Content uploaded by Jean-Marie Burkhardt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jean-Marie Burkhardt on Jun 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
A model of suicide and trespassing processes to support the analysis
and decision related to preventing railway suicides and trespassing
accidents at railways
Jean-Marie Burkhardta, Helena Rådbob, Anne Sillac, Françoise Parana*
aIFSTTAR-LPC, Versaille-Satory, France
bKarlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
cVTT Technical Research Center of Finland, Espoo, Finland
Abstract
More than 3000 people die each year in Europe due to the collision with a train due to suicides or trespassing.
This paper describes and justifies a model of suicide and trespassing processes on the tracks from a review of
papers on rail suicide and/or trespasses carried out in the European project RESTRAIL (REduction of Suicides
and Trespasses on RAILway property). Inspired by Rådbo et al. (2008; 2012a), the model identifies 9 steps and
antecedents in the chain of events leading to railway suicides and trespassing accidents, and associates them with
corresponding classes of preventative measures. It starts from the identified motives and ends with the train-
pedestrian collision. We discuss on the added values of this model and on some important considerations related
to the selection and design of preventive measures.
Keywords: Railway safety and security; train-pedestrian collision ; suicide and trespassing prevention.
Résumé
Plus de 3000 personnes meurent chaque année en Europe du fait d’une collision avec un train liée à un suicide
ou une intrusion sur les voies ferrées. Cet article décrit et justifie un modèle des processus de suicide et
d’intrusion sur les rails élaboré à partir de l’examen du contenu de la littérature dans le cadre du projet européen
RESTRAIL (REduction of Suicides and Trespasses on RAILway property). Initialement inspiré de Rådbo et al.
(2008, 2012a), le modèle proposé identifie 9 étapes et divers antécédents dans la séquence d'événements
conduisant à un accident résultant d’un suicide ou d’une intrusion sur les voies, et les associe à des classes de
mesures préventives. Il part des motifs identifiés pour s’introduire sur les voies et aboutit à la collision
potentielle entre la personne et le train. Nous discutons ensuite sur les apports de ce modèle ainsi que les
implications pour la sélection et la conception des mesures préventives.
Mots-clé: Sureté et sécurité ferroviaire; collision train-personne ; prévention des suicides et des intrusions.
* The order of co-authors is not significant. Tel. +33 1 30 84 39 33 ;
E-mail address: jean-marie.burkhardt@ifsttar.fr; helena.radbo@kau.se; Anne.Silla@vtt.fi;
francoise.paran@ifsttar.fr
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
2
1. Introduction
1.1. Context and objective
More than 3000 people die each year in Europe due to the collision with a train due to suicides or trespassing. In
2011 for example, suicides and trespassing accidents resulted in more than 3600 fatalities on the European rail
network, representing 88% of all fatalities occurring within the railway system (European Railway Agency,
2013). European project RESTRAIL (REduction of Suicides and Trespasses on RAILway property) started in
2012 with the aim of reducing the occurrence of suicides and trespassing on railway property as well as to
mitigate the consequences of these events by providing the railway sector with an analysis and identification of
cost-effective prevention and mitigation measures. In this context, part of the work has been dedicated to
confront knowledge and evidence from the literature in different scientific fields to guide the analysis and
selection of measures for the prevention of suicide and trespasses on the tracks. The objective of this paper is to
describe and justify a model of suicide and trespassing processes occurring in the railway areas. The aim of the
model is to highlight the similarities and differences between the identified processes and associated measures
directed to preventing railway suicides and trespassing accidents.
1.2. Why and how to approach trespass and suicide processes on the tracks
One of the differences between suicide and trespass processes is that suicidal persons are intentionally putting
themselves in a situation where they would be struck by a train. According to the Railway Safety Directive
(2009) the suicide is an act to deliberately injure oneself resulting in death, as recorded and classifies by the
competent national authority. The non-suicidal trespassing processes are referring to trespassing accidents which
are limited to cases where persons are crossing railway lines at places not marked for that purpose (outside level
crossings) or are walking or loitering illegally on the railway tracks or in the railway area outside designated
pedestrian areas. Trespassers also include persons driving or leading a bicycle or moped, pushing a pram or cart,
skiing etc. It must be noted that when speaking about railway trespassing we refer to unauthorised persons and
thus passengers, railway staff, level crossing users or persons attempting suicide are not considered.
