Understanding near miss reporting at Australian rail level crossings: The train driver perspective

Rail level crossings are a perennial issue and present safety risk to both rail and road users, with potentially catastrophic results. While the removal of such intersections and corresponding risk appears a logical choice, this is not always practical nor financially viable. Near-miss events have similar precursors to accidents, thus learning from such events in the context of rail level crossings is beneficial. However, very little research has explored this from the train driver perspective, presenting an important research gap. The aim of this research was to understand near miss reporting at rail level crossings from the train driver perspective. From this aim two research questions were identified: (1) what influences train drivers to report near misses at rail level crossings? and (2) how do train drivers construct a near miss at a rail level crossing? Three objectives were identified to answer the research questions: (1) to identify potential factors which may contribute to non-reporting of near misses at rail level crossings; (2) to reveal the decision-making process that occurs when a train driver decides whether or not to report a near miss at a rail level crossing; and (3) to establish a near-miss reporting maturity scale for measuring reporting potential. A literature review was undertaken to inform the study survey, which was distributed to train drivers across Australia. The survey was developed to enable purposive sampling and to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Analysis was conducted using SPSS (Version 25) (IBM) and NVivo (Version 11) (QSR). To examine the construction of a near miss, both the definition and the understanding of the term ‘near miss’ was explored. Train drivers shared knowledge from both their training and lived experience. Analysis of train driver’s construction of near misses at rail level crossings revealed barriers and enablers to near miss reporting in the organisational and personal areas. Barriers included not receiving feedback, paperwork frustrations and the feeling of nothing ever changing. Enablers included feelings of satisfaction in reporting an event with the hope of improvements to the rail safety system. During the decision-making process, train drivers tended to draw conclusions based on previous experience and appraisals of whether a particular near miss was worthy of reporting. This involved weighing the potential of the near miss against personal impacts and efforts. Itemised factors that influence near miss reporting were subjected to exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha scores showed that internal consistency of the two constructs was suitable for research purposes and form the foundational beginnings of the Near Miss Reporting Maturity Scale. In conclusion, the research fills a research gap regarding train drivers’ perspectives of near miss reporting. Study findings can be used by organisations to direct interventions that improve near miss reporting in ways that lead to improved safety at rail level crossings.