Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 67
67 accident reports in conjunction with other available infor- driver(s), safety equipment, damage, injuries/fatalities, witness mation sources. A list of potential sources is provided information, and emergency services present. In addition, with the report and includes: Operator Report, Supervisor many forms contained sections for collecting data pertaining Report, Interviews, Photographs, Vehicle Inspection, Event to pedestrian/passenger incidents. As mentioned in the Loca- Recorder Log, CD-ROM, Field Notes, Sketch, Chain of tion section, a few of the incident report forms also contained Custody, Evidence, Control Centre Report, Police Report, information regarding incidents that were not related to trans- D&A Report, Radio/Telephone Tapes, and Infrastructure portation safety. Inspection. Table 34 shows the common categories of data reported in the hardcopy and electronic incident report forms supplied by SF MUNI also provided three incident report forms: The the LRT agencies. The table also shows the data reporting for- Employee Form, The Supervisor Form, and The Safety Form. mat used for each category of data. The letters used for the data reporting format (C, T, etc.) are explained (checkbox, text · The Employee Form focused on reporting information rel- field, etc.) in the table's footnote. evant to loss prevention and contained less detail regard- ing the environmental conditions or actions of persons involved. Incident Classification · The Supervisor Form focused on determining whether the Most incident report forms required the investigator to pro- condition of the driver contributed to the incident (includ- vide a classification of the incident. Generally, incidents were ing drugs/alcohol), what emergency services attended the classified based on type of incident and/or severity. Forms scene, and recommendations as to what training might be intended for use in the investigation of a wide variety of inci- necessary for the driver to prevent another occurrence in dents included an extensive list of possible incidents, most of the future. which were not collisions. Incident reporting forms generally · The Safety Form was clearly designed to facilitate reporting classified collisions based on the object or individual that col- to the NTD. Many of the categories of data included in the lided with the transit vehicle. form and their answers were taken directly from the NTD Reportable Incident Report Form. This form focused on including all the fields required by the NTD, such as classi- Location fication of incident, ROW type, intersection controls, spe- The most common method of identifying the location of cific actions of drivers, etc. collisions was to provide a text field on the incident report form. The limited amount of space dedicated to location on Incident versus Accident Report Forms most of the forms suggested that most agencies expect a min- imal description of the incident location. Some of the forms Many of the report forms contained information pertaining required both the street being travelled and the nearest cross- to the collision of a transit vehicle with either another vehicle, street to be reported. Most forms also included details per- a pedestrian, or a fixed object. Other report forms also included taining to the transit agency such as the run number, route data related to other types of incidents, such as criminal activ- number, switch number, and line/branch number. ity on transit property, passenger illness, etc. From the per- Some of the forms included more specific details regarding spective of safety analysis, it would be ideal to keep these the incident location. The SF MUNI Safety Form reported the types of incidents completely separate from collision reports. exact latitude and longitude of the incident location. A few As indicated in the Collision Data Available, Requested, and forms further classified the location using a series of check- Received section in Chapter 3, failure to do so often leads to boxes. For example, the LACMTA form required the location incorrect reporting of incidents, resulting in the need to under- of the rail vehicle to be classified as being on the mainline, take significant data cleaning before databases can be used for shop, yard, or other location. The location of the other vehi- analysis. cle could be identified from the location of the person involved in the incident, which included the categories ROW, Categories of Information Included grade crossing, tunnel, or yard. in Accident Reports The TTC Supervisor's Accident Investigation Form pro- vided the most detailed list of descriptors to classify the inci- The accident report forms reviewed by the research team dent location, including whether the location was at an contained several categories of information that were common intersection, midblock, loop, garage, terminal, near side stop, to many of the forms. These included: incident classification, far side stop, island, and/or curb. If the incident occurred at a location, weather, illumination, road/rail conditions, action of bay or stop, the investigator could further indicate whether the
OCR for page 68