Until now, most of the literature dedicated to the prevention of railway suicides and trespassing accidents discuss
these issues separately due to the different motives behind these events. The injury prevention efforts in general
have also been traditionally divided between the prevention of intentional and unintentional injuries until
recently when Cohen et al. (2003) have proposed that collaboration between the injury prevention efforts of
intentional and unintentional injuries in certain areas would provide additional benefits. Within the RESTRAIL
framework, the need to consider suicide and trespasses processes in an integrated and systemic manner have
arisen from both theoretical and practical reasons: (1) several preventative measures proposed to prevent railway
suicides and trespassing accidents are potentially suitable for both events, although their underlying principles
and their efficiency may differ depending on whether the aim is to prevent suicide or trespassing; (2) negative
interaction (or positive reinforcement) may exist between some of these measures; (3) for infrastructure
managers and railway undertakings, suicide and trespassing are usually addressed together. We believe that
providing such a model of the processes will aid system safety research, and thus help the users of the model to
obtain an increased comprehension on prevention and mitigation of railway suicides and trespassing.
1.3. Organisation of the paper
The following section provides a brief overview of the literature on railway suicide and trespassing prevention.
Then, we explain the method used to elaborate the model of suicide and trespassing processes, followed by a
detailed presentation of the 9-steps model associated to the categories of preventive measures. The paper ends on
a discussion and provides some perspectives beyond the frame of the RESTRAIL project.
2. Empirical and theoretical background
The literature on train-pedestrian collisions has already highlighted a list of individual or environmental factors
related to their occurrence (see Silla et al. 2012). As far as the authors know, no integrated views of suicide and
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran / Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
trespassing processes has been proposed to serve as an initial guiding knowledge base for decision makers and
safety specialists to organize the prevention of railway suicide and trespasses.
2.1. Literature on railway suicide and prevention
The literature on suicide prevention has clarified types and factors related to suicide and suicide attempts.
Regarding specifically rail suicide, measures of various types and targets have been proposed with some
evidences regarding efficiency e.g. develop awareness of the problem outside psychiatric care (Emmerson &
Cantor,1993; Mishara, 2007), have good fencing in densely populated areas (Clarke & Poyner, 1994; Rådbo et
al., 2012a) and use camera surveillance in known hotspots. It is also claimed that impeding accessibility to
means of suicide has an absolute preventative effect and the efforts to hinder suicidal persons who prepare to
commit suicide are of huge importance (Daigle, 2005). Indeed, there are studies which argue that more than 80%
of persons who have done a serious suicide attempt and been hindered, find other reasons to live and handle their
life (Beskow, 2000; Seiden, 1978).
As far as we know, there is no systemic and integrated view of preventative measures and steps or sequence of
events that might support reasoning and decision about suicide prevention by railway undertakings. A good
example of such a support has been recently proposed by Rådbo et al. (2008; 2012a). They have proposed
models based on the argument of Beskow (1979) which states that the suicide analysis and prevention is widely
guided by the so-called suicidal process model, which refers to a process that starts with escalating suicidal
thoughts and results in a decision to commit suicide and to act out. The result of the study was a four-steps
model presented in Figure 1 associated to three categories of measures: (1) measures influencing perceived
attractiveness and availability of rail traffic as a mean, (2) measures influencing accessibility and potential of
collision and (3) measures influencing consequences of collision. The model was further developed in Rådbo et
al. (2012a) to include five different categories of measures to prevent railway suicides. These categories were: (i)
measures reducing the attractiveness of railway as a means of suicide, (ii) measures obstructing the accessibility
to the track area, (iii) measures influencing the victim’s determination while awaiting the train, (iv) early
warning systems, enabling the train to break sufficiently or the victim to be removed before the collision and (v)
measures to make the collision less violent and thereby less fatal and injurious.
