Same but different? Understanding road user behaviour at intersections using cognitive work analysis

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 592-615

  Cornelissen, Miranda ^a   Salmon, Paul M ^a   Young, Kristie L ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

cognitive work analysis; cyclists; drivers; intersections; motorcyclists; pedestrians; road safety

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885103316     PISSN: 1463922X     EISSN: 1464536X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1463922X.2012.678282     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ahlstrom, U. 2005. Work domain analysis for air traffic controller weather displays. Journal of Safety Research, 36: 159 - 169.
2. Baldwin, CL. 2002. Designing in-vehicle technologies for older drivers: application of sensory-cognitive interaction theory. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3 (4): 307 - 329.
3. Baldwin, CL. 2009. Individual differences in navigational strategy: implications for display design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10 (5): 443 - 458.
4. Birrell, SA. (2011). Cognitive Work Analysis for safe and efficient driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/1463922x.2010.539285
5. Choi, E. 2010. Crash factors in intersection-related crashes: an on-scene perspective, Washington, DC: NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
6. Cornelissen, M. Salmon, P.M., and Lenné, M.G., 2011. Understanding road user behavior using a system based approach: modeling intersection negotiation using cognitive work analysis. In: Paper presented at the AAAM, Paris, France
7. Dill, J, Monsereb, CM and McNeila, N. 2012. Evaluation of bike boxes at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 44: 126 - 134.
8. Donnell, ET, Porter, RJ and Shankar, VN. 2010. A framework for estimating the safety effects of roadway lighting at intersections. Safety Science, 48: 1436 - 1444.
9. Hajdukiewicz, JR and Vicente, KJ. 2004. A theoretical note on the relationship between work domain analysis and task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5 (6): 527 - 538.
10. Hoareau, E, Candappa, N and Corben, B. 2011. Intersection study: task 1 report: problem definition, Melbourne, Australia: Monash Accident Research Centre.
11. Jenkins, DP. 2008. Applying cognitive work analysis to the design of rapidly reconfigurable interfaces in complex networks. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9 (4): 273 - 295.
12. Jenkins, DP. 2009. Using work domain analysis to evaluate the impact of technological change on the performance of complex socio-technical systems. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12 (1): 1 - 14.
13. Jenkins, DP. 2010. Using cognitive work analysis to explore system flexibility. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11 (3): 136 - 150.
14. Klein, GA, Calderwood, R and MacGregor, D. 1989. Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 19 (3): 462 - 472.
15. Kuciemba, SR and Cirillo, JA. 1992. Safety effectiveness of highway design features, Vol. V. Intersections. Report number FHWA-RD-91-048. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration
16. Larsson, P, Dekker, SWA and Tingvall, C. 2010. The need for a systems theory approach to road safety. Safety Science, 48 (9): 1167 - 1174.
17. Megaw, T. 2006. " The definition and measurement of mental workload ". In Evaluation of human work, Edited by: Wilson, JR and Corlett, EN. 525 - 553. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18. Naikar, N. 2005. A methodology for work domain analysis, the first phase of cognitive work analysis. In: Paper presented at the human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting. 2005, Orlando, FL.
19. Naikar, N. 2006. An examination of the key concepts of the five phases of cognitive work analysis with examples from a familiar system. In: Paper presented at the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting, San Francisco
20. Naikar, N, Moylan, A and Pearce, B. 2006. Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7 (4): 371 - 394.
21. Naikar, N and Sanderson, PM. 1999. Work domain analysis for training-system definition. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9: 271 - 290.
22. NZ Transport Agency. 2009. The official New Zealand code for cyclists, Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Transport Agency.
23. Obeng, K. 2008. Injury severity, vehicle safety features, and intersection crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9 (3): 268 - 276.
24. Papaioannou, P. 2007. Driver behaviour, dilemma zone and safety effects at urban signalised intersections in Greece. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39: 147 - 158.
25. Rasmussen, J. 1974. The human data processor as a system component: bits and pieces of a model, Roskilde, Denmark: Danish Atomic Energy Commission.
26. Rasmussen, J. 1983. Skills, rules and knowledge; Signals, signs and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-13 (3): 257 - 266.
27. Rasmussen, J. 1986. Information processing and human-machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering, New York: Elsevier Science.
28. Rasmussen, J, Pejtersen, AM and Goodstein, LP. 1994. Cognitive systems engineering, New York: Wiley.
29. Regan, MA. et al., 2009. Using cognitive work analysis to derive recommendations for improving motorcycle and scooter rider safety. Bron, France: INRETS
30. Roberts, I, Mohan, D and Abbasi, K. 2002. War on the roads. British Medical Journal, 324: 1107 - 1108.
31. Salmon, PM. et al., 2005. Cognitive work analysis and road safety: potential applications in road transport. In: Paper presented at the Australasian road safety research policing education conference, Wellington, New Zealand
32. Salmon, PM and Lenné, MG. 2009. Putting the 'system' into safe system frameworks. Australasian College of Road Safety Journal, 30 (3): 21 - 22.
33. Salmon, PM. 2011. Stanton, N.A., & Young, K.L., Situation awareness on the road: review, theoretical and methodological issues, and future directions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/1463922x.2010.539289
34. Salmon, PM. 2012. Young, K.L., and Cornelissen, M., Compatible cognition amongst road users: the compatibility of driver, motorcyclist, and cyclist situation awareness. Safety Science. Special issue on Situation Awareness and Safety, in press
35. Stoner, HA. Wiese, E.E., and Lee, J.D., 2003. Applying ecological interface design to the driving domain: the results of an abstraction hierarchy analysis. In: Paper presented at the human factors and ergonomics society 47th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA
36. Sunnevång, C. 2011. Census study of fatal car-to-car intersection crashes in Sweden involving modern vehicles. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12 (4): 333 - 338.
37. The Highways Agency, 1995. Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 6: road geometry, Section 2: Junctions, part 6: geometric design of major/minor priority junctions. London: HMSO
38. Theeuwes, J and Godthelp, H. 1995. Self-explaining roads. Safety Science, 19 (2-3): 217 - 225.
39. Vicente, KJ. 1999. Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive and healthy computer-based work, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Vicroads, 2011. CrashStats. Available from: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/AboutRoadSafety/StatisticsAndResearch/CrashStats.htm [Accessed 17 February 2011]
41. Wegman, F. 2002. Review of Irelands road safety strategy, Leidschendam, The Netherlands: SWOV.
42. Wegman, F, Aarts, L and Bax, C. 2008. Advancing sustainable safety: national road safety outlook for The Netherlands for 2005-2020. Safety Science, 46 (2): 323 - 343.
43. World Health Organization, 2004. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization