Abstract
In recent years, the number of road traffic crashes showed a decreasing trend in Hungary, but this cannot be stated about crashes at road-railway level crossings. The Hungarian Railways has repeatedly called attention to the dangers of rail transport. The main goal of this paper is to develop a new safety inspection method for road-railway level crossings based on the existing road safety inspection method. Based on the experiences of road safety inspections completed at ten locations suggestions were given for the adaptation of the method to railway crossings. The most important findings of the safety inspections are also presented in the paper.
1 Introduction
Road-railway Level Crossings (LCs) are particularly dangerous places for road and rail traffic. Although they are not considered as road crossings from the road's point of view, they can be controlled by legislation, signs, or lights [1]. LCs are a very small segment of the transport system, yet accidents at LCs often the focus of attention. Compared with road crossings and the road network, the number of accidents is lower, but the outcomes are often serious or fatal. The likelihood of fatalities in many accidents is almost ten times higher than in case of road accidents. The characteristics (e.g., way of operation or geometric design) of the LCs are also an important factor in the accidents that occur [2].
2 Literature review
Several studies have been carried out on the safety assessment of LCs, an important part of which is to identify the causes of accidents at LCs. A Slovakian study [3], published in 2022, provided a detailed assessment of LC's safety in Slovakia and the European Union, and included on level crossing accidents (There are 2,082 LCs in Slovakia [4]). The authors of the paper were provided with an accident, which was analyzed in terms of causes and consequences. The analysis used a software tool that determines the interaction between a vehicle and a train by mathematical and graphical analysis. According to a Lithuanian study [5] published in 2013, accidents at LCs account for only 2% of road fatalities, compared to 20–30% of rail accidents (543 LCs [6]). The paper describes the problems of railway crossings, which are topics of scientific research in different countries around the world. The authors of the paper examined the safety of LCs on the Lithuanian railway network and presented the context in other EU countries. The road sections were inspected in the vicinity of the selected 15 LCs according to Road Safety Inspection (RSI) procedures. The inspections analyzed the problems encountered, statistics on accidents at LCs in Lithuania and in Europe and drew conclusions after presenting the results. An Australian study [7] published in 2021 explored the factors that influence the risk of level crossings (23,000 LCs [8]). Its aim was to establish what can be known about the factors that influence risk at level crossings, with a particular focus on understanding causal relationships across the sociometric system. The authors of the paper analyzed 88 studies and categorized them according to the type of outcomes measured or analyzed: accident rates and severity; unsafe and inappropriate road user behavior; and road users' risk perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. The authors of the paper carried out the categorization using the Accident Mapping (AcciMap) technique. Most of the factors identified in the studies were related to the physical characteristics of level crossings, their operation, and the behavior of road users. According to a Finnish study [9] published in 2011, safety checks have been carried out for 10 years, at an average of 400 level crossings per year (2,600 LCs [10]). The aim of the checks was to improve the safety of the crossings so that people approaching by road can cross safely. The inspections include systematic and extensive on-site photography and video recording of the physical characteristics of the crossings and descriptions of rail and road traffic. The main outcome of these is recommendations on safety measures. The data collected can also be used for statistical analysis, e.g., to determine a safety index for LCs. Of the approximately 7,000 active level crossings on the UK rail network, 1,500 are on public roads [11]. Network rail and the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) have jointly developed the All-Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM), a web-based risk assessment tool. Its aim is to support the management of risks to road users, passengers, and rail workers by assessing the risks at each crossing and recommending remedial action for those crossings with the highest risk. According to a report published at a 2013 Australian road safety conference [12], the safety of railway level crossings that are not equipped with light and semi-blockers should be improved. The authors recommend the introduction of several Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) to improve driver awareness, as timely detection of at-grade crossings and reducing errors made by drivers. The research involved the formation of 4 focus groups in metropolitan and regional locations across the State of Queensland to explore perceptions of potential interventions of ITS systems on-board vehicles and alongside roadways to improve the safety of railroad crossings. Results indicate that further development of ITS interventions should consider ease of use, utility, and relative cost. Visibility is very important for level crossings. The study by Magyari and Koren [13] is about traffic safety, including the visibility of roundabouts. As roundabouts are considered as intersections, just like at-grade road-rail crossings, it is important to ensure adequate visibility to reduce or avoid accidents. For level road-rail crossings, it makes a difference whether the crossing is located on a road section inside or outside a built-up area. Outside a built-up area, the speed limit on the road is higher, and this is an important consideration when approaching level crossings. Gabriella Iván's study [14] looked at how drivers know the different categories of roads and closely related to this are the different speed limits. In the case of level crossings outside built-up areas, where only light barriers are provided, there have been cases of drivers who have driven through them without taking any care and without reducing the speed of their vehicle.