Figure 1: A synthesised suicidal process model, relevant to measures within the railway system, where classes of preventive
measures are indicated as barriers (Rådbo et al. 2008).
2.2. Literature on preventing railway trespassing
The literature on railway trespassing is recent and remains scarce compared to the railway suicide domain (Silla
et al., 2012; Havarneanu et al., submitted). Several studies are discussing about the prevention of trespassing (see
e.g. Lobb, 2006; Silla, 2012), but none of them include a model providing an integrated view of the various
motives and steps in the trespass processes, as well as the related preventative measures. In fact, most of the
literature in this field has concentrated on either description of injuries or on individual characteristics of victims,
with few discussions on appropriate and more efficient preventative measures. Recently, there is a growing
literature with proposals for measures usually focused on (i) preventing access to the tracks – or at least making
it more difficult, (ii) education on rules and risks related to railway trespassing, and (iii) surveillance of the
track/railway areas to deliver warnings and/or to activate an intervention in an identified trespassing hot spot.
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
4
These categories of measures are however limited only to events and actions shortly preceding the potential
collision, whereas the consideration of upstream reasons and motives for trespassing might be omitted. The
development of more efficient preventative actions could be better supported when considering these various
reasons for trespassing in combination with a better understanding of the processes and mechanisms underlying
the categories of measures. Additionally, such a model might support the research of potential elements in a
specific trespassing hotspot that can motivate or support trespassers’ acts.
3. Method
The model presented in this paper was developed based on an existing suicidal process model (Rådbo et al.,
2012a) and an intensive literature review based on papers on railway suicides and/or railway trespassing. These
papers were identified and analysed while conducting a literature review on the current knowledge on railway
suicides and trespassing accidents as part of the RESTRAIL project (Rådbo et al. 2012b). The analysis of the
literature for the purposes of this paper was made by using the directed content analysis (see e.g. Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005) that uses existing prior research to validate or to extent an already existing theoretical
framework. In this study, the existing theoretical framework was the initial model developed by Rådbo et al.
(2012a) and the research question was related to applicability of the five developed categories to classify
measures to prevent railway suicides to the prevention of railway trespassing. For each paper, we searched for
any information about the motives, the observed behaviours, the contexts and the proposed countermeasures
whenever they were reported in association with rail trespass or suicide events. This information was used for
assessing how they fit or not with the steps and categories of measures described in the initial model. During the
review process additional categories were developed and the contents of existing categories were modified,
having in mind the following principles:
Make visible the variety and multiplicity of contributing factors and decisions that might lead to a train-
pedestrian collision;
Promote a system integrated view by eliciting any preventive measures that might have an effect at one step
in the sequence of events that lead to accidents or incidents;
Remain simply enough to provide a useful and easy-to-understand support for decision makers who design
and/or select effective measures to prevent railway suicides and trespassing.
It was evident already from the beginning that model needs to differentiate between the suicidal and non-suicidal
intent and the type of measures to influence the decisions to commit these acts. It should be emphasized that we
consider at this step the whole set of potential strategies for the prevention of train-pedestrian collisions, with a
specific focus on measures that are at least partially under the control of the railway system.
4. Results
We identified 9 steps and antecedents in the chain of events leading to railway suicides and trespassing
accidents, and associated them with corresponding categories of preventative measures (Figure 3). The model
starts from the various motives identified and ends with the unwanted event i.e. train-pedestrian collision. Note
that another type of unwanted event could be electrocution by contact with a rail supplying power or with the
catenaries. The developed model differentiates between trespassing with suicide intent and trespassing with no
intent of casualty. After the decision phase the steps are common to both suicide and trespassing, although the
attitudes and behaviours of trespassers in these steps are likely to differ depending on their intent (e.g.
pedestrians walking in the railway area since there are attractive routes available vs. people who are trespassing
because of fare-dodging). The model proposes the types of measures that can be used in each phase of the
suicide or trespassing process to prevent the events to occur.