Table 34. LRT incident report forms: categories of data included and data format. Agency/Report Incident Location Weather Illumination Road/Rail Actions of Safety Damage Injuries/ Name Classification Conditions Driver(s) Equipment Fatalities (Vehicle/ROW) Hardcopy Forms LACMTA C C/T T C C T A/T Santa Clara Valley C T C C C C/T C C TA RTD Denver T C T C/T Memphis Area TA T T C/T C/T/D C/T Portland Tri-Met C C/T C C C C/T/D C/T C/T/D C/T SEPTA Supervisor's Accident C T C C C C/D C C/T C/T Investigation Form Operator Accident C T C C C C/D T C/T Incident Report St. Louis RT T T T T T Toronto Transit Commission Occurrence Report C T/D C C C C/T/D C T C/T Surface Supervisory C C/T/D C C C C/T/D C C/T C/T Occurrence Report Edmonton Transit C T T T T T/D T T C/T System City of Calgary C T C C C C/T/D T/D Transit Electronic Forms SF MUNI Supervisor Form T/P T/P T/P P T T/P T/P T/P Safety Form C/T/P T/P P P T/P T/P P T/Tb Employee Form T/P T/P P P T/P T/P Utah TRAX T P P P P P P/T/D P/T/Tb Note: C Checkboxes, T Text field, D Diagram, A Alphanumeric Code, P Pull-down Menus, Tb Table. A blank indicates that the category was not included in the form examined. Source: review of all referenced forms and reports received from LRT agencies
OCR for page 69
69 vehicle was entering, exiting, or dwelling at the bay or stop. Action of Driver(s) Providing additional details regarding the location of the inci- The actions of the drivers involved in the incident were dent can give individuals unfamiliar with the location informa- reported to various degrees on the incident report forms. The tion pertinent to the determination of whether or not location contributed to the collision. This level of detail and categoriza- most commonly reported driver actions were: direction and tion would be especially useful in the analysis of records at a speed of travel; use of head lights, tail lights, or horns; and national level. maneuvers being executed at time of impact. In many of the incident forms, diagrams were an important source of infor- mation regarding driver action. The level of detail provided Weather was not consistent among transit agencies. For example, some Most of the incident forms required the investigator to of the incident forms only required the direction of travel of report the weather conditions at the time of the incident. the vehicles, with potential for additional explanation in the There was a high degree of consistency in the format of the statements and/or diagrams. In contrast, forms such as the weather reporting. Most agencies provided the investigator TTC Occurrence Report reported speed prior to impact, type with a series of checkboxes from which he/she could select the of impact (i.e., sideswipe, head-on, etc.), distance travelled appropriate response. As would be expected, the responses after impact, headlights (on/off), and horn sounded (yes/no), available were determined by the climate of each location. in addition to providing room for diagrams and statements. Northern locations, for example, tended to provide detailed An important point to note is that the source of information responses for winter weather conditions. was not identified on many of the incident forms. This can be critical information when considering the validity of informa- tion about driver actions. Illumination Most of the incident report forms included information Safety Equipment about lighting conditions at the time of the incident. In almost all cases, the incident form provided the investigator with a The presence of safety equipment was inconsistently series of checkboxes from which to select the appropriate reported across transit agencies, and often omitted entirely. response. Although virtually all agencies contained identical The safety equipment information contained on the incident responses for environmental lighting conditions (i.e., daylight, report forms included traffic controls at intersection; aspect dark, dawn/dusk), certain agencies also allowed the investiga- of signals at time of crash; type and condition of switch; visi- tor to indicate whether glare or street lighting were present. bility and functionality of traffic signs/signals; presence, visi- These added details provide a more comprehensive picture of bility and functionality of grade crossing devices; type of the lighting conditions at the time of the incident, and can traffic lines; and presence, type, and indication of transit sig- help the analyst more accurately determine whether illumina- nal. Most incident forms included only a few of the above tion was a factor contributing to the incident. listed factors. Road/Rail Conditions Damage The condition of the roadway or railway at the time of the The accurate estimation of damage at the scene of a colli- incident was also included in most incident report forms. sion can be a difficult task. The incident report forms gen- Almost all the forms that recorded road/rail conditions pro- erally used one or more of the following three methods to vided a series of checkboxes from which the investigator could indicate the extent of damage: diagrams, classification of dam- select the appropriate response. Responses focused on envi- age, and description of damage. There were significant varia- ronmental conditions that might reduce surface friction and tions among transit agencies in the methods employed to contribute to a collision (i.e., leaves, water, ice, etc.). report damage. UTA staff noted during the workshop that if The Toronto Transit Commission Occurrence Reports also the fault lies with the operator of the motor vehicle and not the required the investigator to indicate whether any of the fol- LRT operator (which is almost always the case), the agency lowing road conditions were applicable: asphalt or concrete, never receives formal reports of total damage on the auto or gravel or other, upgrade, downgrade, construction, straight, on the LRV. This made estimating damage a difficult and curve. The inclusion of this information on the incident imprecise task. reporting form provides a more comprehensive picture of Diagrams typically required the investigator to shade or how design and environmental road/rail conditions might mark the areas of damage on the transit vehicle and/or other contribute to collisions. vehicle. Classification of damage was based either on a qual-