Pedestrian-Caused

Injuries
&
Fatalities
Report

Prepared by Council Services Department

City of Albuquerque

1
 Table of Contents

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Page 3.

• PART 1: The City of Albuquerque’s Inventory of Pedestrian Safety Education and

Engineering Interventions/ Overview of Responses from the Center for Problem-Oriented
Policing. Page 4.

• PART 2: USDOT and NMDOT Crash Records for 2015 Page 11.

• PART 3: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis
Reporting System (FARS) and the General Estimates System (GES) (2013) Page 12

• PART 4: Supporting News Articles Page 18

• PART 5: Supporting Academic Articles Page 31

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
reports that, annually more than 4,000 pedestrians die and 70,000 are injured by encounters with
vehicle traffic. Amongst the 50 States and US Territories, New Mexico was ranked number one
in 2014 and number seven in 2015 for pedestrian fatalities.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that 76% of pedestrian accidents occurred in
urban centers. Albuquerque was number two amongst cities with a population of over 500,000
for pedestrian fatalities in 2014 and 2015. For pedestrian injuries the City ranked 18th in 2013
and 30th in 2015 amongst the 165 urban areas in the United States with populations over 100,000
persons.
With so many variables involved in pedestrian injuries and fatalities, it is important for
municipalities to utilize both local and state data to tailor a suite of education, engineering and
enforcement interventions to address the specific needs of each community. Research from the
NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and university research centers funded
through the Federal Highway Administration has found that there is no “Silver Bullet
Intervention” for providing pedestrian safety. Instead a safe pedestrian roadway environment
requires a holistic toolbox of education, enforcement and engineering measures to curb pedestrian
injuries. Over the years, the City of Albuquerque has been implementing a comprehensive toolkit
of education, enforcement and engineering methods and interventions to ensure the safety of its
pedestrians. While this toolkit has been effective in curbing many pedestrian-caused incidents, it
is evident it needs to be even further expanded.

The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has developed a comprehensive taxonomy of the
measures that should comprise a pedestrian safety tool box. The list includes 4 categorical
measures and 32 specific measures to pedestrian-caused injuries and fatalities. The City has
implemented 23 of the 32 specific measures identified by the Center for Problem-Oriented
Policing. Of the categorical measures it has executed 3 of the 4. This includes training city
planners and engineers in pedestrian safety, conducting pedestrian Safety Education Campaigns
and adopting ordinances to reduce pedestrian crashes with vehicles or regulating pedestrian
safety. This report is intended to provide data to further strengthen categorical measure 2,
(regulating pedestrian safety) by compiling national crash data, academic articles, relevant news
articles, and policing strategies that various municipalities are implementing around the country
as part of the enforcement component for Pedestrian Safety

3
PART 1: The City of Albuquerque’s Inventory of Pedestrian Safety Education and
Engineering Interventions
The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has created a comprehensive table summarizing
various municipalities’ responses to pedestrian injuries and fatalities, including the mechanisms
by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and
factors municipalities should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical to
tailor responses to local circumstances, and to justify each response based on reliable analysis. In
most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses.
Below is a list of the of primary education, enforcement and engineering interventions that the
City of Albuquerque has already implemented to effectively manage the behavior of pedestrians
and ensure their safety within city limits.

 Training City Planning and Engineering Staff in Pedestrian Orientated Design.

 Adoption of Ordinance Regulating Pedestrian Safety.
 Enforcement measures include prohibiting jay walking, prohibiting intoxicated behavior in
public, prohibiting bicycle riding on sidewalks, establishing when Pedestrians have the
right of way.
 Launching Location Specific Pedestrian Awareness Campaigns.
 Sidewalks ordinance
 Complete streets ordinance
 Vertical pedestrian crosswalks
 ADA curb cuts
 ADA braille signs
 Pedestrian signals
 Street lighting
 Pedestrian lighting
 Pedestrian traffic ways
 Bicycling lanes buffering sidewalks
 Road diets on roadways with pedestrian sidewalks
 Bulb Outs at Pedestrian Crossings
 Pedestrian refuge medians
 Solicitation permitting process (both in the public right-of-way and door-to-door)

On the following page is the Taxonomy of the primary general and specific responses outlined
by the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Items in this list that are highlighted have also been
completed by the City of Albuquerque.

4
# Response
A Designating a special
pedestrian-safety task force
within your agency
B Training city planners to
consider pedestrian safety
C Creating ordinances to reduce
pedestrian-vehicle crashes
D Guarding against negative
public reactions
Specific Responses to Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities
# Response
Pedestrian Behavior
Establishing hotspot-specific
crackdowns on jaywalking
(immediate)
2 Launching location-specific
pedestrian-safety education/
awareness campaigns (early)
How It Works
A subunit within your agency
focuses on enforcing pedestrian
regulations
Educating planners on pedestrian
safety could result in "designing
out" unsafe walking conditions
Officially regulates situations that
could increase the crash risks
Your agency should work with
residents, businesses, and
community groups to allay their
fears about the negative impact of
pedestrian safety strategies
How It Works
It increases the threat of citations
and penalties
High-risk pedestrians are educated
on the risks associated with
pedestrian-vehicle crashes
Works Best If...
...your community's pedestrian-
safety problems are common and
serious
... planners take training seriously
and actually put it into practice and
structural modification
... police enforce ordinances
seriously, especially at high-risk
locations
...your agency partners with
residents, businesses, and
community groups early in the
problem-solving process
Works Best If...
... enforcement is focused on
hotspots, concentrated at known
times in hotspots, seen as
necessary by the community,
considered high priority, and coupled
with sufficient penalties
...the awareness campaign targets
pedestrians at high risk and is close
to where the problem occurs
Considerations
Creating a subunit within your agency may
require funds to support additional staffing,
training, and equipment
In some cases, "designing out" unsafe walking
conditions might not be possible due to training
or structural modification costs; your agency
would also have to establish a working
relationship with city planners or those
responsible for road design
For reasons mentioned above, police may not
give high priority to enforcing safety ordinances
Regardless of early efforts to work with the
public, there will still likely be some controversy
surrounding problem displacement and certain
strategies' fairness
Considerations
An enforcement crackdown may not be an
adequate long-term response; it could also
unnecessarily anger the public
Avoid campaigns that are too general because
the message may not reach the intended
audience or address the problem
5
3 Coordinating crossing devices to
facilitate uninterrupted walking
paths (immediate)
4 Installing pedestrian countdown-
timer signals at problem
intersections (immediate)
5 Addressing pedestrian drinking
behavior (early)
Vehicle and Driver Factors
# Response
6 Enforcing speeding violations
and other unsafe driver
behaviors at high-risk locations
(early)
7 Increasing driver's perceptions
of risk regarding pedestrian
injuries and fatalities (early)
8 Diverting or calming traffic near
pedestrian-vehicle crash
hotspots (early and immediate)
9 Addressing drunken drivers
(early)
Immediate Physical Environment
# Response
When pedestrians cross one
street, the adjacent crossing signal
is timed to allow an uninterrupted
walking sequence
It provides a timer indicating how
much time is left to cross the street
or how much time is left before a
"Walk" signal flashes
It targets unsafe pedestrian
behavior as a result of drinking
alcohol
How It Works
Enforcement may deter drivers
from speeding
During traffic stops, police
distribute pedestrian-awareness
information; also, driver's
classes/exams could be
redesigned to emphasize
pedestrian awareness
The use of speed bumps or route
redirection slows traffic in high-risk
areas or lessens congestion in
those areas
DUI check points deter drunken
drivers from driving in dense
pedestrian areas
How It Works
... pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur
where pedestrian walking
sequences are restricted by lengthy
time intervals
...your community's pedestrians
jaywalk because of the uncertainty
of the waiting time before they can
cross the street
.. . if police and other stakeholders
(i.e., bar owners) at hotspot
locations collaborate
Works Best If..
...enforcement campaigns are
waged in high-risk areas where
speeding is causing the problem
...enforcement strategies are in
place to increase the distribution of
pedestrian-awareness information
...your agency accurately identifies
high-risk areas
...your pedestrian injury and fatality
problem is concentrated in heavily
trafficked nightlife districts
Works Best If...
Adjusting signals to facilitate uninterrupted
walking sequences might disrupt vehicle flow,
causing traffic congestion; in addition, a timed
crossing sequence might not accommodate all
pedestrians' speed
Countdown signals still allow pedestrians to
cross against "Don't Walk" signals, unlike
pedestrian barricades
The police alone should not bear the burden of
addressing pedestrian drinking behavior
Considerations
Increased enforcement may increase traffic
congestion or cause further distractions; this
response could also be hard to maintain over a
long time period
Implementing changes in state driver's exams
could be difficult for communities dealing with a
local problem
Traffic redirection could create high-risk areas
on adjacent streets
DUI checkpoints could increase traffic
congestion, create additional distractions, and
disrupt neighborhood businesses
Considerations
6
10 Constructing pedestrian barriers
to separate foot traffic from
vehicles at pedestrian-vehicle
crash hotspots
11 Installing curb extensions at
problem locations
12 Installing curb extensions at
problem locations
13 Installing fluorescent strong
yellow-green (SYG) pedestrian
warning signs
14 Designing wider roads and
increasing existing roads' width
to deter jaywalking
15 Increasing the length of crossing
signal intervals
16 Improving sidewalks and other
pedestrian walkways
17 Encouraging pedestrians to
cross at controlled intersections
It prevents pedestrians from
jaywalking by physically taking
away the opportunity to do so
Street curbs are extended into
roads to narrow crossing distances
and improve driver/pedestrian
visibility at intersections or
midblock areas
Street curbs are extended into
roads to narrow crossing distances
and improve driver/pedestrian
visibility at intersections or
midblock areas
Traditional pedestrian warning
signs are replaced with signs made
from highly reflective and more-
visible material
Increasing crossing distances
could create the illusion of risk,
keeping some pedestrians from
jaywalking
It adjusts crossing devices to
increase the time pedestrians have
to cross the street
Better walking conditions may
provide pedestrians with more
incentive to stay on designated
walking paths
Public transportation systems
establish pickup/drop-off spots
near areas with crossing devices
... your agency has properly planned
to identify high frequency crash sites
where the barriers would be most
effective
...poor driver/pedestrian visibility or
long crossing distances are creating
problems
... poor driver/pedestrian visibility or
long crossing distances are creating
problems
...crashes occur during daytime
hours, when reflective material is
most visible
... many of your community's
pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur on
narrow streets
...longer walking intervals are
needed at wider roads; also, it works
best if the area has a high proportion
of slower moving pedestrians
... a high frequency of pedestrian-
vehicle crashes occur near locations
where sidewalks are damaged and
overcrowded
. . . your community relies heavily on
public transportation
Installation of pedestrian barriers could be
expensive and disliked by hurried pedestrians
Curb extensions put pedestrians closer to
moving traffic; in addition, curb extensions could
potentially create several infrastructure
problems (see description above)
Curb extensions put pedestrians closer to
moving traffic; in addition, curb extensions could
potentially create several infrastructure
problems (see description above)
SYGs are not as effective (i.e., less reflective) in
low ambient-light conditions
Redesigning streets may be costly and may
inconvenience travel ease during construction;
this could also increase the crash risk for
specific groups of pedestrians (i.e., the elderly)
by increasing crossing distance; if this is the
case, increasing crossing signal intervals may
be necessary
Longer crossing intervals mean that traffic will
stop at intersections longer; this could result in
traffic congestion at certain intersections
Sidewalk improvement and redevelopment may
be costly and temporarily inconvenience
pedestrian travel
Rerouting bus stops may make public
transportation more time-consuming and less
convenient for riders
7
18 Increasing lighting near high-risk Better visibility may help . . . high-risk areas are marked by Installing and maintaining lights may be costly
intersections and pedestrian pedestrians and drivers assess the inadequate lighting and poor visibility
routes safety of walking/driving conditions

19 Providing midblock pedestrian It allows two shorter crossings ...pedestrians have to travel long Installing islands may require extensive road
islands when blocks are long when streets are wide distances to cross certain streets; construction and costs
and streets are wide also, islands should be clearly
marked and visible to vehicles

20 Providing marked midblock Midblock crossings are marked ...street crossing is common away Midblock crosswalks impede vehicle traffic and
crossings on narrow streets with signs to calm traffic and alert from intersections and areas without should be used on streets where flow speed is
drivers to pedestrians' right-of-way crossing devices not essential

21 Establishing parking regulations
in low-visibility areas
It removes parked cars that restrict
the visibility of both pedestrians
and drivers
...they are established at locations
where pedestrians frequently cross
streets between cars
Removing parking spots could increase moving
traffic if drivers cannot find parking places; also,
drivers may avoid such areas due to the
inconvenience; therefore, this strategy may not
be suitable for business districts

22 Creating pedestrian flag The city installs warning flags at ...flags are installed at risky Pedestrian flags might not be as noticeable or
locations intersections or other crossing locations and are visible to both effective as more permanent environmental
areas drivers and pedestrians changes; also, pedestrians should still use
caution while crossing, as there is no guarantee
drivers will notice the flags

23 Using portable pedestrian The city places portable warning ...warning signs are installed at risky Portable warning signs might not be as
warning signs signs at intersections or other locations and are visible to both noticeable or effective as more-permanent
crossing areas drivers and pedestrians environmental changes

24 Installing in-street yield-to- The city installs pedestrian signs in .. .drivers have difficulty seeing These signs' effectiveness might depend on
pedestrian signs the middle of roads to warn drivers pedestrian warning signs that are where they are placed (e.g., which
to yield to pedestrian traffic posted near sidewalks at intersections)
intersection crosswalks

Special Conditions

# Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

25 Maintaining walking surfaces in It makes walking surfaces safe and .. .your community experiences Substances used to clear sidewalks (i.e. de-
inclement weather accommodating, even in poor winter weather that includes ice and icers, salt) could damage surfaces, resulting in
weather snow additional costs

8
26 Improving conditions for
pedestrians with limited mobility
27 Making streets safer for children
and teens
28 Improving pedestrian safety in
shopping-center parking areas
29 Monitoring construction sites
30 Improving safety for workers at
higher risk of crashes
31 Separating pedestrians from
highway entrance/exit ramps
32 Relocating popular attractions or
services
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
# Response
It makes sidewalks more usable
and pedestrians with limited
mobility more visible
It addresses the specific needs of
children and teens
It uses measures similar to those
aimed at making city streets and
intersections safer for pedestrians
It ensures that pedestrian routes
are convenient and accessible
It trains high-risk workers to
consider dangerous conditions and
behavior while on the job; also,
workers can use special gear to
make themselves more visible to
drivers
It provides safe walking routes for
pedestrians near high-speed traffic
Frequently patronized stores,
restaurants, or other businesses
are relocated to the side of the
road where people live so they do
not need to cross the street
How It Works
. .. it is implemented in areas with a
high proportion of pedestrians with
limited mobility
...special circumstances put children
and teens at particular risk
...safety measures are aimed at
both pedestrians and drivers, since
both are distracted in parking areas
...your agency forms partnerships
with building companies so that
monitoring continues throughout the
project's duration
.. .workers take the training seriously
... pedestrian tunnels and bridges
are built so that pedestrians are
physically separated from merging
traffic
...a crash hotspot results from many
residents having to continually cross
from a central location to patronize
attractions or services
Works Best If...
Improvements to sidewalks could be costly and
benefit only a few
You need to examine carefully the particular
needs of children and teens and bring older
children and teens brought into the problem-
solving process
Surrounding businesses might have to cover the
expense of the safety measures
Construction sites are temporary and frequently
change locations; changing conditions could
make monitoring difficult; therefore, your agency
could work with local government to require
contractors to agree to site monitoring at the
permitting stage of construction
Workers may not use safe practices unless they
are regulated
Various unintended consequences of both
structures might not be considered before
construction; see above for possible
consequences
Relocating businesses is likely very expensive
and would require major rezoning; also,
established business owners might be reluctant
to move their location
Considerations
9
33 Redesigning dangerous vehicles Vehicle body changes can . .. problematic designs (e.g., light This response requires cooperation with
minimize the seriousness of injury truck vehicles) are identified and government agencies and vehicle
and chance of death upon collision improved manufacturers, which may be beyond your
agency's scope

34 Launching a general pedestrian- It uses the mass media to promote ...the problem is widespread and Most problems affect only certain people during
safety education/aware-ness pedestrian safety to a general affects many people in your certain times; therefore, a general message
campaign audience community may not reach those who would benefit the
most

32 Launching Police crack down on jaywalking ...crashes are common, largely due It can create perceptions of racial profiling, puts
a general enforcement throughout the jurisdiction to jaywalking, and there are no police in conflict with many citizens who are not
campaign against jaywalkers concentrations at risk, maybe expensive, and is difficult to m

10
PART 2: USDOT and NMDOT Crash Records for 2015
Although there are many cases in which actions attributable to pedestrian injuries and fatalities is
unknown (both at the national and state levels), jaywalking and improperly standing, lying,
working, or playing in the roadway are identified as two activities that contribute to these
incidents the most. On the national level, jaywalking has been the highest contributor to
pedestrian injuries and fatalities (22% of all incidents). On the state level, improper standing,
lying, working, or playing in the roadway has been the highest contributor to pedestrian injuries
and fatalities (26% of all incidents).