3 Current situation of road-rail level crossings in Hungary
There are currently 5,630 level crossings in Hungary [15]. In 2023, there were 48 accidents at level crossings up to October this year, 6 of which were fatal [16]. In 2022, 54 accidents were recorded during the same period, 9 of which were fatal with 19 fatalities and 6 of which ended in serious injury [17]. The railway safety campaign launched by Hungarian Railways (HR) in 2022 was evaluated as successful in reducing the number of accidents in 2023. Warning billboards were placed near level crossings and media coverage was increased. The reduction in the number of accidents will be helped by an amendment to the Act I of 1988 on road traffic [18], which will increase the administrative fines for road traffic offenders by 30%.
In 2015, HR carried out a road safety project to inspect level crossings [19]. The project included improving the safety of level crossings at 172 locations, where a total of 105 semi-blocks were installed over three years and 57 Light Emitting Diode (LED) light signaling optics were used to replace halogen bulbs. 10 new light and semi-blocking devices were installed and the pavement and signaling was renewed at 18 locations. To modernize train detection, the signaling equipment was modified at 53 locations; depending on local conditions, the train detection elements and associated cabling at 39 level crossing installations were upgraded. A further objective of the project was to monitor level crossings with event-controlled cameras to record what happens at level crossings from the moment the level crossing is red and, in the event of a bar breakage, to keep the event for the authorities' records.
The technical design of level crossings is an important factor in improving safety, and relevant points should be highlighted. It is essential that level crossings are preferably not built in cut-sections or where the curved section of the railway track is super-elevated [20]. From the point of view of road safety, level crossings should not be installed at speeds above 160 km h−1 and pedestrian and cycle paths should not cross the railway track at speeds above 120 km h−1.
Previous research results were models predicting the expected number of accidents as a function of traffic (road and rail) and the control type of rail crossing, and the pedestrian behavior as a function of the pre-closure time [21]. Bivariate models were constructed where the expected accident frequency is predicted by the annual daily road traffic and the annual daily rail traffic. The sample was subdivided according to the type of control devices to analyze their impact on safety. The models are proposed using the Generalized Linear Modeling (GLM) approach assuming a negative binomial error structure. The results provide an estimate of the impact of the explanatory factors on the safety of level crossings. Annual daily road traffic and annual daily rail traffic are significant predictors, but several other predictors, as crossing angle, track alignment, number of tracks and sight distance are not found to be significant. Regarding the type of control devices, as the expected coefficients decrease, safety increases in the following order: unprotected crossings, light barriers, light, and semi light barriers.
4 Safety inspections of level crossings
One of the main reasons for the safety investigations is that in 2022, 211 accidents occurred on the Hungarian Railways' network [22]. Of these, 90 accidents occurred at LCs, resulting in 34 fatalities, 39 seriously injuries and 19 slightly injuries.
The number of fatal accidents is lower than the number of accidents with minor or serious consequences combined. However, it is noteworthy that there have been only three years in which fewer than 20 fatal accidents were recorded (2020 being the lowest, with the coronavirus epidemic and hence the reduction in travel playing a major role), with the number of accidents above this level in all other years. The study involved comparing the relative accident rates calculated for level crossings and the resulting summed relative injury rates with road intersections [23]. At a four-leg intersection with give way the summarized crash rate is 4.6 injured/107 vehicles, 2.9 with signal lights and 1.1 at a roundabout intersection. At a three-leg intersection, the summarized crash rates for the same traffic management modes (give way, signal lights and roundabout) are 2.7, 1.3 and 0.8 respectively.
