The potential of the stop sign to unravel the mystery named St Andrew

Since years, railway professionals argue about the sense or nonsense of the implementation of the stop sign at passive railway level crossings. In some legislations (e.g. Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Poland, USA) stop... [ view full abstract ]

Since years, railway professionals argue about the sense or nonsense of the implementation of the stop sign at passive railway level crossings. In some legislations (e.g. Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Poland, USA) stop signs are used at level crossings to make the driver slow down and visually scan for an oncoming train. In other countries (e.g. Germany), the effectivity of the stop sign is doubted and its use at level crossings is legally forbidden. Some authors argue in favor of stop signs at level crossings based on logical argumentation, however, empirical evidence of the effectivity is limited. This study investigates the knowledge and the association strength of n=57 participants with regard to the St Andrew’s cross (= crossbuck sign) in a choice reaction time experiment. In three experimental conditions, the St Andrew’s cross had to be compared to other signs that regulate the right of way at crossings, as, for example, the stop sign and a combination of stop sign and the St Andrew’s cross. In each of the three conditions, participants were instructed to judge the meaning of traffic signs that were presented to them as fast as possible. In the first condition, participants had to decide whether the sign presented has a regulatory function concerning the road traffic users’ right of way or not. In the second condition, participants had to indicate whether the sign presented to them either means they have the right of way themselves, they have to give way to someone else or the sign has nothing to do with regulating the right of way. In the third condition, participants had to decide if a sign either requires them to stop the own vehicle, requires them to be ready to break, or is neutral in terms of the right of way. In all three conditions, participants showed significantly more incorrect judgments in regard to the meaning of the St Andrew’s cross, compared to the stop sign as well as the combination of the St Andrew’s cross and the stop sign. This shows that the general understanding of the St Andrew’s cross is poor. With regard to the choice reaction time, in the second and third condition, participants reacted significantly slower to the St Andrews cross compared to the stop sign and the combination sign. This implies that the retrieval of the correct behavioral patterns in case of the St Andrew’s cross is more difficult than in case of the stop sign and the combined sign. In the first condition, the results pointed into the same direction but did not reach statistical significance. In order to control the potential influence of the color red as a signal color that is especially present in the stop sign, control signs in shades of grey were added to the set of stimuli. The differences in correct answers and the reaction times between colored signs and grey signs were negligible. The results of the study support the use of the stop sign at passive railway level crossings.