Below is table reporting 2015 NHTSA Pedestrian Crash Data on Attributable Pedestrian and
Motor Vehicle Crashes Resulting in Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. The data shows that
pedestrians for a number of reasons can consciously contribute to these incidents by choosing
without being intoxicated to enter vehicle lanes and interact with motorists.

Nationwide: US DOT 2015 Crash Records for Crashes Between

Motor Vehicles and Pedestrians : Pedestrians Actions a
Contributing Factor, Not Including Alcohol Impaired

National Data New Mexico Data

Pedestrian Pedestrian
Fatalities and Fatalities and
Attributable Action Injured Crashes Injured Crashes
Darting or Dashing in and Out of Roadway 288 177 0 0
Failure to Obey Traffic Signals or Office 844 282 1 1

In Roadway Improperly (Standing, Lying,

Working or Playing) 29 772 12 12
Entering or Exiting Parked or Stopped
Vehicle 29 25 0 0
Inattentive (Talking, Eating, Etc.) 120 117 0 0
Wrong Way Riding or Walking 125 117 0 0
Dash 460 451 5 5
Jaywalking (Improper Crossing or 1039 996 2 2
Roadway or Intersection)
Making Improper Entry to or Exit From 9 8 1 0
Traffic way
Not Visible (Dark Clothing, No Lighting,
etc.) 1008 957 2 1
Other 149 151 2 2
Unknown 508 485 21 18
Database Totals 4761 4538 46 40

11
PART 3: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) (2015)
Following are tables from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
presenting descriptive statistics about traffic crashes of all severities, from those that result in
property damage to the loss of human life. For the purpose of this report the focuses is data
about pedestrian-caused injuries and fatalities. Information from two of NHTSA’s primary data
systems has been combined to create a single source for motor vehicle crash statistics. The first
data system, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), is probably the better known of
the two sources. Established in 1975, FARS contains data on the most severe traffic crashes,
those in which someone was killed.

12
FARS 2015 Table 96
Pedestrians Killed or Injured, by Age and Location
Location

Intersection Nonintersection Other Total

Age
(Years) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pedestrians Killed
<5 12 12.6 64 67.4 17 17.9 95 100.0
5-9 11 14.7 55 73.3 9 12.0 75 100.0
10-15 22 22.7 60 61.9 15 15.5 97 100.0
6-20 34 14.5 166 70.9 29 12.4 234 100.0
21-24 32 10.0 236 73.8 44 13.8 320 100.0
25-34 76 11.2 512 75.4 79 11.6 679 100.0
5-44 89 14.0 468 73.6 69 10.8 636 100.0
45-54 175 19.6 628 70.3 75 8.4 893 100.0
55-64 186 24.0 510 65.7 73 9.4 776 100.0
65-74 137 32.1 240 56.2 45 10.5 427 100.0
>74 169 36.0 264 56.3 31 6.6 469 100.0
Unknown 7 20.6 21 61.8 3 8.8 34 100.0
Total 950 20.1 3,224 68.1 489 10.3 *4,735 100.0

Pedestrians Injured
<5 1,000 52.6 1,000 45.9 ** 1.5 1,000 100.0
5-9 1,000 36.6 2,000 62.6 ** ** 3,000 100.0
10-15 3,000 46.3 3,000 47.0 ** 5.2 7,000 100.0
16-20 3,000 38.5 3,000 41.3 1,000 20.2 7,000 100.0
21-24 2,000 36.7 3,000 45.9 1,000 17.3 7,000 100.0
25-34 5,000 50.4 4,000 38.0 1,000 10.9 11,000 100.0
35-44 3,000 43.1 3,000 42.0 1,000 14.4 8,000 100.0
45-54 4,000 48.1 4,000 46.2 ** 4.9 9,000 100.0
55-64 3,000 43.4 2,000 35.8 1,000 19.1 7,000 100.0
65-74 2,000 63.4 1,000 34.0 ** 2.6 4,000 100.0
>74 1,000 43.8 1,000 39.8 1,000 16.3 3,000 100.0
Total 30,000 45.3 28,000 42.5 8,000 11.5 66,000 100.0
*Includes 72 pedestrians killed at unknown locations.
**Less than 500 or less than 0.05 percent.

13
FARS 2015 Table 98
Pedestrians Killed or Injured, by Time of Day and Day of Week
Day of Week

Weekday Weekend Total

Time of Day Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pedestrians Killed

Midnight to 3 am 212 7.7 331 16.8 543 11.5

3 am to 6 am 217 7.9 242 12.3 459 9.7
6 am to 9 am 345 12.5 66 3.3 411 8.7
9 am to Noon 203 7.4 48 2.4 251 5.3
Noon to 3 pm 203 7.4 63 3.2 266 5.6
3 pm to 6 pm 373 13.5 101 5.1 474 10.0
6 pm to 9 pm 677 24.6 559 28.3 1,236 26.1
9 pm to Midnight 513 18.6 554 28.1 1,067 22.5
Unknown 12 0.4 8 0.4 28 0.6
Total 2,755 100.0 1,972 100.0 *4,735 100.0

Pedestrians Injured
Midnight to 3 am 2,000 3.7 2,000 13.1 4,000 6.2
3 am to 6 am 1,000 1.1 ** 2.4 1,000 1.5
6 am to 9 am 7,000 13.9 ** 1.6 7,000 10.6
9 am to Noon 6,000 11.5 1,000 6.3 7,000 10.1
Noon to 3 pm 8,000 16.7 2,000 11.1 10,000 15.2
3 pm to 6 pm 12,000 23.9 3,000 16.9 15,000 22.0
6 pm to 9 pm 10,000 19.9 6,000 34.8 16,000 24.0
9 pm to Midnight 4,000 9.3 2,000 13.6 7,000 10.4
Total 48,000 100.0 18,000 100.0 66,000 100.0
*Includes 8 pedestrians killed at unknown time of day and day of week.
**Less than 500.

14
2015 FART Table 99
Pedestrians Killed or Injured in Single-Vehicle Crashes, by Vehicle
Type and Initial Point of Impact
Initial Point of Impact

Front Right Side Left Side Rear Other/Unknown Total

Vehicle Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Pedestrians Killed
Passenger Car 1,571 90.7 35 2.0 18 1.0 22 1.3 87 5.0 1,733 100.0
Light Truck 1,563 88.7 51 2.9 29 1.6 37 2.1 83 4.7 1,763 100.0
Large Truck 201 71.0 19 6.7 11 3.9 21 7.4 31 11.0 283 100.0
Bus 44 68.8 6 9.4 3 4.7 4 6.3 7 10.9 64 100.0
Other/Unknown 231 54.6 7 1.7 2 0.5 0 0.0 183 43.3 423 100.0
Total 3,610 84.6 118 2.8 63 1.5 84 2.0 391 9.2 4,266 100.0

Pedestrians Injured
Passenger Car 25,000 71.1 6,000 17.7 3,000 7.7 1,000 2.9 * 0.6 36,000 100.0
Light Truck 18,000 69.3 3,000 10.7 3,000 12.8 2,000 6.9 * 0.3 26,000 100.0
Other 1,000 42.3 1,000 28.5 * 14.9 * 8.9 * 5.4 3,000 100.0
Total 45,000 69.2 10,000 15.3 7,000 10.0 3,000 4.8 * 0.7 65,000 100.0

*Less than 500.

FARS 2015 Table 100

Pedestrians Killed, by Related Factors

Factors Number Percent

Failure to yield right of way 1,181 24.9
In roadway improperly (standing, lying, working, playing) 744 15.7
Not visible (dark clothing, no lighting, 733 15.5
Improper crossing of roadway or intersection 686 14.5
Under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication 658 13.9
Darting or running into road 618 13.1
Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer 175 3.7
Physical impairment 103 2.2
Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.) 99 2.1
Wrong-way walking 81 1.7
Traveling on prohibited 38 0.8
Emotional (e.g. depression, angry, disturbed) 37 0.8
Entering/exiting parked/standing vehicle 26 0.5
Vision obscured (by rain, snow, parked vehicle, sign, etc.) 19 0.4
Ill, blackout 12 0.3
Asleep or fatigued 5 0.1
Nonmotorist pushing vehicle 5 0.1
Portable electronics 4 0.1
Other factors 238 5.0
None reported 590 12.5
Unknown 702 14.8
Total Pedestrians 4,735 100.0

15
2015 FAR Table 116: Ranking of State
Pedestrians Population Pedestrian Fatality Rate
Rank State Killed (Thousands) per 100,000 Population

1 Delaware 25 926 2.70

2 Florida 501 19,553 2.56
3 Montana 24 1,015 2.36

4 New Mexico 49 2,085 2.35

5 Nevada 65 2,790 2.33
6 Arizona 151 6,627 2.28

7 Louisiana 97 4,625 2.10

8 South Carolina 100 4,775 2.09
9 California 701 38,333 1.83

10 Maryland 108 5,929 1.82

11 Texas 480 26,448 1.81
12 Mississippi 53 2,991 1.77

13 Georgia 176 9,992 1.76

14 North Carolina 173 9,848 1.76
15 New York 335 19,651 1.

16 Hawaii 23 1,404 1.64

17 Arkansas 45 2,959 1.52
18 West Virginia 28 1,854 1.51

19 Oklahoma 58 3,851 1.51

20 Michigan 148 9,896 1.50
21 New Jersey 129 8,899 1.45

22 District of Columbia 9 646 1.39

23 Rhode Island 14 1,052 1.33
24 Kentucky 55 4,395 1.25

25 Tennessee 80 6,496 1.23

26 Oregon 48 3,930 1.22
27 Alabama 59 4,834 1.22

16
Table Generated From 2015 FARS Data: Pedestrian Crashes in Urban Locations

Ranking United States City's over 100,000 by Pedestrian Deaths by Car Crash

Traffic Crash
Pedestrian
Ped City
City State Death Rate Rank Percentile
Killed Population
per 100,000
Residents
Rockford IL 11 150,251 7.32 1 1%
Miami FL 27 417,650 6.46 2 1%
Fort Lauderdale FL 11 172,389 6.38 3 2%
Detroit MI 42 688,701 6.10 4 2%
Jackson MS 8 172,638 4.63 5 3%
Atlanta GA 20 447,841 4.47 6 4%
Baton Rouge LA 10 229,426 4.36 7 4%
Jacksonville FL 33 842,583 3.92 8 5%
Santa Ana CA 13 334,227 3.89 9 5%
Salinas CA 6 155,662 3.85 10 6%
Glendale AZ 9 234,632 3.84 11 7%
Memphis TN 25 653,450 3.83 12 7%
New Orleans LA 14 378,715 3.70 13 8%
Tucson AZ 19 526,116 3.61 14 8%
Mobile AL 7 194,899 3.59 15 9%
St. Louis MO 11 318,416 3.45 16 10%
Phoenix AZ 52 1,513,367 3.44 17 10%
Fayetteville NC 7 204,408 3.42 18 11%
Pomona CA 5 151,348 3.30 19 12%
San Bernardino CA 7 213,708 3.28 20 12%
Norfolk VA 8 246,139 3.25 21 13%
Newark NJ 9 278,427 3.23 22 13%
Sacramento CA 15 479,686 3.13 23 14%
Tampa FL 11 352,957 3.12 24 15%
Glendale CA 6 196,021 3.06 25 15%
Dallas TX 38 1,257,676 3.02 26 16%
Tulsa OK 12 398,121 3.01 27 16%
San Antonio TX 42 1,409,019 2.98 28 17%
Chattanooga TN 5 173,366 2.88 29 18%
Albuquerque NM 16 556,495 2.88 30 18%
Providence RI 5 177,994 2.81 31 19%
Worcester MA 5 182,544 2.74 32 19%
Orlando FL 7 255,483 2.74 33 20%
Oklahoma City OK 16 610,613 2.62 34 21%
Louisville- KY 16 609,893 2.62 35 21%
Palmdale CA 4 157,161 2.55 36 22%
Irvine CA 6 236,716 2.53 37 22%
Huntington CA 23%
Beach 5 197,575 2.53 38
Augusta- GA 5 197,350 2.53 39 24%
Bakersfield CA 9 363,630 2.48 40 24%
17
PART 4: Supporting News Articles
Pedestrian-caused injuries and fatalities are reported in the media across the country. This section includes a
variety of news articles published by various news outlets reporting from different parts of the country. The
prevalence of these articles indicates that injuries and fatalities happening in roadways can by caused by
pedestrians.

Police cite pedestrian who was injured, charge

driver in Peters Creek Parkway incident
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C A pedestrian struck by a vehicle will be cited and the driver accused of hitting him
was charged after an incident on' Peters Creek Parkway earlier this week, according to Winston-Salem police. The
pedestrian, 58-year-old Donald Charles Thompson Jr., will be cited with failure to yield right of way to traffic.
Adrian McCloud, 36, was arrested and charged with felony hit and run, marijuana possession and possession of
drug paraphernalia. Thompson, of the 4300 block of Charleston Drive, had a broken arm, a cut on his head and
abdominal injuries, police said. He is still being treated at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center. McCloud, of
Advance, was given a $10,000 unsecured bond. His court date is June 1. The incident happened at about
8:10p.m. Monday on Peters Creek Parkway in front ofK&W Cafeteria near Southpark Boulevard.

McCloud was driving a 2009 Honda Accord north on Peters Creek Parkway when Thompson stepped into the
Accord's path, according to police. Witnesses said McCloud tried to avoid hitting Thompson. McCloud left the
scene but was followed by a witness and returned a few minutes later, police said. A panhandling sign and alcohol
were recovered at the scene and belonged to Thompson, police said. He aP.peared to be a properly registered
panhandler through the City of Winston-Salem, according to the release. But before he could reach the other side
of the busy road, a Ford F-150 struck Geary, 71, fatality injuring hiiJl. He was pronounced dead at OU Medical
Center.