The register of key data on domestic level crossings was provided by HR, but the register did not include, or only to a limited extent, the road traffic data needed to calculate the aggregated relative injury rates. The register includes the method of securing the crossings, but the data on the facilities for vulnerable road users are not detailed enough (e.g., whether there is a separate barrier on the cycle track). Due to the limitations mentioned above, we have created our own database with a smaller number of elements, but more detailed and accurate. The study includes 265 level crossings in Hungary. The relative injury rate for level crossings was found to be 0.25 injured/107 vehicle, which shows that the number of accidents per traffic is significantly lower (as mentioned above the outcome is more severe than for road junctions, and the number of injured is also higher). The calculated summary relative injury rate refers to all accidents; the different road user groups are not separated. The purpose of calculating the accident indicator for level crossings was to compare it with the road junction indicators in the methodological guide mentioned above. The sample of 265 items in the present study can be disaggregated by the method of insurance, but this reduces the number of crossings in each category (sample item number) and thus the reliability of the calculated indicators. The injury rate was therefore calculated for the whole sample.
One of the established methods of road safety is the Road Safety Audit (RSA), the regulatory background of which is provided by Directive 2008/96/EC [24], Government Decree 133/2022 (7.4.20) [25] and e-UT 02.01.42 Road Safety Audit [26] (and its forthcoming new version). RSA is an independent, detailed, and systematic technical safety audit of roads. The Government Decree 133/2022 (7.4.2022) [25] already defines the Regular Road Safety Inspection (RRSI) and the Targeted Road Safety Inspection (TRSI). The TRSI is an on-site inspection of road intersections or road sections to identify dangerous conditions, defects, and deficiencies that increase the risk of accidents and injuries. A RRSI is a periodic review of a road from a road safety perspective to identify features and deficiencies requiring intervention.
The safety indicators for LCs described above are due in part to the stricter regulation of level crossings. The regulation of level crossings is extensive and is backed up by a wide range of legislation [18, 24–34].
The traffic regulations and safety standards of the LCs should be reviewed periodically, for which a five-year review cycle is recommended, in line with past practice. The review shall be initiated by the transport authority.
The five-yearly inspection of level crossings shall consider the aspects of road and rail traffic, its variations, the presence and visibility of the necessary traffic signs, the presence and removability of obstacles in the sight areas, the adequacy of the required means of control and traffic management and the local specificities resulting from the characteristics of the level crossing.
In Hungary, the Road Safety Organization (RSO) is responsible for investigating the most serious accidents at LCs. Its task is to carry out independent expert investigations of air, rail and waterborne accidents and serious incidents to draw lessons from the analyses and make recommendations to prevent similar incidents in the future [35].
5 Road-railway level crossing analysis using the RSI method
The RSI has been chosen as the method of safety inspection of railway crossings in Hungary, the main objective of which is to ensure the safe operation of the road and to increase the safety of road users. A further objective is to identify potential safety problems from the road user's perspective and to propose solutions to such problems by applying the principles of road safety legislation.
The benefits of the RSI are to minimize the risk of future accidents and to promote a safety-conscious approach among designers and decision-makers. A total of ten LCs have been subjected to RSI studies (Fig. 1).
The level crossings chosen for RSI by the control type (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
The dates of the site inspections were September 25, 2023, October 2, 2023 and October 3, 2023 at the following locations:
Railway crossing of main road No. 1 (terminus of the upper railway station of Almásfüzitő);
Level crossing of main road No 1 (end of Komárom railway station);
Level crossing of the connecting road No 8151 in the Ács area;
Level crossing of link road No 7207 (near Pétfürdő railway station);
Railway crossing of main road No 82 (near Zirc railway station);
Railway crossing at the end point of Vinye railway station;
Railway crossing near the village of Nyúl;
Railway crossing on Jereváni street (near Győrszabadhegy railway station);
Railway crossing of the connecting road No 8152 (at the starting point of Nagyszentjános railway station);
Level crossing of the connecting road No 8621 (near Vitnyéd-Csermajor railway station).
