be completed. The number of accidents at RLCs in Indonesia are substantial high with a ratio of accidents and fatality accidents were 40.47 accidents/1,000 RLCs and 14.96 fatalities/1,000 RLCs respectively by comparison to the international standard. This paper adopts the ordered probit model for identifying the determinant variables of the injury severity crashes at various RLCs types (i.e. active and passive) and locations (i.e. urban and rural). The findings are as follows: rain will increase the risk of fatality, Power Two Wheelers have a high risk of fatalities in urban and less risk in rural passive RLCs; Fatal accident crossing at RLCs occur in the low traffic condition and dawn period. Finally, Male drivers are more likely being killed in the vehicles-train accidents in the RLCs. The recommendations are: First, to suggest the train authority to provide full length boom gate at both sides at the active RLC to reduce the chances for motorcyclists' violate the boom gate from the other side of roads when train passing the level crossing. Second, for all passive RLCs must be equipped with a warning siren, flashing light prior train passing, and street light for improving alertness drivers/riders during day and night as well as in peak or non-peak hours. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据