Police Sgt. Gary Knight said Geary was panhandling, asking passing motorists for spare change or a couple of
dollars, when he was run over. Geary's death comes at a time when the Oklahoma City Council is considering a
new ordinance aimed at limiting where panhandlers working busy intersections can ask passing motorists for
money. The driver of the truck told police he never saw Geary, only that he'd felt a bump, and that when he
looked in his rear-view mirror, all he saw is what appeared to be a backpack lying in the road. Witnesses of the
fatal accident supported the driver's story. Police have not yet released the driver's name. Related to this story

Oklahoma City pedestrian's death comes amid

debate on city ordinance to limit panhandling
Man's death linked to panhandling

"A ... man's just been hit here at May Avenue and Memorial ... somebody just ran over a homeless man," a 911
caller to police can be heard saying in the recording obtained by The Oklahoman. "He's not moving at all. He's
not moving at all. He hit him ... he ran over him. We saw it . .. it's so bad." Contacted a week after the accident,
the woman heard on the 911 recording still was too shaken to talk to a reporter about what she witnessed.
"It's just too fresh on my mind ... it was horrible," she said Friday. "I just don't think I can do it right now."
"Extremely private"
According to his sisters, Geary didn't have children. His "soulmate" passed away years ago, they said, and he's
27
been "all alone since then.

Knoxville man 'Super Dave' struck by car, killed

A Knoxville man died late Saturday night when he stepped into the path of a vehicle on Interstate 275 near
Heiskell, according to police. Around 11:26 p.m., David "Super Dave" Eugene Martin, 39, stepped in front of a
southbound Kia, according to a Knoxville Police Department news release. The driver of the Kia, a 17-year-old
girl, tried but was unable to avoid hitting Martin and struck him, according to the release.Witnesses said a silver,
four-door vehicle pulled up to the man. Then, witnesses heard a gunshot, Cannon said.

Pedestrian hit and killed by truck in Downtown

Jacksonville
JACKSONVILLE, Fla.-- The Jacksonville Sheriffs Office said a man was hit and killed by a pickup truck
Saturday night at the comer of N. Main Street and Union Street. JSO was called around 6:50p.m. Officials say a
man was transported to a local hospital where he died from his injuries. First Coast News spoke with a witness at
the scene. She said she was in the center lane of N. Main St. giving change to a panhandler right before he was
hit. She said once he received the change, he walked backwards towards the sidewalk and fell on the ground. The
witness said a black pickup truck directly behind her drove around her SUV and over the victim's body. JSO
could not confirm the witness's details of the crash at this time. Officials say traffic homicide detectives are
taking over the investigation. They say the driver of the pickup truck is cooperating and that possible charges
are pending.

Man hit by car in Winston-Salem

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C.-A man was hit by a car and injured after he stepped into oncoming traffic in
Winston-Salem Monday night, according to a press release. The incident happened around 8 p.m. when the
pedestrian, identified as Donald Charles Thompson Jr., was hit by the vehicle in the 400 block of Peters Creek
Parkway. The driver left the scene after the collision but was followed by a witness. Several minutes later, the
man returned to the scene. Thompson suffered a broken arm, head laceration, and abdominal injuries. He was
taken to Wake Forest Baptist Medical with non-life-threatening injuries. A panhandling sign and alcohol
belonging to Thompson was recovered at the scene. Police believe he was properly registered through the City of
Winson-Salern. From his small, modest horne near downtown Oklahoma City, Joseph Geary stepped out into
busy midday traffic near West Memorial Road and May Avenue and slowly walked diagonally across the
roadway.

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) --

The search is on for a runaway driver after a hit-and-run that left a victim with a serious leg injury. Around 8:45
p.m. on Monday, the driver of a silver Mercedes SUV struck a 38-year-old man in the 3100 block of Fountain
view. Some of the pictures eyewitness and good Samaritan Mark Hussey shot at the scene are too graphic to post,
but the victim's leg was bleeding and bystanders were trying to help him. Police said the victim, 38-year-old
Stephen Bowes, and the driver of the Mercedes exchanged words. The driver then went up over the median,
striking Bowes with his vehicle before getting out, saying something else to Bowes and driving off, according to
investigators. "There was a lot of action, and I heard some yelling going on. It looked like the SUV ran over the
curb and drove over his leg," said Hussey.
19
Hussey said Bowes may have struck the vehicle with his hand first, but he never expected what he witnessed
next. "It's heartless. That's a human being. Whether he was panhandling and did strike his car, I understand it's
expensive. It's a man's life, he could have killed him," said Hussey.Witnesses at the scene tied a belt around
Bowes' leg before he was taken to the hospital. "He needs to tum himself in, he's going to be found one way
or another," said Hussey.HPD is investigating the case and says anyone with information should call the Hit-
and-Run Division at 713-247-4065.

CHARLOTIE, NC (Mark Price/The Charlotte

Observer)-
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police believe the pedestrian killed early Friday on the Brookshire Boulevard near
Interstate 85 was pan-handling at the time of his death. Nefertiti Carial Foust, 53, was pronounced dead at the
scene by Medic, police said. He was struck near the median, which is a popular spot for panhandlers seeking cash
from motorists along interstates 85 and 77 in Charlotte. North Carolina court records show Foust was found guilty
seven times of soliciting or begging for money. The driver, Donivan Jarrett Winters, 25, of Gastonia, has been
charged with driving while impaired, felony death by vehicle and hit and run, police said. Jail records also show
he was charged with resisting an officer.
'
PREVIOUS: Driver charged with DWI in fatal pedestrian crash

However, it was unclear whether Foust was actually homeless. Court records show he often claimed to live in a
neighborhood
J,,
off Brookshire Boulevard near Hovis Road. And a Charlotte database system of people who've
used the Men's Shelter of Charlotte and Room in the Inn shelter program did not show Foust had been a client,
officials said. The incident happened at about 3 a.m. Friday. Officers said they arrived to find Foust lying in the
roadway and his sign nearby. A preliminary investigation found that the suspect's vehicle, a 2006 Ford F-150,
was traveling northwest on Brookshire Boulevard when it struck Foust near the median, officials said. The vehicle
then left the scene, police said. It's the second time in the past 12 months that someone has died panhandling on
one of Charlotte's busy interstate ramps near uptown.

In August of2016, the Observer reported a man died panhandling on the Interstate 77 southbound ramp onto
Nations Ford Road. The North Carolina Highway Patrol said the man was in the middle of the two left tum lanes
when his pants got caught by a truck hauler. The man was dragged beneath the hauler and run over by its tires,
according to a trooper at the scene. The truck driver, who was hauling wood, had no idea he'd run over the man,
the trooper said. Panhandling is a growing problem in Charlotte's uptown area, prompting complaints from civic
leaders. The Observer's news partner, WBTV, reported in the Spring that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police had
conducted three undercover panhandling operations since January. Police told WBTV they believe uptown
panhandlers are primarily homeless, and also suffer from a dual diagnosis of either substance abuse or mental
health issues.

Panhandler near Charlotte interstate ramp

killed by suspected drunk driver Saturday,
27
August 12th 2017, 8:28am MDTSaturday,
August 12th 2017, 8:28am MDT By The
Charlotte Observer Staff
CHARLOTIE, NC (Mark Price/The Charlotte Observer)-

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police believe the pedestrian killed early Friday on the Brookshire Boulevard near
Interstate 85 was panhandling at the time ofhis death. Nefertiti Carial Foust, 53, was pronounced dead at the
scene by Medic, police said. He was struck near the median, which is a popular spot for panhandlers seeking cash
from motorists along interstates 85 and 77 in Charlotte. North Carolina court records show Foust was found guilty
seven times of soliciting or begging for money. The driver, Donivan Jarrett Winters, 25, of Gastonia, has been
charged with driving while impaired, felony death by vehicle and hit and run, police said. Jail records also show
he was charged with resisting an officer.

However, it was unclear whether Foust was actually homeless. Court records show he often claimed to live in a
neighborhood off Brookshire Boulevard near Hovis Road. And a Charlotte database system of people who've
used the Men's Shelter of Charlotte and Room in the Inn shelter program did not show Foust had been a client,
officials said. The incident happened at about 3 a.m. Friday. Officers said they arrived to find Foust lying in the
roadway and his sign nearby.

A preliminary investigation found that the suspect's vehicle, a 2006 Ford F-150, was traveling northwest on
Brookshire Boulevard when it struck Foust near the median, officials said. The vehicle then left the scene,
police said. It's the second time in the past 12 months that someone has died panhandling on one of
Charlotte's busy interstate ramps near uptown. In August of 2016, the Observer reported a man died
panhandling on the Interstate 77 southbound ramp ontoNations Ford Road. The North Carolina Highway
Patrol said the man was in the middle of the two left tum lanes when his pants got caught by a truck hauler.
The man was dragged beneath the hauler and run over by its tires, according to a trooper at the scene. The
truck driver, who was hauling wood, had no idea he'd run over the man, the trooper said.

Panhandling is a growing problem in Charlotte's uptown area, prompting complaints from civic leaders.
Cedar Rapids police say Bonnie Schliemann, 60, was hit by a car on Wednesday night while crossing Collins
Road at Northland Avenue NE. Schliemann is charged with crossing at other than a crosswalk and the driver of
the car is charged with no insurance. Police say Schliemann entered the unmarked crosswalk without yielding to
traffic on Collins Road that had a green light. Witnesses tell police Schliemann was panhandling at the
intersection before the accident. Police cited the driver of the vehicle for not having car insurance. Glen, the
panhandler who stakes claim to the median strip at Sycamore St. and Washington Blvd., got injured on the job.
On the morning of Saturday, Aug. 26, a motorist struck a nearby traffic sign and knocked it out of the ground.
Glen dove out of the way but was struck on the head, sending him to the hospital with a concussion.Glen is back
collecting quarters at his favored public location, an endeavor that clearly can be dangerous.

21
 Pedestrian Stuck By Car:
Philadelphia: His name was Richard Lee Cooper. He was 64-years-old. He was killed this morning when the driver
of an SUV lost control coming down the hill on Middlebrook Road from Waring Station Road and struck h'im as he
was standing in the median. Richard Lee Cooper was listed by Montgomery County Police as being from an
unconfirmed address. The incident happened at approximately 10:44 am, on Tuesday, June 20. 5th District officers
and Fire and Rescue personnel responded to the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Middlebrook Road for
the report of a pedestrian-involved collision.

According to police, the SUV was a silver 2003 Toyota Sequoia, driven by Rachelle Tankeu, 55, of Tilford Court
in Germantown, was traveling west on Middlebrook Road. At the intersection with Great Seneca Highway, the
Sequoia, for reasons still under investigation, left the roadway and struck a Cooper who was standing on the
median. After striking Cooper, the Sequoia struck a 1998 Ford Expedition that was attempting to make a left turn
from northbound Great Seneca Highway onto westbound Middlebrook Road. The driver of the Expedition is
identified as Gender Anelio Castillo Flores, 32, of Grey Eagle Court in Germantown. The drivers of both vehicles
and a passenger in the Ford were transported to a local hospital with serious injuries. Cooper was pronounced
deceased at the scene.

Investigators from the Collision Reconstruction Unit continue to investigate the incident. All lanes of
eastbound Middlebrook Road were closed. Great Seneca Highway was also closed in both directions from
Middlebrook to Wisteria Drive. The road closures lasted until about 3:34 pm when detectives completed the
investigation. This intersection was the scene of another multi-vehicle crash back on May 2, 2017. That crash
which happened during the evening rush involved seven vehicles and left six people, including an 11-month-old
infant and a 2-year-old girl with serious injuries. In that incident, the driver also lost control while traveling
westbound, down the hill, on Middlebrook Road. This also marks the second time that a panhandler has been
struck by a vehicle in the Germantown area. In March of 2015, a female panhandler suffered traumatic injuries
after being struck on Germantown Road at about 1:30 in the afternoon.

Dec 3, 2013 - The driver of the vehicle, a 53-year-old

man from East Grand Rapids, had exited ... The
crash was unavoidable for the driver, she said.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (KCRG-TV9) -- A pedestrian and the driver of the car that hit her both face charges
in a Wednesday night accident on Collins Road say Cook County prosecutors said Tuesday that Jones, 73, was
panhandling in a section of North Avenue in the Noble Square neighborhood when he was hit and killed in a
chain-reaction rash caused by a drunk driver who ran a red light. After making his wife of 40 years a pot of
coffee and kissing her goodbye, Charlie Jones left his Valparaiso, Ind., home early Sunday morning, headed to
Chicago on what he said was a trip to look for a new car, his wife said. But Cook County prosecutors said
Tuesday that Jones, 73, was panhandling in a section ofNorth Avenue in the Noble Square neighborhood when
he was hit and killed in a chain-reaction crash caused by a drunk driver who ran a red light. Jones' wife,
Barbara, said she'd never known her husband to panhandle despite losing his right leg 18 years ago to
complications from diabetes. He was an optimist," she said. "Every morning he'd put that leg on and do
something- odd jobs, something." Prosecutors charged Manuel Guerrero-Lopez, 26, a construction worker
from the South Side, with aggravated driving under the influence in connection with Jones' death. Judge Laura
Sullivan set bail Tuesday at $250,000.

A Mexican national driving on a temporary license, Guerrero-Lopez was westbound on North Avenue when he
27
ral1 a red light at the Kennedy Expressway ramp at about 6:30a.m., said Assistant State's Attorney Robert Mack.
The 2004 Volkswagen Tourareg SUV he was driving then struck a stopped Toyota Camry exiting southbound
from the ramp, causing the SUV to flip on its passenger side and slide into Jones. Guerrero-Lopez was taken to
Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center for treatment and found to have a blood-alcohol level of .161,
double the legal limit of 0.08. A witness in the Camry identified Guerrero-Lopez as the driver and sole
occupant of the Volkswagen, Mack said, and Guerrero-Lopez later admitted to drinking before the crash.

Barbara Jones said she learned her husband had been killed from her son, who police contacted after finding his
number in his father's cell phone. "I just lost it," she said. "I said it couldn't be him."But Jones said she would
forgive Guerrero-Lopez for ending the life of a man who had been a stepfather to her five children- adopting the
two youngest himself. The couple also had seven grandchildren and a great- grandchild. "My husband would
forgive anyone for anything," she said.

Panhandler Killed in Middlebrook Road Crash

June 20, 2017
By Kevin O'Rourke

Most residents had seen him. Many had given him a dollar or two. Many expected the grizzled, rail-thin man who
would shuffle up the median on Middlebrook Road and give each car a shaky wave. Maybe we'd pretend we
didn't see him and look away. He won't be standing at that location anymore.
she was standing in the median. Richard Lee Cooper was listed by Montgomery County Police as being from an
unconfirmed address. The incident happened at approximately 10:44 am, on Tuesday, June 20. 5th District officers
and Fire and Rescue personnel responded to the intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Middlebrook Road for
the report of a pedestrian-involved collision.

According to police, the SUV was a silver 2003 Toyota Sequoia, driven by Rachelle Tankeu, 55, of Tilford Court
in Germantown, was traveling west on Middlebrook Road. At the intersection with Great Seneca Highway, the
Sequoia, for reasons still under investigation, left the roadway and struck a Cooper who was standing on the median.
After striking Cooper, the Sequoia struck a 1998 Ford Expedition that was attempting to make a left turn from
northbound Great Seneca Highway onto westbound Middlebrook Road. The driver of the Expedition is identified as
Gender Anelio Castillo Flores, 32, of Grey Eagle Court in Germantown.