4.1. Trespassing with suicide intent
The upper area in Figure 3 (Trespassing with suicide intent) refers to suicide specific aspects and the associated
countermeasures. These measures are dealing with the suicide prevention in general in the society (Measure for
suicide prevention) and the measures specifically dealing with the willingness to commit suicide by being hit by
a train (Measures influencing perceived attractiveness and availability of rail traffic as a mean). These measures
do not necessarily have any effect on intents associated with trespassing with no intent of casualty.
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran / Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
Fig. 3: A model of the chain of events leading to railway suicides and trespassing accidents and corresponding classes of
preventative measures.
4.2. Trespassing with no intent of casualty
The lower area in Figure 3 (Trespassing with no intent of casualty) refers to trespassing behaviour with no intent
of casualty and to their associated potential prevention actions (Measures influencing attitude and/or activity
leading to trespass and the associated perceived attractiveness of rail properties). Several studies have
suggested that the main reason for trespassing is taking a short cut from point A to point B since the authorised
route is assessed to be too far away (Lobb et al., 2001; Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2011; Silla and Luoma,
2009). Other reasons for trespassing are, for example, related to recreational purposes (walking the dog, taking a
walk along the tracks), hanging around (playing, socialising, drinking alcohol), risk-seeking or even to
committing vandalism or criminal activity (such as metal theft, applying graffiti or fare evasion). These various
motivations to trespass can be targeted by several measures. For example, implementing measures targeting
cable theft like e.g. surveillance with infrared camera and police patrols could result in a decrease of both
trespassing events associated to such purpose and trespassing in general in that location. It is also important to
put attention to urban planning which relates to planning the activities inside cities in a way that peoples’ needs
to cross the railway lines are minimised. Moreover, it relates to building of sufficient amount of playgrounds and
attractive outdoor routes to provide other places than the ones in railway areas to people’s free time activities and
building of sufficient amount of over- or underpasses.
A second set of measures deals with the knowledge on regulations and risks related to the people’s presence in
the railway areas, as well as other factors that might influence the decision to trespass (Measures influencing
knowledge of regulations and awareness of risks). For example, taking the decision to trespass could be due to a
lack of knowledge and awareness on risks and regulations related to railway trespassing. The studies conducted
in Finland show that substantial number of interviewed trespassers considered trespassing to be safe and several
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
6
trespassers assumed trespassing to be legal (Silla and Luoma, 2009). Similar results were indicated by the people
living close to a railway line (Silla and Luoma, 2012). Alternatively, the decision to trespass could be sometimes
explained by social influence or by the person’s attitude towards risks and in these cases the effect of education
activities is rather limited.
The measures directed to trespassing with no intent of casualty do not necessarily take suicide into consideration,
so their effects on the latter can be null or even negative. For example, developing measures to increase the
knowledge of risks could also increase the attractiveness of railways for persons who are willing to commit
suicide or seeking risk. Thus there is a need to plan the content of the sings and posters to prevent railway
trespassings carefully.
4.3. Unintentional trespassing
A third possible antecedent corresponds to the events referred to as Unintentional trespassing. This refers to
situations in which a person is on the tracks due to prevalent circumstances even though no decision of entering
in the track area has been made. For example, the absence or ambiguities of signs or the absence of lighting at
night associated to an unprotected door opening to the track area might result, in certain contexts, to
“unintentional trespassing” until the persons realizes they are at risk. Falling or being pushed from the platform
is another example of situations of “unintentional trespassing’. The unintentional trespassing could be prevented
by Measures influencing the occurrence of errors, potential confusion or events leading to unintentional
trespassing. Examples of measures include measures influencing erroneous access to the tracks like
environment and station design, fencing with closing gates, warning signs or even advance warning system to
avoid unintentional trespassing.