When selecting level crossings, an important criterion was the way the crossing is secured and whether there are pedestrian and cycling facilities at the crossing. The permitted track speeds for the railway lines and whether the crossings are located inside or outside a built-up area were also important. The aim in selecting the crossings was to test the RSI method in as many crossings as possible to identify as many problems as possible in the RSI report. The pattern of the study is as follows: after the choice of the location, accident data were collected. This was followed by a site visit, during which video footage and photographs were taken. Checklists are used on the spot and afterwards. Finally, recommendations are developed, and a review report is drawn up. The results of the inspection are grouped according to the following four criteria: self-explaining (perceivability, understandability, visibility, viability), and forgiving.
A good example of visibility is that the signs indicating the level crossing on the shoulder of the road No. 8621 are obscured by the shadow of the overpass (the signs are indicated by the two yellow arrows). The visibility of the signs is thus reduced (Fig. 2).
Railway crossing near the Vitnyéd-Csermajor railway station, in the foreground the M85 motorway overpass (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
A speed restriction is in force before the level crossing at the start point of Zirc railway station, once the driver leaves the sign indicating the end of the built-up area. The sign for the road crossing follows shortly afterwards. This is risky because the conflicting regulations can reduce understandability (Fig. 3).
End of residential area signs, speed limit signs and level crossing signs in Zirc (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
As another good example of understandability, the cyclist crossing the level crossing in Fig. 4 is coming from the opposite, irregular direction. The risk is that there is no light and semi barrier from this direction (Fig. 4).
Railway crossing in Győr, on Jereváni street (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
If the parallel infrastructure (road, cycle path) is close to the level crossing, a long vehicle (e.g., an agricultural vehicle with two trailers) may be trapped in the level crossing when it must give way before turning onto the main road.
Turning left after the level crossing is allowed, but there is a risk that this could cause congestion at the level crossing. Despite the high volume of traffic, there is no semi-blocker installed, making it more difficult to know when to stop before the crossing when a train is arriving (Fig. 5).
Railway crossing near Pétfürdő railway station (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
Visibility of the crossing shown on Fig. 6 is limited due to the mound on the left side of the cycle path. This makes it difficult for cyclists to see the approaching train (Fig. 6).
Railway crossing near Komárom railway station (Source: Authors' [37])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
The crossing on the starting point side of Nagyszentjános railway station is limited in terms of viability. Due to the curved alignment of the road and the narrow pavement, there is a risk that agricultural vehicles coming from the opposite direction could collide and become stuck. This is why the driver of the combine harvester (having experience at the location) also stopped at the shoulder (Fig. 7).
Railway crossing near Nagyszentjános railway station (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
In the railway crossing the alignment of the cycle path is not uniform, unlike the road running parallel to it. There is no street lighting at the cycle crossing, which risks being unsafe to cycle through in the dark (Fig. 8).
Railway crossing at the terminus of Almásfüzitő railway station (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
The level crossing shown below is good example for not forgiving roadsides: the old reinforced concrete railings still exist, which may cause serious injuries to cyclists and motorcyclists (Fig. 9).
Railway crossing at the terminus of Vitnyéd railway station (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
Pedestrians sometimes bypass the labyrinth barrier next to the crossing at Pétfürdő and cross the tracks on the roadside instead of the pedestrian sidewalk, even though their safe passage is provided (Fig. 10).
Railway crossing at the starting point of Pétfürdő railway station (Source: Authors' [36])
Citation: Pollack Periodica 20, 1; 10.1556/606.2024.01043
During the on-site investigations, it was observed that at several road crossings, the railway crossing's traffic signs were hidden by vegetation (e.g., Vitnyéd, Komárom, Nagyszentjános, Győr). At the railway crossing near Zirc traffic signs of critical importance were hidden by less important traffic signs (e.g., tourist signs). These factors may reduce the visibility of signs. Furthermore, in Zirc, the railway crossing under study may be difficult to detect for people coming from Győr due to the small radius of the curve and the trees on the inner side, and it is therefore recommended that trees closer to the crossing be cut. Overall, several deficiencies and risks have been identified in the examined level crossings.