The drivers of both vehicles and a passenger in the Ford were transported to a local hospital with serious
injuries. Cooper was pronounced deceased at the scene.Investigators from the Collision Reconstruction Unit
continue to investigate the incident. All lanes of eastbound Middlebrook Road were closed. Great Seneca
Highway was also closed in both directions from Middlebrook to Wisteria Drive. The road closures lasted
until about 3:34 pm when detectives completed the investigation. This intersection was the scene of another
multi-vehicle crash back on May 2, 2017. That crash which happened during the evening rush involved seven
vehicles and left six people, including an 11-month-old infant and a 2-year-old girl with serious injuries. In
that incident, the driver also lost control while traveling westbound, down the hill, on Middlebrook Road.

This also marks the second time that a panhandler has been struck by a vehicle in the Germantown area. In March
of 2015, a female panhandler suffered traumatic injuries after being struck on Germantown Road at about 1:30 in the
afternoon.

23
Prosecutors: Drunk driver caused crash that killed
panhandler
After making his wife of 40 years a pot of coffee and kissing her goodbye, Charlie Jones left his Valparaiso,
Ind., home early Sunday morning, headed to Chicago on what he said was a trip to look for a new car, his wife
said. "There's no question the police are doing a great job trying to do what they can do, but we need to give
them more tools, Gatsas said. That ordinance, modeled on one in Concord, would prohibit exchanges between
II

pedestrians and vehicles. Officials said the rule avoids conflict with First Amendment rights by making no
mention of panhandling or solicitation.

MANCHESTER, NH- Woman "panhandling"

charged with disorderly conduct drivers by
rushing into the road causing crash.
Alyssa Ramalho, 26, no fixed address, was charged in the incident. Bail was set at $300 cash or surety during an
arraignment March 26. Police say Officer Mark Harrington was working a paid detail at Bridge and Ash streets
on March 25, at 1:10 p.m. when he witnessed a minor car crash involving two vehicles at Beech and Bridge
streets. According to the police report, Detective Harrington spoke with the two drivers, Angelo Cartagena, 55,
<j.nd Nicole Cannistraro, 20, both ofManchester. Cartagena told police he was stopped at the traffic light on Beech
Street, north of Bridge Street, and engaged in a conversation with a panhandler who rushed out to get a dollar
from him, causing a distraction which led to the accident. Based on the investigation, Detective Harrington
determined Ramalho was partially at fault for the accident, so he placed her into custody and charged her with
disorderly conduct. Ramalho, who was recently released on bail for violation of a protective order, was also
charged for the bail violation. Panhandling, which has been more visible in the city due to the increase in drug
use, is not a violation of city ordinance, however city officials are considering enacting a panhandling ordinance,
the Union Leader reports.
"·

Panhandler Killed in Middlebrook Road Crash

June 20, 2017
By Kevin O'Rourke

Most residents had seen him. Many had given him a dollar or two. Many expected the grizzled, rail-thin man who
would shuffle up the median on Middlebrook Road and give each car a shaky wave. Maybe we'd pretend we
didn't see him and look away. He won't be standing at that location anymore. His name was Richard Lee Cooper.
He was 64-years-old. He was killed this morning when the driver of an SUV lost control coming down the hill on
Middlebrook Road from Waring Station Road and struck him. A program that launched this summer, known as
the Misdemeanor Repeat Offender Program,encourages officers to connect runaways, mentally ill and those
without serious criminal backgrounds to city social workers. Giordano stressed that the group that formed the
new ordinance did not seek to end panhandling. "We wanted to make sure we weren't targeted any one group.
Panhandling is protected free speech," Giordano said. Benham, who has lived on the streets for five years,
makes his living by panhandling. He'll stop by churches for a free meal occasionally, but he said he made a
promise to himself years ago that he was going to at least make enough money to choose where he eats. The
former Fry's employee actually found panhandling brought in up to $100 a day or so a few years ago, but
27
lately the amounts are much smaller. He said he was accustomed to police officers waiving him off the
medians in the past. But with the added fines and enforcement?

Tulare pedestrian hit by car dies, police urge caution

Sheyanne N Romero, sromero@visaliatimesdelta.com Published 2:59p.m. PT Aug. 14, 2017 I Updated 3:02p.m. PT Aug.
14,2017

A 34-year-old man became the latest person to die in a string of pedestrian-involved collisions in Tulare.
Officers are using the death to remind residents of the dangers of distracted walking. There is an increase in
traffic-related collisions that involve pedestrians versus vehicles, Tulare Sgt. Andrew Garcia said. "Pedestrians
should always use signaled crosswalks when possible," he said. On Friday morning, Tulare police were called
to North Mooney Boulevard just north of Cartmill Avenue. When officers arrived, they found the body of Joel
Flores. Police believe the Tulare man was outside the crosswalk when 21-year-old Ericka Borges hit him with
her GMC Acadia. Borges was heading south on Mooney when Flores walked in front of her car, police said.
Borges was unable to avoid the collision. "We are awaiting a toxicology report on Flores," Garcia added. Police
are not pursuing criminal charges against Borges.

Lincoln Police Release Narne of Pedestrian Killed by

suv
May 1, 2017, at 12:08 p.m.
L'INCOLN, Neb. (AP)-Authorities have released the name of a pedestrian who died after being struck by a
sptlrt utility vehicle in Lincoln.The accident occurred around 2:30a.m. Sunday. Police Capt. Danny Reitan says
th'e SUV was northbound on North 56th Street in north Lincoln when it hit the woman as she walked into traffic
at' an intersection. Police identified her Monday as 28-year-old Alanna Sanderson, who lived in Lincoln. Reitan
s'ays the 20-year-old SUV driver hasn't been cited.
!l

Pedestrian dies after getting hit by car in east

Bakersfield: May 16th
UPDATE: The Kern County coroner's office on May 16, 2017, identified this pedestrian as 36-year-old Alison
Brown. She died the day after the collision at a hospital. The original story, published May 13, is below. ----
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) -- A woman is in critical condition after being hit by a car Friday night
in east Bakersfield. Officers were called to the intersection of Union Avenue and Texas Street around 9:30 p.m.,
where they found a woman suffering from injuries. She was immediately taken to a hospital. An
investigation revealed that the woman stepped off the center median, outside of a crosswalk, to get across Union
right into the path of an oncoming car. The driver of the car is uninjured, and police say it does not appear that
they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

25
UPDATE: Pedestrian injured in Sedalia vehicle
accident
A Sedalia woman was injured after she was struck by a vehicle Thursday afternoon at the intersection of South
Ohio Avenue and West Broadway Boulevard According to a Sedalia Police Department report, at 3:46 p.m.
Florencia Agostina Aonzo, 18, ofthe 3400 block of Brooklyn Avenue, was completing a left tum from
northbound Ohio to westbound Broadway when she struck a pedestrian, Nancy Corine Sims VanBuren, 54, of
the 400 block of West Broadway Boulevard, who was walking north across the inside lane of Broadway, just
west of the intersection. Aonzo said VanBuren was walking outside the marked crosswalk, but VanBuren told
officers she was walking northbound in the crosswalk along the west side of Ohio. She said she proceeded across
the road after using the crosswalk button and the road signs indicated it was safe to cross. She had just crossed
the median when she was struck on her right side by Aonzo's vehicle.A witness said she saw VanBuren running
northbound across Broadway along the west edge of Ohio when Aonzo made a left tum, but that VanBuren was
traveling west of the designated crosswalk. VanBuren was taken by the Pettis County
Ambulance District to Bothwell Regional Health Center with pain in her head, left shoulder, left upper arm and
back.

13-year-old boy killed in Herriman auto-pedestrian

crash
By Ben Lockhart I Posted Nov 1st, 2016 @ 6:17pm

HERRIMAN-A 13-year-old Riverton boy died Tuesday after being hit by a car in Herriman. Unified police
reported the boy was hit about 3:45p.m. close to the intersection of Bobcat Drive (5085 West) and Main Street
(12765 South). The boy, a Copper Mountain Middle School student, had just stepped offthe median on Main
Street when he was hit by a westbound driver who didn't see him, Unified police detective Ken Hansen said.
The boy was crossing the street from the south side to the north side at the time. Police initially found "nothing
suspicious" on the part of the male driver's involvement, Hansen said, but he noted the accident scene was still
being reconstructed Tuesday and that the investigation will take a few weeks. The boy was not in a crosswalk
when he was hit, he said. A medical helicopter was dispatched to the scene at one point, but the boy was

27
UPDATE: Eyewitness Shares Account Of
Fatal Pedestrian Accident; Driver Faces
Two Felony ChargesMay 23,2017 by Bethany Hooper
OCEAN CITY - A man who performed lifesaving efforts on a pedestrian killed along Coastal
Highway described the scene of the fatal accident this week that has resulted in two felony charges
against a motorist. Ocean City Police Department (OCPD) officers and EMS personnel responded to
the scene of a fatal pedestrian collision that occurred near the intersection of 45th Street and Coastal
Highway at 2:24 a.m. Sunday. According to police, the pedestrian, identified as James R. Ednie, 23, of
Kelton, Pa., was crossing Coastal Highway from west to east when he was struck by an oncoming
vehicle traveling northbound. Ednie did not use a crosswalk at the time of the collision. The OCPD
said nearby witnesses initiated lifesaving efforts before police and EMS arrived at the scene. Ednie was
transported to Atlantic General Hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The driver, Stanley J. Faison, 50, of Waldorf, Md., was arrested and charged with two felonies-
homicide by motor vehicle/vessel while impaired by alcohol and negligent auto/boat HMCD under
influence-in addition to negligent driving, reckless driving, driving while impaired by alcohol and
driving while under the influenceof alcohol. Tony, an eyewitness who requested his last name be
omitted from this article, told The Dispatch that he was visiting Ocean City the weekend of the
collision and was with friends at the comer of 45th Street oceanside when the accident occurred. In the
hours preceding the event, Tony witnessed several individuals ffuling to use crosswalks. Nearing the
time ofthe collision, he said two females crossed Coastal Highway and that one stood in the bus lane
waiting for a man standing in the median to cross the street. That man was identified as Ednie. Tony
said Ednie was intoxicated and was standing in the median strip, egging cars to do burnouts. When he
crossed Coastal Highway, Tony said a classic car hit him and flung him 30 feet into the highway. Tony
said he and others rushed to the pedestrian and performed CPR. "Everybody started screaming," he
said. Tony said the driver of the car, identified as Faison, was not speeding at the time of the accident
andhad the green light. He described the car as going the same speed as the bus that was traveling next
to it.
"It was like a deer running out in front of a car," he said. "You don't hit the brakes until it's
already in front of you." Tony said Faison was visibly upset by the collision. "He said, 'I'm sorry, I
didn't know what it was,"' he relayed. Following the collision, Tony said he, a New Jersey police
officer and a woman performed CPR until police and paramedics arrived at the scene. "His pulse came
in and came back out," he said. Tony said police abd EMT continued CPR efforts when they arrived at
the scene. "It was not a good way to end the weekend," he said. Tony explained that he's been coming
to Cruisin' OC since 1995, but said it was not the first time he has witnessed a fatal accident at the
annual event.

28
Tucson police ID'd pedestrian killed on
north side
A 57-year-old woman was killed Friday morning when she was struck by a car near Tucson Mall.
The woman was identified as Maria Martinez-Saavedra, said Sgt. Pete Dugan, a Tucson Police
Department spokesman. Shortly after 6 a.m., police and Tucson Fire Department paramedics
responded to the 200 block of West Wetmore Road for a report of a serious injury crash involving a
pedestrian. The crash occurred east ofNorth Oracle Road. Officers found a woman in the roadway
who was receiving CPR from a person. Paramedics took over treatment, but the woman was
pronounced dead at the scene, said Dugan. The driver of the vehicle was not injured and remained at
the scene. Traffic detectives determined that the driver of a 2013 Chrysler 200 was traveling east on
Wetmore from Oracle.

Man dies after getting hit by vehicle

Adam SacasaSun Sentinel
A man died Wednesday after stepping off a median into traffic near a busy Tamarac intersection,
according to a Broward Sheriffs news release. David Miller, 69, of Tamarac, was struck at about
6:30a.m. on Nob Hill Road, just north of McNab Road, after walking into the path of a 2001 Dodge
Ram driven by Johan Chotoo, 22, of Tamarac, authorities said. Miller was pronounced dead at the
scene. Chotoo, who wasn't injured, stayed at the scene after the crash, according to the release. The
crash shut down the northbound lanes ofNob Hill for several hours. The investigation continues.

No charges for Silverthorne driver who

struck pedestrian after he ran into
highway
Silverthorne Co.
The Silverthorne Police Department will not be filing charges against a driver who struck a man
said to have run into oncoming traffic on Blue River Parkway on Saturday evening, Sept. 2. The
man, an unidentified 28- year-old, sustained life-threatening injuries in the accident. He is alive but
still being treated, police said. According to a news release, the man ran across the northbound lane
of the highway between the intersections
of Third and Fourth streets at around 8:07p.m. After reaching the median, he then ran into the
southbound lane, where a vehicle struck him. Silverthorne Police sergeant Misty Higby said the
vehicle was going the speed
limit, which is 35 miles per hour in that area. She could not say whether or not police believed the
man was intoxicated, although an eyewitness said at the time that he had just exited a liquor store
before running into the highway. The incident drew a large emergency response and forced a closure
of Blue River Parkway in both
directions for several hours. Silverthorne police and the Colorado State Patrol are still investigating
the incident.

27
Pedestrian Dies After Being Struck By
Vehicle in Germantown,
Two major automobile accidents occurred Tuesday morning in Montgomery County, including one
in which a pedestrian was killed, authorities said. Around 10:45 a.m., officers responded to the
intersection of Great Seneca Highway and Middlebrook Road in Germantown for the report of a
pedestrian-involved collision, Montgomery County police said in a statement. An investigation
showed a 2003 Toyota Sequoia driven by 55-
year-old Rachelle Tankeu, of Germantown, was traveling west on Middlebrook Road when it struck
64-year-old

Richard Lee Cooper, a pedestrian standing on the median who died at the scene, the statement said.
The cause of the crash is under investigation, and Cooper's address was unconfirmed, according to the
statement. After striking the pedestrian, the Sequoia struck a 1998 Ford Expedition driven by 32-year-
old Gender Anelio Castillo Flores, of Germantown, who was making a left tum from northbound
Great Seneca Highway on to westbound Middlebrook Road, police said.

28
 PART 5: Supporting Academic Articles and Executive Summaries
The following section includes recently published academic articles about pedestrian-caused injuries and
fatalities. This section is comprised of articles that include the following information:
• Data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute
(IIHSHLDI) that outlines how pedestrian crashes have changed in nature since the 1970s.
• Important safety reminders from the NHTSA (for both pedestrians and drivers)
• Research from a scholarly journal called the Accident Analysis and Prevention that focuses on
Propensity of younger adults (College Students) to exhibit risky pedestrian behavior.
• A chapter from the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities that focuses on
design.
• A comprehensive review of pedestrian safety research in the United States and abroad conducted by the
Federal Highway Administration

Executive Summaries:
Article 1. Types of Pedestrian Crashes that have Changed since the 1970. (October 2000) and Pedestrians
and Bicyclists.
The authors recommend widespread implementation of measures to reduce conflicts between
turning vehicles and pedestrians at urban intersections. In 2 0 0 0 Pedestrians accounted for 13%
of motor vehicle deaths in 1998 and 68% of fatal pedestrian crashes occurred in in urban areas,
Twenty-three percent of all fatally injured pedestrians in 1976 were younger than 15. Now only
10% are that young. T he number of pedestrian deaths among 30-49 year-olds has increased.
Pedestrians a r e culpable in 50% of crashes. Drivers were at fault in 39%. Both were found
culpable in 1% while culpability was unknown in the other 10% of crashes. Pedestrians were
almost always judged culpable in midblock and intersection dash crashes, the kind involving
a pedestrian who appears suddenly in the path of a vehicle. But among the other crash types
identified - turning vehicle, vehicle backing up, and pedestrian not in road -drivers usually
were more at fault.