4.4. Common path of events
The measures at each step of the “common path” (starting from the decision to enter the tracks till the train-
pedestrian collision) are likely to have a positive effect on both railway suicides and trespassing accidents,
although the effects can differ quantitatively and qualitatively. The decision to enter the tracks is associated with
Measures directing and supporting the correct behaviour. Based on the literature the measures in this category
are more often proposed to be used against railway trespassing than railway suicides. Examples of these kinds of
measures are posters and campaigns to prevent railway suicides and trespassing accidents, removal of existing
unauthorised paths across tracks and installation of prohibitive signs. Silla and Luoma (2011), for example,
found that prohibitive signs reduced trespassing in one location in Finland by 30.7%.
The phase when the pedestrians are entering the track areas are associated with Measures influencing the access
to tracks. These kinds of measures hindering the access to track areas have been mentioned by several authors to
prevent both railway suicides (Clarke & Poyner, 1994; Rådbo et al., 2012a) and trespassing accidents (Lobb et
al. 2011; daSilva et al. 2006; Silla & Luoma, 2011). Specifically, the results of the study conducted in Finland by
Silla and Luoma (2011) show that fencing and landscaping are highly effective in preventing trespassing.
The measures in a phase when pedestrians are in the track area are slightly different concerning suicidal persons
and railway trespassers. The railway trespassers can be targeted by Measures influencing the victim’s behaviour
while being in the track area. This category refers to warning signs which inform the trespasser about the
illegality of their act or to surveillance patrols who will ask the unauthorised persons to leave the railway areas.
The suicidal persons can be targeted either by Measures influencing the victim’s behaviour and determination
while awaiting the train or by Early warning measures enabling the railway system or outsider to react
accordingly. The latter one refer to measures which forward a message of an unauthorised person in the track
area to infrastructure manager or railway undertaking and thus enable the early prevention of the collision. The
removal of the unauthorised person from the track area can be done by e.g. personnel (security patrols, railway
staff) or by rescue services or police. Compared to the previous measures, this measure does not rely on the
active participation of the suicidal person.
Finally, if the person cannot be removed from the track area and the collision occurs there are Measures
influencing the consequences of collisions. Typical measures to address the consequences of collisions are on the
one hand those that aim to reduce the effect of the impact (e.g. design of trains to reduce the effects of impact)
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran / Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
and on the one hand the measure to mitigate the consequences of the collision (e.g. enhanced collaboration
between organisations and increased flow of information to reduce the shut down time of railway traffic).
5. Discussion
This paper described and justified a model of suicide and trespassing processes leading to train-pedestrian
collision, based on an existing suicidal process model (Rådbo et al. 2012a) and an extensive in depth literature
research on railway suicides and railway trespassing. The proposed model presents the suicidal and non-suicidal
trespassing processes in an integrated way and the type of measures that can be used in each phase of the process
to prevent these kinds of events to occur. Indeed, understanding the multiple contributing factors to past train-
pedestrian collisions will provide vital information about deficiencies which could lead to future accidents as
well as on potential measures to prevent them, or to reduce the consequences of these unwanted events. The aim
of the model was to provide a support to the analysis and decision related to preventing railway suicides and
trespassing accidents at railway. Furthermore, it gave the opportunity of identifying potential interdependencies,
similarities and differences between suicide and trespasses processes, and has suggested a classification of
preventative measures.
While developing the model it became evident that the measures dedicated to suicide and/or trespassing do not
necessarily have an effect limited to one type of incident. Measures can indeed affect both types of events either
positively or negatively or the measures could even potentially have opposing or reinforcing effects to other
events. The analysis of these interdependencies enables us to suggest the following points:
Measures influencing the decision to use railway as a mean are specific to suicidal behaviour. These
measures do not necessarily have a positive effect on trespassing as well, and can even be counterproductive.
For example, measures such as limiting or avoiding the publication of information regarding suicide and other
trespassing fatalities on railways could have the effect of concealing the danger from potential trespassers
without actually removing it.
Measures influencing knowledge of regulations and awareness of risks do not necessarily take the issues
related to suicide into consideration. Therefore, their effect on the latter can be negative, e.g. by sending the
message that crossing the tracks can be fatal.