6 Conclusions
Based on the results of the studies presented above, it was concluded that LCs are dangerous, but not to the extent that road intersections. The current road safety inspection methodology can be applied to level crossings as a targeted road safety inspection. Importantly, the methodology should be tailored to level crossings, i.e., a new TRSI should be developed. The RSI method is specifically designed to separate different road user groups, so the methodology can focus on both pedestrians and cyclists. This should define in which cases and locations the review should take place; the checklists should be adapted, as the current ones contain irrelevant questions for LCs. Some questions need to be adapted or new questions for level crossings need to be drafted. It is also important to coordinate with other organizations' inspections. It could also be suggested that there is a need for another study to discuss the need to include more level crossing issues in the RSA checklist.
References
- [1]↑
R. Major, “Prevention of road traffic accidents” (in Hungarian), PhD Thesis, Pécsi Tudományegyetem, Pécs, 2009.
- [2]↑
Hungarian Railways, “Technical data and specifications for construction and track maintenance” (in Hungarian), KÖZDOK, vol. 1, no. D. 54, Budapest, 1987.
- [3]↑
M. Ballay, E. Sventekova, L. Macurova, and L. Imrich, “Identifying causes of accidents at level crossings,” in 23rd International Scientific Conference on Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, May 22–24, 2022, pp. 872–877.
- [4]↑
P. Blaho, L. Peceny, and J. Gasparik, “Causality of accidents at railway-crossings in Slovakia and its prevention,” in 12th International Science-Technical Conference on Automotive Safety, Kielce, Poland, October 21–23, 2020, pp. 1–6.
- [5]↑
I. Gailiene, K. Skerys, and G. Ciparyte, “Investigation of traffic safety situation at the level crossings in Lithuania,” Baltic J. Road Bridge Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 117–123, 2013.
- [6]↑
Level Crossings by Country, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/level-crossings-by-country. Accessed: Apr. 19, 2024.
- [7]↑
G. J. M. Read, J. A. Cox, A. Hulme, A. Naweed, and P. M. Salmon, “What factors influence risk at rail level crossings? A systematic review and synthesis of findings using systems thinking,” Saf. Sci., vol. 138, 2021, Art no. 105207.
- [8]↑
Types of level crossings, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://tracksafefoundation.com.au/resource/types-of-level-crossings/. Accessed: Apr. 20, 2024.
- [9]↑
V. P. Kallberg, A. Seise, J. Hytönen, and T. Ahonen, “Safety audits at Finnish level crossings,” Open Transportation J., vol. 5, pp. 80–87, 2011.
- [10]↑
Level crossings on the state-owned railway network, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://vayla.fi/en/transport-network/railway-network/railroad-crossings. Accessed: Apr. 20, 2024.
- [11]↑
Model & tools to manage level crossing risk, Network Rail, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.networkrailconsulting.com. Assessed: Dec. 9, 2023.
- [12]↑
L. Buckley, G. S. Larue, N. L. Haworth, S. Profile, and A. Rakotonirainy, “Safety at railway level crossings : Driver acceptance of potential ITS interventions,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference, Brisbane, Australia, Aug. 28–30, 2013, pp. 1–9.
- [13]↑
Z. Magyari and C. Koren, “Visibility studies at roundabouts entries,” Pollack Period., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 63–74, 2019.
- [14]↑
G. Iván, “Survey of free speeds on rural roads based on road scene photographs,” Pollack Period., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2012.
- [15]↑
HR Group, Arrive home safely (in Hungarian), 2016. [Online]. Available: https://m.facebook.com/people/%C3%89rj-haza-biztons%C3%A1gban/100070896407137/?locale=zh_CN. Accessed: Apr. 19, 2024.
- [16]↑
HR Group, Railway safety (in Hungarian), 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mavcsoport.hu/mav-csoport/bemutatkozas/vasutbiztonsag. Accessed: Nov. 11, 2022.
- [17]↑
HR Group, Improved level crossing accident statistics (in Hungarian), 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mavcsoport.hu/mav-csoport/javult-vasuti-atjaros-baleseti-statisztika-0. Accessed: Sep. 30, 2023.
- [18]↑
Hungarian Parliament, Act I of 1988 on Road Transport (in Hungarian), 1988. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=98800001.tv. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [19]↑
HR Group, Transport safety project (in Hungarian), 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.mavcsoport.hu/mav-csoport/bemutatkozas/kozlekedesbiztonsagi-projekt. Accessed: Oct. 06, 2023.
