Analyses of Drivers’ Responses to In-Vehicle Receiver (IVR) after Experiencing One Mode of Operation

Survey Number 2 (out of four surveys) was conducted three months after the IVR system was operational. During the period, the participating drivers received only one type of message from their IVRs, either an audible or a visual message. The audible and visual groups gave similar effectiveness ratings for all warning devices except the clanging bell. The visual group rated the clanging bell higher than the audible group. The IVR average effectiveness rating from the audible group was 3.3 and from the visual group it was 3.4 using a 5.0 scale. The effectiveness of the IVR was similar to the crossbuck and advance warning signs, but lower than the crossing gate, flashing lights, clanging bell, and the train horn. The audible and visual groups trusted the IVR to the same degree. About 60.6% of the audible group and 58.4% of the visual group trusted the IVR to give an accurate warning of a train approaching/occupying the equipped crossings. The drivers in general were satisfied with the quality of the message from their IVR. For the visual mode, 51.6% of the drivers rated the overall quality of the message as good or excellent, 26.7% as fair, 15.0% said it was poor, and 6.7% had no opinion or did not respond. For the audible mode, 52.5% rated the overall quality of the audible message excellent or good, 14.6% as fair, 15.9% said it was poor, and 17% did not have an opinion or did not respond. A small percentage (14-16%) of drivers in the audible group said either the tone was too loud, too harsh or piercing, or it beeped for too long.


  • English

Media Info

  • Media Type: Digital/other
  • Edition: Final Report
  • Features: Appendices; Figures; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 53p

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01108665
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: FHWA-IL/UI-TOL-11
  • Created Date: Aug 8 2008 2:26PM