Measures influencing the decision to enter the tracks and the act of entering the tracks aim to influence
the first steps common to both suicide and other trespassing intents and correspond to constraints / guidance /
support to avoid these unwanted behaviours. It is thus legitimate to think that these measures will have a
positive effect on both suicide and trespassing, though not with the same level of efficiency depending on the
nature and mechanism underlying the specific measure.
Measures aiming to influence behaviours or the potential consequences once the person(s) is on the track
area (potential of collision/electrocution, consequences of collision) or when the train-pedestrian collision
occurs should mostly have a common positive effect on both suicide and trespassing. However, the person can
respond differentially to the measures depending on their intent due to the specific motives and behaviours of
persons at risk of suicide and trespassers once they are (or have perceived they are being) on the tracks. For
example, trespassers usually try to get off the tracks as quickly as possible when they are warned that a train is
approaching or when they have been asked to leave the railway area whereas the suicidal person often ignores
the warning or request unless there is a person to remove them from the railway area.
The developed model presents the types of measures that can be used in each phase of the chain of events
leading to railway suicides and trespassing accidents to prevent these events to occur. The results will help
practitioners (infrastructure managers and railway undertakings) to identify the type of measures to be used in
different situations and will provide information on possible negative interaction (or positive reinforcement)
related to each type of measures. However, in addition to the measures associated to each phase of the chain
there are also measures that have been identified to enforce the implementation of earlier mentioned types of
measures. Here we refer to monitoring and learning from previous research and best practice from other
countries which relates to the need of sharing and increasing the knowledge related to the factors affecting the
railway suicides and trespassing accidents and the factors associated with the success of implementation of the
measures. It is evident that the effectiveness of a certain measure is depending on the location it will be
implemented and on the behaviour and characteristics of suicidal persons or railway trespassers. However, even
though the measures used in one country cannot necessarily be implemented directly to another country (due to
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
8
differences in railway environment, culture, regulations etc.) there might be still good practices / lessons learned
which can be taken into consideration when planning the implementation of measures in another country. This
exchange of information requires the collaboration between organisations and agencies both nationally and
internationally.
6. Conclusions and perspectives
The proposed preliminary model is formative rather than empirically-derived in the sense that no empirical
validation of underlying `mechanisms’ has currently been done. Therefore, the next step is to assess how well the
model matches reality, both in terms of how much the instantiated model differs from reality and how important
this difference is for the use of the model. We believe that the added value of this model is twofold: (1) it
proposes a coordinated and wide-range view of railway suicide and trespasses processes by differentiating
between suicidal intent and non-suicidal antecedents to the decision to enter into the railway area, and by
presenting the common steps afterwards, though the attitudes and behaviours of trespassers in these steps are
likely to differ depending on their intent; (2) it supports the analysis of (i) the potential factors affecting the
occurrence of railway suicides and trespassing, (ii) the potential measures which can be used to prevent railway
suicides and trespassing accidents, and (iii) the chain of events leading to a train-pedestrian collision. We plan to
further elaborate on this model in two main ways. First, we will refine, extend and confront its content against
theories and empirical evidences recently collected in the context of RESTRAIL project. Second, we will carry
out field tests to assess the usefulness and the usability of this model in operational problem solving situations
implying some analysis and decision making regarding the design and implementation of suicide and trespassing
prevention measures.
Acknowledgements
This study was partially funded by the RESTRAIL project (Reduction of Suicides and Trespasses on RAILway
property, SCP1-GA-2011-285153). It was conducted as a part of Work Packages 2 and 3: Assessment of
prevention measures targeted to reduce railway suicides and trespasses. The authors would like to thank all WP2
and WP3 collaborators for their support during the development of this work, as well as the other RESTRAIL
partners for useful comments and suggestions.
References
Beskow. (1979). Suicide and mental disorder in Swedish men. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 227 (Suppl.), Köpenhamn,
Munksgaard.
Beskow (2000). Nationellt program. In J. Beskow (Ed.), Självmord och självmordsprevention Om livsavgörande
ögonblick. Lund. Stundentlitteratur.