Article 2: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data:

On the following pages is a narrative that provides a definition for a pedestrian as used by
NHTSA the Federal Agency involved in Pedestrian Safety. The definition includes any person on
foot, walking, running, jogging, hiking, sitting or lying down who is involved in a motor vehicle traffic
crash. The following tables report that almost three-fourths (73%) of pedestrian fatalities occurred in an
urban setting versus a rural setting. Over two-thirds (70%) of pedestrian fatalities occurred at non-
intersections versus at intersections. Eighty-nine percent of pedestrian fatalities occurred during
normal weather conditions (clear/cloudy), as compared to rain, snow and foggy conditions. A
majority of the pedestrian fatalities, 70%, occurred during the nighttime. The report also includes
safety procedures for pedestrians, that provide objectives for pedestrian enforcement laws. These
include:
 Walk on a sidewalk or path whenever one is available.
 If there is no sidewalk or path available, wa l k facing traffic (on the left side of the road) on the
shoulder, as far away from traffic as possible. Keep alert at all times; don't be distracted by electronic
devices, including radios, smart phones and other devices that take your eyes (and ears) off the road
environment.
 Be cautious night and day when sharing the road with vehicles. Never assume a driver sees you (he or
she could be distracted, undder the influence of alcohol and / or drugs, or just not seeing you). Try to
make eye contact with drivers as they approad1 you to make sure you are seen
31
  Be predictable as a pedestrian. Cross streets at crosswalks or intersections whenever possible. This is
where drivers expect pedestrians.
 If a crosswalk or intersection is not available, locate a well-lit area, wait for a gap in traffic that
allows you enough time to cross safely, and continue to watch for traffic as you cross.
 Stay off of freeways, restricted-access highways and other pedestrian-prohibited roadways.
 Be visible at all times. Wear bright clothing during the day, and wear reflective materials or use a
flash light at night.
 Avoid alcohol and drugs when walking; they impair your abilities and judgment too.

Article 3: Attentional Control, High Intensity Pleasure and Risky Pedestrian Behavior in
College Students.
The article reviews the role that maturity levels of young adults, have in pedestrian
safety with college students serving as the study group. An individual's capacity to
focus and shift attention is believed to play a significant role in transportation safety.
Sensation-seeking refers to the tendency to desire and seek complex, varied, novel, and
rapidly moving or changing sensations and experiences. High intensity pleasure is
cited as a correlate to risky behavior. Individuals scoring high on high intensity pleasure
are more likely to drive quickly, recklessly, or while intoxicated. Recognition that
individual difference traits such as poor attentional control are linked to increased
pedestrian safety risk suggests pedestrian planners should consider ways to increase
the control of the attention for a pedestrian crossing a street. Barriers to prevent mid-
block crossings, strict enforcement of jaywalking laws, use of natural as well as visual
signals to represent safe crossing opportunities at intersections, and traffic calming, are
all strategies that might increase attention control

Article 4: Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Chapter
3. Pedestrian Facility Design:

Provides an inventory of the minimum design practices for the engineering measures that should
be included in a toolbox

32
ARTICLES

II S Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Highway Loss Data Institute

LDI
Status Report, Vol. 35, No. 9 1 October 21, 2000

Types of pedestrian crashes have

changed since the 1970s
There should be widespread implementation of measures to reduce conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians
at urban intersections. This is the conclusion of a new study, sponsored by the Institute, that takes a fresh look at
where and how pedestrians are being struck. Pedestrians accounted for 13 percent of motor vehicle deaths in 1998.
The problem is worst in urban areas, where 68 percent of pedestrian deaths occur. As big a problem as this is, it
represents an improvement since 1976. Pedestrian deaths have declined 30 percent since then compared with a 5
percent decline in all other vehicle deaths.

Fewer deaths among young people

There are other changes, too. Twenty-three percent of all fatally injured pedestrians in 1976 were younger than 15.
Now only 10 percent are that young. At the same time, the number of pedestrian deaths among 30- 49 year-olds has
increased. This shift indicates a change in the crash types that are occurring, says Institute senior vice president Allan
Williams. "We see many fewer children running into the street and being struck - so-called midblock dart-dash
crashes-but we're also seeing more adults who are legally crossing at intersections and being hit by turning vehicles."

Researchers collected 1998 crash statistics from Baltimore and Washington, D.C. In Washington, similar data were
collected in 1976, allowing the direct comparisons. In the mid-1970s, midblock dart-dash crashes made up 37 percent
of pedestrian crashes in Washington. By 1998, the proportion had declined to 15 percent in Washington and 18
percent in Baltimore. Twenty-five percent of all Washington pedestrians involved in crashes during 1998 were 14 or
younger, compared with 46 percent in 1976. Turning-vehicle crashes increased from 9 percent of Washington's
pedestrian crashes in 1976 to 25 percent in 1998. These impacts involved primarily pedestrians 25 years and older.

Who's at fault?
Researchers found the pedestrians culpable in 50 percent of crashes. Drivers were at fault in 39 percent. Both were
found culpable in 1 percent, while culpability was unknown in the other 10 percent of crashes. Pedestrians were almost
always judged culpable in midblock and intersection dash crashes, the kind involving a pedestrian who appears
suddenly in the path of a vehicle. But among the other crash types identified - turning vehicle, vehicle backing
up, and pedestrian not in road -drivers usually were more at fault.

Measures to reduce crashes

"The development of safety measures in the 1970s and '80s focused primarily on child pedestrians because of the
prevalence of midblock dart-dash crashes," says David Preusser of the Preusser Research Group, which conducted
the study. "Today we need a new focus on measures that will reduce the number of pedestrians hit by turning
vehicles." For example, traffic signals can be changed to let pedestrians begin crossing a street several seconds
before turning vehicles get a green light. Stop lines can be placed farther back from crosswalks at traffic signals to
increase the time it takes for the first vehicles to enter intersections.

31
 Such measures, "have great potential to improve the problem of turning vehicles hitting pedestrians, but they're not
widely used," Williams notes (see Status Report special issue: pedestrian injuries, March 13, 1999).

Pedestrian crashes in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore

Research paper

More on pedestrians and bicyclists

Also in this issue

Regulators mull hours-of-service changes

Expensive simulator is nearly complete

. l Book confirms safety belts are American

Media contact
Russ Rader
Senior Vice President, Communications

rrader@iihs.org
office +1 703 247 1530
mobile +1 202 257 3591

For more information, visit our press room.

©1996-2016, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute I www.iihs.org
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...

II S Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Highway Loss Data Institute

LDI
Vehicle factors also are important. Most serious injuries result from pedestrians hitting vehicle bumpers, hoods, or the
windshield area. Serious head, pelvis and leg injuries are common, and the severity of such injuries may be mitigated through
improved vehicle design.> In addition, some vehicles are equipped with crash avoidance technologies that detect pedestrians
and may automatically brake the vehicle prior to impact. Although these technologies have the potential to reduce the
likelihood of serious injuries to pedestrians, their effectiveness in real-world crashes is unknown.

The following facts are based on analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS).

Posted November 2016.

Data subsections:

Trends Age and gender Alcohol Where they died When they died

2 of 11 9/20/2017,5:24 PM
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact.

Trends

A total of 5,376 pedestrian deaths occurred in 2015. Although pedestrian fatalities in 2015 were 28 percent lower than in
1975, they increased 9 percent from 2014 and were at their highest level since 1996. Pedestrian deaths have increased
31 percent since reaching their lowest point in 2009.

Pedestrian deaths and other motor vehicle crash deaths, 1975 -2015
50,000

+ Other deaths
..... Pedestrian deaths
40,000

30.000

20,000

10,000
.............................. ...............................
0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Pedestrian deaths and other motor vehicle-

crash;-=· 1975-2015
deaths '-
1 Pedestrian deaths-- Other deaths All motor vehicle deaths
-
Year Number Number % Number - "{'!
%
1975 7,516 17 37,009 83 44,525 100
-
1976 7,427 16 38,096 84 45,523 100
--
"1977 7,732 16 40,146 84 47,878
i 100 !
1978 7,795 15 42,536 85 50,331 I 100 i
..
1--

1979
1980
-
8,070
8,096
16
16
43,021
42,997
84
84
51,091
51,093
--

-
+- 100
100

1--
r
-j
1981 7,837 16 41,464 84 49,301 100

1982 7,331 17 36,614 83 43,945 I 100

1983 6,826 16 35,763 84

-
42,589 100
1984 r
7,025 16 37,232 84 44,257 100
1985 6,808 16 37,017 84 43,825 100 I
1986 6,779 15 39,308 85 46,087 100
r-- t-- -- +- -· - -
1987 I 6,745 15 39,645 85 46,390 100
-
1988 6,870 15 40,217 85 47,087 100

1989 6,556 14 39,026 86 45,582

--
100
I- --
1990 6,482 15 38,117 85 44,599 ' 100
I -,
1991 5,801 14 35,707 86 41,508 100

1992 5,549 14 I 33,701 86 I 39,250 100

1993 5,649
T
14 r 34,501
I
40,150 100
1994 5,489 13 35,227 j 87 I 40,716 100 '
1 1995
- -
I
5,584 13 36,233 I 87 I 41,817
- -
100
1996
---
5,449 13 36,616 I 87 ! 42,065
- -
100
- -
1997 5,321 13 36,692 I 87 42,013 100
--
1998 5,228 13 36,273 I 87 I 41,501 I 100
1999 4,939 12 36,778 88 41,717 100
-- -- --
--T I
-- - ---- - - - - -t-

1 of 11 9/20/2017, 5:24 P.tl

Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...
2000 4,763 11 37,182 89 41,945 100

2001 T 4,901 12 37,295 88 I 42,196 100

j 2002 l -
4,851 11 38,154
.I 89 I 43,005
- -
100

Pedestrian deaths and other motor vehicle crash deaths,1975-2015

Pedestrian deaths Other deaths All motor vehicle deaths
Year Number % Number % Number %
2003 4,774 11 38,110 89 42,884 100
2004 4,675 11 38,161 89 42,836 100
2005 4,892 11 38,618 89 43,510 100
2006 4,795 11 37,913 89 42,708 100
2007 4,699 11 36,560 89 41,259 100
2008 4,414 12 33,009 88 37,423 100
2009 4,109 12 29,774 88 33,883 100
2010 4,302 13 28,697 87 32,999 100
2011 4,457 14 28,022 86 32,479 100
2012 4,818 14 28,964 86 33,782 100
2013 4,779 15 28,115 85 32,894 100
2014 4,910 15 27,834 85 32,744 100
2015 5,376 15 29,716 85 35,092 100

Twenty percent of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred in hit-and-run crashes.

Pedestrian deaths by hit-and-run occurrenc;es, 2015

Number %
Not hit-and-run 4,278 80
Hit-and-run 1,090 20
Total* 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

28 of 9/20/2017, 5:24 PM
11
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact.

Age and gender

The rate of pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people decreased 51 percent from 1975 to 2015. The pedestrian death rate
for children ages 0-12 decreased 89 percent. Children this age had the second-highest pedestrian death rate in 1975 but
the lowest in 2015. The death rate for pedestrians 70 and older has declined 76 percent since 1975. Despite the large
decline, pedestrians this age had the highest death rate every year since 1975.

Pedestrian deaths per 1 00,000 people by age, 1975 - 2015

10

+ <13 years
..... 1 3-1 9 years
8 + 20-69 year s
"'*"' :, 70 years
6

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20 1 5

Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people by age, 1975-2015

Year - <13 years "!"" 13-19 years r 20-69 years 2: 70_years
f---+Population NumberR atljopulatioJ!... Number'Rateopulati Q!!_ Number',R_ateopulatioi}_,NumberRate
I 1
Total* ...,..---,.....,....,
,_E.opulatioi'L_,NumberRate
1975 45,851,304 1,632 3.6 29,795,023 796 2.7 125,762,927 3,656 2.9 14,563,945 1,348 9.3 215,973,199 7,516 3.5
-
1976 45,000,704 1,522 3.4 29,909,414 855 2.9 128,164,926 3,678 2.9 14,960,120 1,291 8.6 218,035,164 I 7,427 3.4
1977 44,337,332 1,390 3.1 29,800,313 835 2.8 13o,7oo.531 3,992 3.1 15,401,249 1,383 9.o 220,239,425 1 7,732 3.5 1
1978 43,907,467 1, 419 3.2 29,543,252 868 2.9 133,257,285 4,160 3.1 15,876,541 1,214 ._7_.-6J.._2_22,584,545 I 7,795 3.5 I
1979 43, 778,959 1.2_9_1-+_2._9-+-2_9_,o_7_7_
,6_o7 ,_9_2_
3-+ 3.2 +-1_3_
5,_81_o_,3_o_4-+_4_,4_3_7-+-3_.3
_+-1_6_,388,62.:_j77 L 7.8 225,055,487 8,096 3.6
-
1980 43,914,342 1,183 2.7 28,486,487 906 3.2 137,925,913 4, 461 3.2 16,897,977 1,344 1 8.0 227,224,719 8,070 3.6
1981 44,049,940 1 1,064 2.4 27,743,947 797 2.9 140,349,007 4,457 3.2 17,322,714 1,278 1 7.4 229,465,608 7,837 3.4
1982 44,131,596 9 t 2.2 27,160,586 79- 142,588,426 4,293 3.0 17,783,888 J 1,124 6.3 L231,664,496 7,331 3.2
1983 44.119.297 944 2.1 26,737,497 671 2.5 144,701, 358 4,026 2.8 18,233,751 1,081 T 5.9 233, 791,9ro 6,826 2.9
1---+---
43,978,044 2._1+-2_6...,:_4_3_5:,.8__
8
-5 t 6_1_
5 - +2- 4::'1_8_0-+-
2 .8+_18
.:.':.6..:_6:_2.:,_9_:3_,8;_-t-1-:'..1.__
64-+_6_.2+_2,3;_.5:.,:8_2_4.:,..7..:8.:.3..._t-1 7.,:0.:.2....5:.......j_3:_.0:_
.3+_14_6...,:_7_4_7:,_9_
16-t
1985 44,260,136 925 2.1 26,001 ,247 592 2.3 148,589,564 3,993 2 .1 19,072,785 1.110 I 6.1 I 237,923,732 6,808 2.9
1 1986 44,755,454 ' 913 ""f 2.0 25,592,481- r---sa 4-l- 2.3 1_5_o.:,.3
.._2.1...,: 4-26-+-4
.:,.o_o_5-l-2-.7-+ 19.463,4 1,161 j 5.9 240,132,841 6,779 2.8
1987 45,348,247 898 2.0 25, 209,615 518 2.1 151,840,344 4,091 2.7 19,890,817 1,160 5.8 242,289,023 6,745 2.8
--
1988 45,942,966 I 905
2.0 25,004,445 487 1.9 153,249,145 4,108 2.7 20,302,280 1, 271 6.3 244,498,836 6,870 2.8
-1--- +- -+--+-----!----+--1------1----li----+--------t 1'. 1
1989 46,690,604 786 1.1 24,664,3oo 421 1.1 154,744,818 4,o9o 2.6 20,719,397 1.18o 5.7 246,819,119 6,556 I 2.1
1990 47,472,527 768 1.6 24,404,795 423 1.7 156,422,791 4,019 2.6 21,164,283 1,195 5.6 I 249,464,396 I 6,482 I 2.6 '
1 1991 48,240,747 695 1.4 1 24,066,587 _43_7... f-1_.8_+_1_5_
8:,o_9
_3...,:.8_6_1-+_3...,:5._6_1+ 2_.3
_ _!--2-1.:,.7
.._5.1...,:_
89_7_ 1_1.:,.o_4_4- 4.8-, 252,153,092
:
5,801 1 2.3
!'1992 48,903,668 --635 -1 1.3 . 24,163,175 1 376 1.6 159,641,639 3.487 2.2 22,321,217 --' 4.5 -j 255,029,9 _0 549 2.2
1
1993 49,335,864 644 T 1.3 124,664,091[ 402 1.6 160,981,980 3,502 2.2 22,800,673 I 1,012 1 4.4 257,782 ,608 ' 5,649 2.2
49,692,462 659 1.3 25,219,838 355 1.4 1 162, 170,876 I 3,409 2.1 23,243,845 1,021 4.4 260,327,021 5,489 2.1
-r-- --
-r------r---+--t---...: -r---f--+-.:. : +-...: -+--+-_.:. :_ _:_--+---
1995 49 92o 484 597 1.2 25,764,3oo 389 I 1.5 · 163,424,735 3,543 2.2 23,693,757 1.oo8 4.3 262,803,276 5,584 2.1
1996 ' ' - -- i
t-----+-5_0.:,._0_8_
5,_18_8-+ -570_+-1-._1-+--2_6...:,_3_5_7:,_1_
98-+_3_6_2 -+1-_
.4--t-_
16_4...,:_7_2_9:,_8_63-+_ 3,:5_0_9-+_2_.1-+-_2:4_'05_6:_,3_2_3 ,__9_5_1-+ 4 .0-t-_2_65_':22_8.:,_5_7_2 --t-5,449 . 2.1
1997 50,364,983 513 1.0 26,730,812 371 1.4 166,278,995 3,457 2.1 24,408,817 I 931 3.8 1 267,783,607 5,321 2.0
1--- ---1---1- ---+-- -+-----+-- --+ :---+--+- --- -4
1998 50,527,476 464 ---' 0.: 27,174,728 351 1.3 167,752,248 3,399 2.0 24,793,551 965 : 270,248,003 5,228 1.9
!il 1999 50,667,139 449 0.9 ! 27,518,156 333 1.2 169,412,713 3,229 1.9 25,092,805 ' 885 3.5 r2n ,690,813 4,939 1.8
-- ----;·---+--r-----+---+--+----- ---1---+-.: : +---+--+-_.: : --+ :-
52,219,423 403 1 0.8 1 28,326,412 337 1.2 176,086,448 3,169 1 .8 25,559,879 1 807 3.2 282 ,192,162 4,763 1.7
I*Totallncludes other and/or unknowns