- [20]↑
L. Rétlaki, V. Kovács, T. Mocsári, and F. Schile, e-UT 03.06.11, Design of At-grade Road/Rail Intersections. Geometry, Pavement Structure, Drainage, Traffic Management, Operational Issues, Hungarian Road Society. 2005. [Online]. Available: https://ume.kozut.hu/dokumentum/157. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [21]↑
A. Borsos, C. Koren, D. Miletics, and M. Gábor, “Safety analysis of at-grade railway crossings in Hungary,” in Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, Washington DC, US, January 8-12, 2017, pp. 1–16.
- [22]↑
M. Ladich and D. Miletics, “How dangerous are the level road-rail crossings,” in Transport Safety Conference, Győr, Hungary, September 21-22, 2023, pp. 130–141.
- [23]↑
C. Koren, A. Borsos, P. Holló, E. Hóz, D. Jankó, and T. Mocsári, “Road safety impact assessment, Methodology' guide for proposals under the Transport Operational Program 2007-2013” (in Hungarian), Project application for Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund support 2010. [Online]. Available: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/hu_-_kozuti_biztonsagi_hatasvizsgalat_utmutato.pdf. Accessed: Feb. 2, 2024.
- [24]↑
Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management (in Hungarian), EUR-Lex, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0096. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [25]↑
Government of Hungary, Government Decree No. 133/2022 (IV. 7.) on the Road Infrastructure Safety Management (in Hungarian), 2022. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a2200133.kor. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [26]↑
C. Koren, D. Jankó, E. Hóz, E. Makó, T. Mocsári, Z. Tóth-Szabó, and K. Tóthné Temesi, e-UT 02.01.42, Road Safety Audit, Methodology, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://ume.kozut.hu/dokumentum/148. Accessed: Sep. 30, 2023.
- [27]
Hungarian Parliament, Act CLXXXIII of 2005 on rail transport (in Hungarian), 2005. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0500183.tv. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [28]
Government of Hungary, Government Decree No 414/2020 (VIII. 30.) on the procedures of the railway safety authority and the detailed rules of the supervisory activity of the railway transport authority (in Hungarian), 2020. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a2000414.kor. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [29]
Government of Hungary, Government Decree 382/2016 (XII. 2.) on the designation of bodies performing official tasks related to transport administration, (in Hungarian), 2016. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a1600382.kor. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [30]
Ministerial Decree 11/2001 (13.III.) of the Ministry of Transport and Water Management on the design and installation of pavement signs (in Hungarian), 2001. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0100011.kov. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [31]
Ministerial Decree 26/1997 (XII. 12.) of the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Water, on the fees for road authority procedures (in Hungarian), 1997. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=99700026.khv. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [32]
Ministry of Economy and Transport, Ministerial Decree No 83/2004 (4. VI.) on the requirements for the design, application, and placement of road signs (in Hungarian), 2004. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0400083.gkm. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [33]
Ministry of Transport and Postal Affairs and Ministry of the Interior, Joint Ministerial Decree 1/1975 (II. 5.) on the rules of road traffic (in Hungarian), 1975. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=97500001.kpm. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [34]
Ministry of Transport and Postal Services, Ministerial Decree 20/1984 (XII. 21.) on the regulation of traffic on roads and the placing of road signs (in Hungarian), 1984. [Online]. Available: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=98400020.kmb. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023.
- [35]↑
Road Safety Organization, The role of the Organization (in Hungarian), 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.kbsz.hu/j25/hu/szervezetuenk/a-kbsz-feladata. Accessed: Nov. 24, 2023.
- [36]↑
M. Ladich and D. Miletics, “Adaptation of the method of road safety inspection to railway level crossings,” in 19th Miklós Iványi International PhD & DLA Symposium, Pécs, Hungary, November 2–3, 2023, Art no. P-57.
- [37]↑
D. Miletics, “Developing a new Road Safety Inspection (RSI) methodology for level road-rail crossings” (in Hungarian), in VI. Magyar Közlekedési Konferencia, Budapest, Hungary, November 6, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://mernokvagyok.hu/kozlekedesi/a-kozuti-infrastruktura-biztonsagi-kezelese-konferencia-eloadasai/. Accessed: Feb. 02, 2024.
