Twenty-two respondents (1 female, 21 male) aged between 18 and 64 years completed the urban motorcyclists’ survey, of whom three had professional experience relevant to rail level crossing safety. Nearly half of the respondents were aged between 35 and 44 years (45%) and all but one held a full/open motorcycle licence (95%). Respondents lived in Queensland (41%), Victoria (23%), New South Wales (18%), Western Australia (14%) and Tasmania (5%).
The sample comprised relatively frequent users of rail level crossings, with 27% reporting that they crossed level crossings several times a month, 23% several times a week, 14% every day and 5% several times a day. Respondents reported riding an average of 194 km each week (SD = 137), with most nominating commuting (59%) as the main purpose for most of their riding.
Paired comparison analysis indicated that motorcyclists rated the Comprehensive Risk Control crossing highest for safety and compliance and equal first for preference (alongside the standard active crossing). The standard active crossing was rated highest for efficiency, whereas the Community Courtyard crossing was ranked last or equal last on all the criteria. Motorcyclists were not asked to rate or comment on the Intelligent Level Crossing, as the in-vehicle interface was not considered feasible for use by motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists’ responses to the Comprehensive Risk Control crossing were generally positive, although respondents also criticised some aspects of the design. Specifically, respondents raised concerns about the safety and cost of the attendants, and having cyclists positioned at the front of the traffic queue when the lights turned green. The most commonly mentioned positive feature was the yellow road markings, although some noted that road paint can cause adhesion issues for motorcyclists, particularly in wet conditions.
Responses to the Community Courtyard crossing were generally negative, with several respondents indicating that there was nothing that they liked about the design. Respondents were especially concerned about the lack of boom barriers and audible alerts, and disliked the slow train speed. Those who did like the design commented positively on the raised approach, the traffic lights, and the large clear zone between the stop line and the tracks.