3 of 11 9/20/2017, 5:24 P1
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...

Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 people by age, 1975-2015

<13 years 13-19 years 20-69 years ;:: 70 years Total*
Year
Population NumberRate Population NumberRate Population NumberRate Population NumberRate Population NumberRate
2001 52,341,395 363 0.7 28,437,711 346 1.2 178,525,502 3,268 1.8 25,797,467 878 3.4 285,102,075 4,901 1.7
2002 52,332,306 317 0.6 28,644,313 353 1.2 180,959,275 3,291 1.8 26,005,326 845 3.2 287,941,220 4,851 1.7
2003 52,187,602 327 0.6 29,028,500 348 1.2 183,371,928 3,288 1.8 26,200,946 777 3.0 290,788,976 4,774 1.6
2004 52,151,406 293 0.6 29,400,392 305 1.0 185,766,088 3,273 1.8 26,337,518 763 2.9 293,655,404 4,675 1.6
2005 52,149,395 274 0.5 29,589,854 325 1.1 188,012,486 3,468 1.8 26,658,669 777 2.9 296,410,404 4,892 1.7
2006 52,306,908 267 0.5 29,772,198 314 1.1 190,434,580 3,465 1.8 26,884,798 707 2.6 299,398,484 4,795 1.6
2007 52,585,809 243 0.5 29,775,943 343 1.2 192,123,888 3,345 1.7 27,135,517 726 2.7 301,621,157 4,699 1.6
2008 52,929,779 215 0.4 29,710,307 320 1.1 193,898,604 3,246 1.7 27,521,034 603 2.2 304,059,724 4,414 1.5
2009 53,753,412 201 0.4 29,667,279 259 0.9 195,799,589 3,053 1.6 27,786,270 578 2.1 307,006,550 4,109 1.3
2010 52,943,218 212 0.4 30,324,338 295 1.0 197,645,261 3,150 1.6 27,832,721 628 2.3 308,745,538 4,302 1.4
2011 52,950,108 169 0.3 29,895,041 298 1.0 200,226,415 3,333 1.7 28,520,353 637 2.2 311,591,917 4,457 1.4
2012 52,872,572 208 0.4 29,632,228 289 1.0 202,241,237 3,593 1.8 29,168,003 707 2.4 313,914,040 4,818 1.5
2013 52,723,720 208 0.4 29,524,367 241 0.8 203,785,395 3,633 1.8 30,095,357 666 2.2 316,128,839 4,779 1.5
2014 52,666,129 167 0.3 29,469,473 267 0.9 205,803,509 3,699 1.8 30,917,945 729 2.4 318,857,056 4,910 1.5
2015 52,747,095 186 0.4 29,378,595 270 0.9 207,599,746 4,172 2.0 31,693,384 698 2.2 321,418,820 5,376 1.7
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

Seventy percent of pedestrians killed in 2015 were males, a proportion that has varied little since 1975.

Pedestrian deaths by gender, 1975-2015

Male · Female Total*
Year Number· % Number % Number %
1975 5,196 69 2,319 31 7,516 100
1976 5,120 69 2,307 31 7,427 100
1977 5,331 69 2,400 31 7,732 100
1978 5,494 70 2,296 29 7,795 100
........................ """""""" .............
1979 5,701 70 2,391 30 8,096 100
1980 5,613 70 2,454 30 8,070 100
1981 5,459 70 2,332 30 7,837 100
1982 5,144 70 2,185 30 7,331 100
1983 4,775 70 2,050 30 6,826 100
1984 5,016 71 2,005 29 7,025 100
1985 4,671 69 2,133 31 6,808 100
1986 4,771 70 2,004 30 6,779 100
1987 4,777 71 1,967 29 6,745 100
1988 4,756 69 2,111 31 6,870 100
1989 4,594 70 1,959 30 6,556 100
1990 4,495 69 1,985 31 6,482 100
1991 3,985 69 31 5,801 100
1992 70 5,549 100
1993 3,936 70 1,711 30 5,649 100
1994 3,757 1,732 32 5,489 100
1995 3,856 1,728 31 5,584 100
1996 3,780 1,667 31 5,449 100
1997 3,643 5,321 100
1998 3,558 5,228 100
1999 3,466 4,939 100
2000 3,251 32 4,763 100
2001 3,421 70 1,479 30 4,901 100
2002 3,298 68 1,552 32 4,851 100
2003 3,274 69 1,499 31 4,774 100
2004 3,237 69 1,435 31 4,675 100
2005 3,450 71 1,441 29 4,892 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

30 of 9/20/2017, 5:24PM
11
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact..

Pedestrian deaths by gender, 1975·2015

Year Male Female Total*
Number % Number % Number %
2006 3,332 69 1,459 30 4,795 100
2007 3,288 70 1,411 30 4,699 100
2008 3,078 70 1,331 30 4,414 100
2009 2,827 69 1,282 31 4,109 100
2010 2,961 69 1,339 31 4,302 100
2011 3,102 70 1,354 30 4,457 100
2012 3,337 69 1,478 31 4,818 100
2013 3,277 69 1,496 31 4,779 100
2014 3,426 70 1,477 30 4,910 100
2015 3,749 70 1,617 30 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

5 of 11 9/20/2017,5:24 p
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...

Alcohol

Forty-six percent of pedestrians 16 and older killed in nighttime (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) crashes in 2015 had blood alcohol
concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent, compared with 61 percent in 1982. The rate of high BACs among
pedestrians 16 and older killed in daytime (6 a.m. to 9 p.m.) crashes in 2015 was 25 percent, compared with 27 percent
in 1982.

Estimated number and percent of fatally injured pedestrians age 16 and older :with BACs:!! 0.08 percent by time of day, 1982-2015
l'jighttime (9 p.m.- 6 a.m.) . .. paytime (6 a.m. - 9 p.m.)
Year Estimated pedestrians killed with BACs :!! Estimated pedestrians killed with BACs :!!
Pedestrians killed 0.08 Pedestrians killed 0.08
·············Ni.imt>er········ ···· Number··········· ··;,.·········Ni:lriit>er ······ ····· ········· ·· ··Number· ····
1982 3,033 1,861 61 2,911 783 27
1983 2,612 1,684 64 2,940 27
1984 2,668 1,665 62 25
1985 2,467 1,528 62 3,040 717 24
1986 2,505 1,523 61 3,004 694 23
1987 2,521 1,446 57 3,035 710 23
1988 2,515 1,475 59 3,148 674 21
1989 2,422 1,445 725 23
1990 2,431 1,486 633 21
1991 2,201 1,295 584 22
1992 2,040 1,215 636 24
1993 2,031 1,212 630 23
1994 1,945 1,091 56 23
1995 2,041 1,150 56 23
1,165 58 24
1,041 55 21
1998 1,899 1,054 55 23
1999 1,871 1,071 57 2,423 566 23
2000 1,743 992 57 2,416 529 22
2001 1,856 980 566 23
2002 1,893 997 576 24
2003 1,843 1,000 545 22
2004 1,845 997 523 22
2005 1,968 1,056 54 2,462 492 20
2006 1,999 1,093 55 2,353 548 23
2007 1,932 1,036 54 2,344
2008 1,846 983 53 2,204
928 53 2,032
942 52 2,143
2011 1,001 53 2,256 530 23
2012 23
2013 2,031 50 2,418 554 23
2014 2,112 1,026 49 2,491 562 23
2015 2,332 1,082 46 2,701 687 25

32 of 9/20/2017, 5:24PM
11
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact..

Where they died

Seventy-six percent of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred in urban areas, up from 59 percent in 1975.

. . Pedestriandeathsby land use,1975·2015

Rural Total*
,Year Number Number
. o/· "- ·-····'··-' %
1975 4,401 59 3,115 41 7,516 100
4,409 59 3,013 41 7,427 100
4,997 65 2,711 35 7,732 100
1978 4,934 64 2,748 36 7,795 100
1979 100
1980 8,070 100
1981
1982
.1983
1984
1985
1986 4,580 32 6,779 100
1987
1988 4,650 68 2,216 32 100

·1991 4,053 70 1,738 30 5,801 100

100
100
1994 3,934 72 1,543 28 5,489 100
1995 3,914 70 1,644 30 5,584 100
1996 3,838 71 1,596 29 5,449 100
1997 5,321 100
100
1999 3,400 69 31 4,939 100
2000 3,298 71 1,376 29 4,763 100
2001 70 30 4,901 100
2002 100
2003 3,479 73 1,283
•2004 3,393 73 1,274 27 4,675 100
26 4,892 100
100
2007 3,442 74 1,236 26 100
2008 3,184 72 1,210 28 4,414 100
2009 2,947 72 1,146 28 4,109 100
2010 3,129 73 1,146 27 4,302 100
100
100
73 1,270 27 4,779 100
78 1,092 22 4,910 100
2015 3,704 76 1,160 24 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

Forty percent of pedestrian deaths among people 70 and older in 2015 occurred at intersections, compared with 24
percent for those younger than 70.

Pedestrian deaths by occurence at intersection and age, 2015

7 of 11 9/20/2017, 5:24 Plv

Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...

<13 years 13-19 years 20·69 years ;:: 70 years Total*

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Non-intersection 148 80 199 74 3,181 76 422 60 3,990 74
Intersection 38 20 71 26 991 24 276 40 1,386 26
Total* 186 100 270 100 4,172 100 698 100 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

Fifty-four percent of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred on major roads other than interstates and freeways.

Pedestrian deaths by road type, 2015

Road type Number %
Interstates and freeways 754 14
Other major roads 2,892 54
Minor roads 1,198 22
Unknown 532 10
All road types 5,376 100

In urban areas, 52 percent of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred on roads with speed limits of 40 mph or less; in rural
areas, 20 percent of deaths occurred on such roads.

Pedestriandeaths by speed limit and land use, 2015

Urban Rural Total*
Speed limit Number % Number % Number %
No limit 31 8 54
<35 mph 769 78 7 985 18
35·40 mph 1,143 149 13 1,476 27
45·50 mph 879 222 19 1,210 23
55+ mph 794 688 59 1,544 29
Unknown 88 2 15 107 2
Total* 3,704 100 1,160 100 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

lOofll 9/20/2017,5:24 PM
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact..

When they died: Twenty-six percent of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred in crashes between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.
and 23 percent occurred between 9 p.m. and midnight.

Pedestrian deaths by time of day, 2015

Deaths ,%
667 12
497 9
444 8
''''' " '" '

, 9 a.m.- noon 258 5

Noon-3 p.m. 304 6
3 p.m.·6 p.m. 542 10
6 p.m. -9 p.m. 1,405 26
9 p.m. • midnight 1,226 23
Total* 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

The largest proportions of pedestrian deaths in 2015 occurred on Friday and Saturday (16 percent each).

, Pedestrian deaths by day of week, 2015, ,,,,,

Day of week Deaths %
Sunday 752 14
Monday 734 14
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday 860 16
, Saturday 879 16
Total* 5,376 100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

Pedestrian deaths in 2015 were most frequent in October, November, and December (11 percent each).

Pedestrian deaths by month, 2015

Deaths %
January 510 9
February 373 7
March 411 8
April 340 6
May 354 7

August 391 7
September 492 9
October 578 11
November 572 11
December 601 11
Total 5,376 100

References
1 Mead, J.; Zegeer, C.; and Bushell, M. 2014. Evaluation of pedestrian-related roadway measures: a summary

of available research. Report no. DTFH61-11-H-00024. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
2 Daniel, S., Jr. 2004. The role of the vehicle front end in pedestrian impact protection. Pedestrian Safety (PT-112),

99-112. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

©1996-2016, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute 1 www.iihs.org

9 of 11 9/20/2017, 5:24 PN
Fatality Facts http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfact...

lOofll 9/20/2017,5:24 PM
eXU.S. Department
ot Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration

DOT HS 811 888 April 2014

Pedestrians
In 2012, 4,743 pedestrians were killed and an estimated 76,000 were injured in
traffic crashes in the United States (Tables 1 and 3). On average, a pedesh·ian was
killed every 2 hours and injured every 7 minutes in traffic crashes.
A pedestrian, as defined for the purpose of this Traffic Safety Fact Sheet, is any
person on foot, walking, running, jogging, hiking, sitting or lying down who In 2012,4,743
is involved in a motor vehicle traffic crash. Also, a traffic crash is defined as
m1 incident that involves one or more vehicles where at least one vehicle is in pedestrians died in
transport and the crash originates on a public trafficway. Crashes that occurred traffic crashes -
exclusively on private property, including parking lots and driveways, were
excluded. a 6-percent increase
The 4,743 pedestrian fatalities in 2012 represented an increase of 6 percent from the number
from 2011 and were the highest number of fatalities in the last 5 years. In 2012, reported in 2011.
pedestrim1deaths accow1ted for 14 percent of all traffic fatalities (Table 1), m1d
made up 3 percent of all the people injured in traffic crashes (Table 3).