Clarke, R., & Poyner, B. (1994). Preventing suicide on the London underground. Social Science & Medicine,
38(3), 443-446.
Cohen, L., Miller, T., Sheppeard, M. A., Gordon, E., Gantz, T. & Atnafou, R. (2003). Bridging the gap: Bringing
together intentional and unintentional injury prevention efforts to improve health and well being. Journal of
Safety Research 34. 473–483.
Daigle, M. S. (2005). Suicide prevention through means restriction: Assessing the risk of substitution A critical
review and synthesis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 625-632.
daSilva, M. P., Baron, W. & Carroll A. A. (2006). Highway Rail-Grade Crossing Safety Research: Railroad
Infrastructure Trespassing Detection Systems Research in Pittsford, New York. U.S. Dpt of Transportation.
Emmerson, B., & Cantor, C. (1993). Train suicides in Brisbane, Australia, 1980-1986. Crisis: The Journal of
Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 14(2), 90-94.
European Railway Agency (2013). Intermediate report on the development of railway safety in the European
Union. [http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Railway-Safety-Performance-Rep-2013.aspx]
Burkhardt, Rådbo, Silla & Paran / Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
Havarneanu, G., Burkhardt, J.-M. & Paran, F. (submitted). A systematic review of the literature on safety
measures against train-pedestrian collisions.
Hsieh. H., & Shannon, S.(2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative health research
15 No 9, 1277-1288.
Lobb, B. (2006). Trespassing on the tracks: A review of railway pedestrian safety research. Journal of Safety
Research 37, 359–365.
Lobb, B., Harre, N. & Suddendorf, T. (2001). An evaluation of a suburban railway pedestrian crossing safety
programme. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33, 157–165.
Mishara, B. L. (2007). Railway and metro suicides - understanding the problem and prevention potential. Crisis-
the Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 28, 36-43.
Railway Safety and Standards Board. (2010). Controlling trespass and access from the platform end. A guide to
good practice.
[http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/national_programmes/Annual%20Community%20Safety%20
Forum%20resources/2008%20forum/Addressing%20the%20issue%20of%20railway%20suicide/T322_Controlli
ng%20trespass%20and%20access%20from%20the%20platform%20end.pdf]. Accessed May 22, 2013.
Rådbo, H., Svedung, I., & Andersson, R. (2008). Suicide prevention in railway systems: Application of a barrier
approach. Safety Science, 46, 729-737.
Rådbo, H., Renck, B., & Andersson, R. (2012a). Feasibility of railway suicide prevention strategies; a focus
group study. In C. Bérenguer, A. Grall & C. Soares (Eds.), Advances in safety, reliability and risk management.
London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Rådbo, H., Silla, A., Lukaschek, K., Burkhardt, J-M. and Paran, F. (2012b). Current knowledge of railway
suicides and trespassing accidents. RESTRAIL Working paper
[http://www.restrail.eu/Deliverables.html#july_2012_current_knowledge_of_railway_suicides_and_trespassing_
accidents_led_by_kau].
Reinach, S., & Viale, A. (2006). Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident
investigations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 396-406.
Seiden, R.M. (1978)Where are they now? A follow-up study of suicide attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge,
Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, Vol. 8.
Silla, A. (2012). Improving safety on Finnish railways by prevention of trespassing. Espoo 2012. VTT Science
27. 49 p. + app. 43 p.
Silla, A., Kallberg, V-P., Leden, L., Salenius, S., Rådbo, H., Ryan, B., Whalley, S., Tauler, A., Lorenze, L.
Prieto, E., Lukascheck, K., Burkhardt, J-M. Paran, F., Plaza, J. (2012). Data concerning railway suicides and
trespassing accidents. Deliverable of WP1 in RESTRAIL project.
Silla, A. & Luoma, J. (2011). Effect of three countermeasures against the illegal crossing of railway tracks.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1089–1094.
Silla, A. & Luoma, J. (2009). Trespassing on Finnish railways: identification of problem sites and characteristics
of trespassing behaviour. European Transport Research Review, 1, 47–53.