Table 1
Total Fatalities and Pedestrian Fatalities in Traffic Crashes, 2003-2012
I Year Total Fatalities Pedestrian Fatalities Percent of Total Fatalities I
2003 42,884 4,774 11%
2004 42,836 4,675 11%
2005 43,510 4,892 11%
2006 42,708 4,795 11%
2007 41,259 4,699 11%
2008 37.423 4,414 12%
2009 33,883 4,109 12%
2010 32,999 4,302 13%
2011 32,479 4,457 14%
2012 33,561 4,743 14%

NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Je1'sey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
2

In 2012, almost three-fourths (73%) of pedestrian fatalities occurred in an urban

setting versus a rural setting. Over two-thirds (70%) of pedestrian fatalities
occurred at non-intersections versus at intersections. Eighty-nine percent of
pedestrian fatalities occurred during normal weather conditions (clear I cloudy),
compared to rain, snow and foggy conditions. A majority of the pedestrian
fatalities, 70 percent, occurred during the nighttime (6 p.m. -5:59a.m). Between
2011 and 2012 all these percentages stayed relatively level (Table 2).

Table 2
In 2012, pedestrian Percentage of Pedestrian Fatalities in Relation to land Use, Non-Motorist
location, Weather and Time of Day
deaths accounted for
14 percent of all traffic
Percentage of Pedestrians Killed l
Pedestrians Killed 2011 1 2012 I
fatalities in motor land Use
Rural 26% 26%
vehicle traffic crashes. Urban 73% 73%
Non-Motorist location
Intersection 20% 20%
Non-Intersection 70% 70%
Other 10% 10%
Weather I
Clear/Cloudy 88% 89%
Rain 8% 8%
Snow 1% 1%
Fog 1% 1%
Time of Day * I
Daytime 30% 30%
Nighttime 69% 70%
Note: Percentage of unknown values are not displayed.
• Daytime: 6 a.m.-5:59p.m. Nighttime: 6 p.m.-5:59a.m.

Age
Older pedestrians (age 65+) accmmted for 20 percent (935) of all pedestrian
fatalities and an estimated 9 percent (7,000) of all pedestrians injured in 2012. The
fatality rate for older pedestrians (age 65+) was 2.17 per 100,000 population-
higher than the rate for all the other ages t.mder 65 (Tables 3 and 4). Starting at age
45 the fatality rates are generally higher than they are in the yot.mger age groups. In
2012, people 65 and older made up only 14 percent of the country's population.

In 2012, the average age of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes was 46 and the
average age of those injured was 35. Over the past 10 years the average age of those
killed has remained almost unchanged, while the age of those injured has steadily
increased. The highest three pedestrian injury rates by age group were 21-24, 16-20
and 10-15 (Table 4).

In 2012, more than one-fifth (22%) of the children ages 5 to 15 who were killed in
traffic crashes were pedestrians (Table 3). Children age 15 and younger accounted
for 6 percent of the pedestrian fatalities in 2012 and 18 percent of all pedestrians
injured in traffic crashes.

NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
8

Important Safety Reminders

For Pedestrians:
• Walk on a sidewalk or path whenever one is available.

• If there is no sidewalk or path available, wa l k facing traffic (on the left side of the
road) on the shoulder, as far away from traffic as possible. Keep alert at all times;
don't be distracted by electronic devices, inclucling radios, smart phones and other
devices that take your eyes (and ears) off the road environment.

• Be cautious night and day when sharing the road with vehicles. Never assume a
driver sees you (he or she could be dish·acted, tmder the influence of alcohol and / or
drugs, or just not seeing you). Try to make eye contact with drivers as they approad1
you to make sure you are seen.

• Be predictable as a pedestrian. Cross streets at crosswalks or intersections whenever

possible. This is where drivers expect pedestrians.

• If a crosswalk or intersection is not available, locate a well-lit area, wait for a gap in
traffic that allows you enough time to cross safely, and continue to watch for traffic
as you cross.

• Stay off of freeways, restricted-access highways and other pedestrian-prohibited

roadways.

• Be visible at all times. Wear bright clothing during the day, and wear reflective
materials or use a flash light at night.

• Avoid alcohol and drugs when walking; they impair your abilities and judgment too.

For Drivers:
• Look out for pedestrians everywhere, at all times. Very often pedestrians are not
walking where they should be.

• Be especially vigilant for pedestrians in hard-to-see conditions, such as nighttime or

in bad weather.

• Slowdown and be prepared to stop when tuming or othe1wise entering a crosswalk.

• Always stop for pedestrians in crosswalks and stop well back from the crosswalk
to give other vehicles an opportunity to see the crossing pedestrians so they can
stop too.

• Never pass vehicles stopped at a crosswalk. They are stopped to allow pedesh·ians
to cross the street.

• Never drive under the influence of alcohol and/ or drugs.

• Follow the speed limit, especially around pedestrians.

• Follow slower speed limits in school zones and in neighborhoods where there are
child.ren present.

-NHTSA's Safety Countermeasures Division

NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 7

Table 7
Pedestrians Killed in Single-Vehicle Crashes, by Vehicle Type Involved, 2012
Initial Point or Impact on Vehicle
Front Right Side Left Side Rear Other/Unknown Total
Vehicle Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Passenger Car 1,692 90.4% 47 2.5% 31 1.7% 18 1.0% 83 4.4% 1.871 100.0%
Light Truck* 1 ,530 88.9% 38 2.2% 35 2.0% 38 2.2% 81 4.7% 1,722 100.0%
-SUV 636 88.5% 11 1.5% 18 2.5% 21 2.9% 33 4.6% 719 100.0%
-Pickup 637 89.6% 14 2.0% 13 1.8% 11 1.5% 36 5.1% 711 100.0%
-Van 249 88.6% 12 4.3% 4 1.4% 6 2. 1% 10 3.6% 281 100.0%
Large Truck 175 72.3% 20 8.3% 6 2.5% 17 7.0% 24 9.9% 242 100.0%
Bus 47 69.1% 5 7.4% 3 4.4% 2 2.9% 11 16.2% 68 100.0%
Other/Unknown Vehicle 208 56.5% 4 1.1 % 2 0.5% - - 154 41.8% 368 100.0%
Total 3,652 85.5% 114 2.7% 77 1.8% 75 1.8% 353 8.3% 4,271 100.0%
*Includes other/unknown light trucks
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of components due to independent rounding.

Motor Vehicles
In 2012, 90 percent of the pedesh·ians were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes In 2012, 90 percent of
that involved a single vehicle. In those single-vehicle crashes 86 percent of the the pedestrians were
time the pedestrian was struck by the front of the vehicle. Passenger cars, SUV's,
pickups and vans had the highest percentage of front impacts with a pedestrian killed in motor
who was killed (90%, 89%, 90%, and 89%, respectively). Large trucks had the
highest percentage of right side and rear impacts with a pedestrian who was killed
vehicle traffic crashes
(8% and 7%, respectively; Table 7). Of the 4,743 pedestrians killed in 2012, 884 that involved a
(19%) were involved in hit-and-run crashes.
single vehicle.
Fatalities by State
Among all States, the total motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2012 ranged from
3,398 (highest) to 15 (lowest). Pedestrian fatalities were highest in California (612),
followed by Texas (-!78) and Florida (476). The individual State percentage of
pedestrian fatalities by total traffic fatalities ranged from a high of 46.7 percent Nearly one-fifth of the
(District of Columbia) to a low of 1.5 percent (South Dakota). The highest
pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population was in Delaware (2.94), followed by pedestrians killed in
New Mexico (2.92) (Table 9). The pedestrian fatality rate of major cities are often
much higher than the national average. Of cities with populations higher than
2012 were involved in
500,000 Detroit has the highest pedestrian. fatality rate followed by Oklahoma City hit-and-run crashes.
and A lbuquerque (3.99, 3.34, and 3.24 respectively; Table 8).

NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 Acci d ent Analysis a n d Prevention 4 1 (2009} 658 -661

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Sho r t commu n ic a tion

Attenional control, high in tensity p leasure, and risky pedestrian

behavior in college students
Dav id C. Schwebel *, Despina Stavrinos, Elizabeth M. Kongable
Department or Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham , 1300 University Boul v ard , CH 415, Birmingham, AL35294, United States

article n f o abstract

Article hist ory: Individual differences in temperament and personality are closely linked to motor vehicle safety. How-
Recei ved 21 No vember 2008 ever, 13% of Americans who die in transportation-related injuries are not killed in motor vehicle crashes,
Recei ved in re v ised form 1 7 February 2009 but rather in pedestrian injuries. This study was designed to study links between two individual difference
Accepted 4 March 200 9
measures, attentional control and high intensity pleasure, and pedestrian injury risk among college stu-
dents, a group at particular risk of pedestrian injury. A sample of 245 students completed a temperament
Keywords:
questionnaire and engaged in a street-crossing task within an interactive, immersive virtual pedestrian
Te mp e rament
environment. Individuals scoring high on attentional control (the capacity to focus and shift attention, one
Pedestrian
Injuries facet of conscientiousness) waited longer to choose gaps to cross within and showed some tendency to
Safet y choose larger gaps after waiting. Individuals scoring high in high intensity pleasure (the tendency to
Personalit y desire novel , complex , and varied stimuli , one facet of sensation-seeking) were more likely to experience
Attention a ! control collisions with traffic in the virtual environment. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.
High intensity pleasure © 2009 Else v ier Ud. All rights reserved.
Colle ge students

I. In trod u ct ion d o i: I 0 .I 0 16 / j.a ap .2 0 0 9.03.003

Individual differences in temperament and personality predict

a wide range of injury outcomes. Traits such as sensation-seeking,
hostility, impulsivity, and effortful con trot are associated with
occupational safety (Clarke and Robertson,20 05,2008) and the ten-
dency to safeguard or ignore potentially dangerous environments
(Booth -Kewley and Vickers, 1994). Similarly, the field oftransporta-
tion safety has long recognized the role of individual differences
in personality on motor vehicle crash history and risky driving
behavior (Dahlen et al., 2005 ; Schwebel et al., 2006). Literature
reviews (Beit·ness , 1993; Jonah , 1997) and large empirical studies
(e.g., Dahlen et al., 2005; Iversen and Rundmo , 2002 ; Schwebel et
a l., 2006) indicate a number of individual difference constructs as
predictors of risky driving , but two traits emerging prom in en tly and
consistently in previous work are conscientiousness and sensation-
seeking.
Conscientiousness reflects the tendency toward conscientious ,
dependable, and cautious behavior. Individuals scoring high on
conscientious behave in a dutiful, constrained, and inhibited man-
ner (e.g., Costa and McCrae , 1998). One facet of conscientiousness ,
attentional control, was of particular interest in this study. Atten-
tional control refers to an individual's capacity to focus and shift

• Correspondin g author. Tel.: + I 205 934 8745 ; fax: + I 205 9 7 5 6110.

E-mail address: schwebel@J ab .e du (D.C. Sch w ebel).

0001-45 7 5 /$ - see fro nt matter © 2009 Else v ier Ud. All rights re s er ved.
attention. It is believed to play a significant role in
transportation safety. In the driving literature , for example ,
higher levels ofatten- tional con t ro I appear to lead to more
careful, slow, and safe driving , and perhaps to more thorough
evaluation ofthe risks present in the driving environment
(Elander et al., 1993).
Sensation-seeking refers to the tendency to desire and seek
com- plex , varied , novel, and rapidly moving or changing
sensations and experiences (e.g., Zuckerman , 1994). In this
study we were partic- ularly interested in one facet of
sensation-seeking, high intensity pleasure, which refers to the
tendency to seek and enjoy high- slim ulus, exciting , novel,
and diverse experiences and stimuli. The construct of high
intensity pleasure , which is ba sed in tempera- ment theory
(Rothbart et al., 2000), overlaps with both the thrill and
adventure seeking and the experience seeking subscales of
Zuckerman's (1994) sensation -seeking construct. High in
tensity pleasure is cited as a correlate to risky driving
behavior. Individ- uals scoring high on high intensity
pleasure are more likely to drive quickly, recklessly, or while
intoxicated (Dahlen et al., 2005 ; Schwebel et al., 2006).
Although motor vehicle crashes constitute the largest
bulk of transportation-related injuries, they are not the
only cause of transportation injury. Of the 47,894 Americans
killed in transportation-related injuries in 2005 , 6074 or 13%
were killed in pedestrian injuries rather than motor vehicle
crashes (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
[NCIPC], 2008). College students are at particular risk of
pedestrian injury, partly because
they have increased exposure - they walk frequently - and partly
!.

NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 D.C. Sch w ebel et al. / Accident Anal ysis and Pre vention 41 (2009) 658-661
because they have a tendency toward risk-taking, walking while
intoxicated, and walking during night time hours. In 2006, nearly
20 ,000 Americans aged 18-22 suffered serious pedestrian injuries.
Over 300 suffered fatal pedestrian injuries (N CIPC,2008) .
Despite these statistics, the role of individual differences in risk
for pedestrian injury is poorly understood. With the exception of
work studying links between temperament differences to children 's
pedestrian safety skill development (e.g ., Barton and Schwebel,
2007), research examining possible links between individual dif-
ferences and pedestrian injury risk is quite sparse. Understanding
those links would be helpful to educate empirically supported
development of interventions that target at-risk individuals or at-
risk situations .
The present study was designed to study links between indi-
vidual differences and pedestrian injury risk in college stud e nts .
We chose to focus on attentional control and high inten s ity plea-
sure because (a) they are traits correlated to motor vehicle safety, a
domain we view to have many parallels to pedestrian safety because
they require similar cognitive, perceptual, and behavioral tasks; (b)
they are trait s that appear, from a face validity perspective , to be
relevant to safe pedestrian behavior; and (c) they are easily mea -
sured through reliable and valid self- report instruments . A sample
of24 5 college students completed a se If-report tern peram en t q ues-
tionnaire and engaged in a street-crossing task within an interactive
and im m ersive virtual pedestrian environment. We hypothesized
low levels of attentional control and high levels of high intensity
pleasure would relate to risky pedestrian behavior. We also exam-
ined the interaction of the two traits, expecting the combination of
both individual differences might particularly increase pedestrian
injury risk.
2 . Method s
2.1. Participants
Archival data were used. Participants were 245 college students
(62 %fern ale) en rolled in introductory psychology courses at Un iver-
sity of Ala bam a at Birmingham . They were recruited to participate
in one of three studies (Schwebel et al., 200 8; Stavrinos et al., in
prepa rat ion) as a way to fulfill a course requirement. The sam-
ple was 51%White , 34%African American,8%Asian American , and
7%multiracial or of other races/ ethnicities . Most participants were
of traditional college age (median= 19 years, mean =21.48 years,
SD=6 .71) . All protocols, including this secondary data analysis ,
were approved by the university IRB and all participants provided
informed consent to participate.
2.2. Virtual pedestrian environment
Specifics of the hardware , software, and experience within
the virtual environment are published elsewhere (Schw e b e l et
al., 200 8 ) . Briefly, participants are immersed in an environment
displaying a 180" perspective on three monitors arranged in a
semi-circle in front of them. The environment includes a mid-
block crosswa l k , with traffic moving from both directions . Ambient
and traffic noise is delivered through speakers. The environment is
interactive, such that when the user steps offthe curb, the perspec-
tive changes from first- to third - person and they view themselves
crossing the street, witnessing the safety or risk of the crossing.
The virtual environment validly represents real-world pedestrian
behaviors in both children and adults (Schwebel eta!., 2008) .
2.3 . Protocol
Students participated individually, for a single experimental ses-
sion. Following informed consent procedures, they were taken to
659
a straight hallway and a s ked to w a lk along a line severa l times, at
the speed they would normally use to walk across a s treet. Walk-
ing time s were recorded by stopwatch,and the average ofthe walks
was used as the participants ' walking speed with in the virtual en vi-
ron men t. Participants were then taken in to the virtual environment
for familiarization. A research assistant demonstrated two street-
crossings within the virtua l environment, one successful and the
other a purposeful failure to reduce participant curiosity about the
consequences ofbeing "hit" in the vi r tual environm e nt. Finally, par-
ticip a nts completed familiarization street-crossings in the virtual
environment themselves .
Test trials were composed of8 or 10 (depending on the study)
virtual street - crossings by each participant. As detailed below
under "Measures," the mean of pedestrian behaviors a cross all
crossings was used for analysis. Participants also completed indi-
vidual differences and demographic questionnaire s, a s detailed
below.
2 .4. Measures
2.4.1. Demographics
Participants completed a brief demographic report which
included items concerning gender, age, and race / ethn icity .
2.4 .2. Individual differences
Individual differences were as sessed by the short form of the
Adult Temperament Questionnaire (ATQ; Rothba rt e t a l., 2 000), a
77-item measure yielding scores on 13 scales that fall into four
broad factors. All items are answered using a 7-point Likert scale.
The ATQ has good internal consistency and convergent validity
(Rothb a rt et al., 2000).
Of particular interest were participants 'scores on two s ubscales
of the ATQ, attentional control and high intensity pleasure . The
attentional control scale has five item s (Cronbach's alpha=0 .67 in
this sample and 0.73 in the sample used for instrument develop-
ment (Rothbart et al., 2000)) such as, "When I am tryin g to focus
my attention, I am e asily distracted ." Higher scores refl e ct higher
levels of control. The high intensity pleasure subscale has seven
items (Cronbach's alpha=0 .57 in this sample and 0.68 in the sam-
ple used for instrument development (Ro thbart e t al., 2000)) , such
as "I would enjoy watching a laser show with lots ofbrigh t , colorfu I
flashing lights." Higher scores reflect higher levels of high intensity
pleasure .
2.4 .3 . Pedestrian behavior
Four indicators were computed to assess pedestrian behavior :
(a) average wait time , or the time ( i n seconds) a participant waits
before identifying a gap to cross within and initia ting crossing ;
(b) attention to traffic, or the number of times a participant looks
left plus right before crossing, divided by waiting time ;
(c) perceived gap , or the temporal gap (in seconds) a participant
crosses within, adjusted for perception. Thus, if a participant
enters the crosswalk as a vehicle is passing in the far lane,
that vehicle is considered to have passed already and forms the
beginning of the safe gap. Similarly, if a vehicle pas ses in the
near lane as the participant is approaching the curb in the far
lane , that passing vehicle is considered the end of the gap that
was crossed within; and
(d) hits, or the average number of instances when the participant
would have been struck by a vehicle in the real environment
(transformed to estimated number ofhits per 100 crossings) .
Average wait time, perceived gap chosen, and hits were com -
puted electronically by processing the data collected in the virtual
environment . Attention to traffic was computed by review of video
660 D.C. Schwebel et al./ Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 658-661

Table I
Descriptive data and intercorrelations (N=245).

Variable M(SD) 2 4 6
1. Age (years) 21.48 (6.71) 0.04 0.21" -0.26" 0.13' -0.05 0.14' -0.06
2. Gender (1 =male; 2 =female) 37%male -0.00 -0.16' -0.04 -0.17" 0.08 0.13'
3. Attention a!control (7-point scale) 4.06 (1.11) -0.10 0.16' -0.05 0.14' 0.02
4. High intensity pleasure (7-point scale) 4.32 (1.01) 0.05 0.09 -0.03 0.12
5. Wait time (s) 8.66 (8.30) -0.19" 0.69" 0.07
6. Attention to traffic (looks/wait time) 0.59 (0.!6) -0.31'' -0.06
7. Perceived gap (s) 37.73 (9.42) 0.11
8. Hits (per 100 crossings) 2.76 (5.60)
• p <0.05.
"p<O.Ol.

taken while participants engaged in the virtual environment. Inter-
rater reliability in coding attention to traffic was high, with at least
20%ofthe sam pie coded independently by two coders in all studies,
and r>0.95 reliability obtained in all cases.
3. Results
Table I displays descriptive data and intercorrelations for all
variables. Because age correlated with both individual difference
measures, and gender with high intensity pleasure, both age and
gender were controlled in subsequent analyses. When relations
between individual differences and pedestrian behavior were con-
sidered in bivariate correlations, attentional control was related to
higher levels ofwait time (r=O.I6,p<0.05) and selection oflarger
perceived gaps (r=O.I4, p<0.05). High intensity pleasure was not
related to any ofthe four pedestrian behavior measures in bivariate
analyses.
Table 2 displays results from hierarchical linear regression mod-
els predicting the four pedestrian behavior outcomes. In each,
demographics (age and gender) were entered in the first step, fol-
lowed by the two individual difference traits (attentional control
and high intensity pleasure) and then the interaction between the
two individual difference traits (attentional control by high inten-
sity pleasure). Attention a!control was reversed and both variables
centered through standardization prior to computation ofthe inter-
action variable.
As shown in Table 2, Step !,and replicating the findings in bivari-
ate correlations, older participants tended to wait longer before
crossing and to choose larger perceived gaps to cross within. Men
tended to attend to traffic less carefully and experience hits in the
virtual environment more frequently. When individual differences
were added to the models in Step 2, higher levels of attention a!
control emerged as a predictor of longer waiting time, and higher
levels ofhigh intensity pleasure as a predictor ofhits in the virtual
environment. Neither individual difference trait predicted atten-
tion to traffic or perceived gap entered. The interaction effect was
not significant in any ofthe models when entered in Step 3.
4. Discussion
Participants' attentional control was positively related to time
waited to cross a virtual street; those individuals with higher levels
ofattentional control waited longer before crossing. High intensity
pleasure was positively related to hits in the virtual environment.
Those individuals with higher levels of high intensity pleasure
were more likely to be struck by vehicles in the virtual environ-
ment.
The results offer both theoretical and applied implications. The-
oretically, they highlight the fact that pedestrian behavior is not a
single behavior, but rather the concatenation of several different
cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, and motor tasks. Each is likely to
be influenced by different sets of individual differences. We dis-
covered, for example, that waiting time was related to attentional
control. Individuals who wait for safe traffic gaps are likely to be
safer pedestrians, and this might be influenced by individual dif-
ferences in attentional control. Attention to traffic was not related
to either attentional control or high intensity pleasure in our study.
This may be because attention to traffic is influenced more directly

Table 2
Step\vise regression models predicting pedestrian behavior (N=245).

Variable \Vait time Attention to traffic Perceived gap Hits

B SE B SE B SE B SE
Step I: Demographics
Age 0.17 0.08 0.13' -0.00 0.00 -0.05 0.19 0.09 0.13' -0.06 0.06 -0.07
Gender (I =male) -0.83 1.14 -0.05 -0.06 0.02 -0.17" 1.52 1.29 0.08 1.73 0.76 0.15'

Step 2: Individual differences added

Age 0.!6 0.09 0.13 -0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.16 0.10 0.11 -0.04 0.06 -0.04
Gender (I =male) -0.52 1.14 -0.03 -0.06 0.02 -0.16' 1.65 1.30 0.08 1.99 0.77 0.17'
Attentional control 1.08 0.50 0.14' -0.01 0.01 -0.04 1.09 0.57 0.13 0.26 0.34 0.05
High intensity pleasure 0.76 0.56 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.19 0.63 0.02 0.77 0.37 0.14'

Step 3: Interaction added

Age 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.17 0.10 0.12 -0.04 0.06 -0.04
Gender (1 =male) -0.53 1.14 -0.03 -0.06 0.02 -0.17' 1.64 1.30 0.08 1.98 0.77 0.17'
Attentional control 1.05 0.51 0.14' -o.ot 0.01 -0.06 1.06 0.58 0.12 0.25 0.34 0.05
High intensity pleasure 0.79 0.56 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.23 0.64 0.02 0.78 0.38 0.14'
Alt. Cont. x HIP -0.22 0.52 -0.03 -0.02 0.01 -0.11 -0.34 0.59 -0.04 -0.09 0.35 -0.02
Note: Wait time: Step I R' =0.02, Step 2 GR' =0.03, Step 3 Gk 2 =0.00. Attention to traffic: Step I R'=0.03, Step 2 Gk' =0.01, Step 3 Gk' =0.0 I. Perceived gap: Step 1 R 2 =0.02,
Step 2 Q 2 =0.02, Step 3 Gk2 =0.00. Hits: Step I R2 =0.03, Step 2 Gk2 =0.02, Step 3 Gk2 =0.00. Att. Cont.x HIP=attentional control by high intensity pleasure interaction,
with attentional control reversed and both variables centered through standardization. P <0.05 . p<O.Ol.

..
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 D.C. Schwebel et al. / Accide nt Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 658-661
by individual differences in cognition and perception, rather than
the temperament-based individual differences we studied .
From an applied perspective, one might en vision intervention
programs on campuses that target at-risk pedestrians, as identified
through temperament or personality profiles. Even though such a
prospect holds appeal in many ways, it is pragmatically very chal-
lenging . Both stu dents and activists are likely to resist personality
profiling, and the effort involved is probably outweighed by the
potential benefit. A more feasible alternative is to target all pedes-
trians for at-risk behaviors that at-risk individuals might engage
in most frequently. College students are by nature a challenging
population to target in safety interventions. They tend to behave
in impulsive, risky manners , and retain the "op timism bias" that
they are invincible from and invulnerable to danger (Weinstein,
1980, 1984). Co llege students also h ave increased risk because of
their high exposure opportunity - they cross streets frequently -
and their simultaneous risk-taking behaviors , such as engaging in
pedestrian activity while intoxicated and engaging in pedestrian
behavior while distracted talking using mobile phones.
Nonetheless, recognition that individual difference traits such as
poor attentional control are linked to increased pedestrian safety
risk suggests campus-based interventionists might consider ways
to increase atte ntion a!con tro I ofstuden ts crossing streets near their
university campuses. Barriers to prevent mid-block crossings, strict
en forcem en t ofjayw a !king laws, use ofaural as well as visual signals
to represent safe crossing opportunities at intersection s, and traffic
ca lming, are all strategies that might increase attentional control
even among individuals who have poor atten tiona!con tro I capacity.
In closing, we mention strengths and limitations of our research.
This is one ofthe first studies to systematically study links between
individual differences and pedestrian behavior in college students.
The sample was large and relatively diverse. We studied pedes-
trian behavior in a virtual world validated to present real-world
behavior, but could measure only pedestrian behavior during amid-
block street-crossing. Our work does not address topics such as
pedestrian route selection, walking while intoxicated, or walking
while distracted. Future research should cons ider other temper-
ament a nd personality traits (e.g ., anger, impulsivity) that might
correlate to pedestrian behavior, further investigate the causal
mechanisms behind pedestrian risk-taking, and consider how thes e
findings might be utilized in intervention development. Finally, our
individual difference measures were only via self-report, and had
only moderate internal reliability. Future work might use alter-
native measures of individual difference constructs in replication
attempts.
Acknowledgments
Elizabeth Kongable is now at Aub urn University. This project
was partially supported by the UAB Injury Co ntrol Research Cen -
661
ter at the University of Alabama at Birmingham through a grant
from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Con trol, Cen-
ters for Disease Co ntrol and Prevention , Award R49/CEOOO 191 a nd
a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration,
Project No. ICRC (1)/PL 106-346. The work was also supported by
funds from the UAB Department of Psychology and School of Social
and Behavioral Sciences. Thanks to the students in the UAB Youth
Safety Lab for help with co llection and coding ofthe original data.
Thanks to Aeron Gault, Jo an Severson,and the Digital Artefacts team
for software deve lopm en t and support.
References
Barton, B.K., Schwebel , D.C., 2007. The roles of age, gender, inhibitory control, and
parental supervision inch ildren 's pedestrian safety. Journal ofPediatric Psychol-
ogy 32,517-526.
Beirness, D.J. , 1993. Do we really drive as we live? The role of personality factors in
road crashes.Alcohol , Drugs,and Driving 9,129- 14 3.
Boot h-Ke w le y, S., Vickers , R.R. , 1994. Associations b etween major domains of per-
so nalit y and h ealth behavior. Journal of Personality 62,281-298.
Clarke , S. , Robertson,I.T., 2005. A meta-analytic review of the big five personality
factors and accident involvement in occupation at and non-occupational settings.
Journa l ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology 78,355 -376.
Clarke, S., Robertson , LT. , 2008. An examination of the role of personality in work
accidents using meta-anal y si s. Applied Psychology: An International Re v iew 57 ,
94-108.
Costa , P.C., McCrae, R.R., 1998. Si x approaches to the explication offacet-level trait s :
examples from conscientiousness . European Journal of Personality 1 2 , 117 -
1 34.
Dahlen , E.R., Martin, R.C., Ragan , K., Kuhlman , M.M., 2005. Dri v ing anger, sensa -
tion seeking, impulsi v eness , and boredom proneness in the prediction ofu nsafe
driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37,341-348.
Elander, J., West, R., French, D., 1 993. Behavioral correlates of individual differences
in road-traffic crash risk: an e x am in at ion ofm ethods and findings. Psychological
Bulletin 113,2 79-294.
Iversen, H., Rundmo, T., 2002. Personality, risky driving and accident involve-
ment among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 33,
1251 -1263.
Jonah , B.A., 1997. Sensation seeking and risky driving: a review and synthesis oft he
literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29 , 651-665 .
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2008). W ISQARS1M (Web-based
Injury Statistics Quer y and Reporting System). Retrieved November 19 , 2008,
from http:// www .cdc.go v/ ncipc/w i sqars/ .
Rothbart , M.K, Ahadi, S.A., Evans, D.E., 2000. Temperament and personalit y : o rigin s
and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7 8 , 122 -135.
Schwebel, D.C., Gaines, J., Se v erson, J., 2008. Validation of virtua l reality as a tool to
understand and prevent chi ld pedestrian injury. Accident Analysis and Preven-
tion 40 , 1394-1400.
Schwebel , D.C., Severson, J., Ba ll, K.K., Rizzo, M ., 2006. Individual differ-
ence factors in risky driving: the r o l es of anger/hostility, conscientious-
ness , a nd sensat i on - seeking. Acc ident Analysis and Prevention 38, 801 -
8 10 .
Stavrinos, D., Byington, K.W., Schwebel, D.C. The effect of ce ll phone distraction on
college students ' pedestrian safety , in preparation.
Weinstein, N.D. , 1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life e v ents. Journal of Per-
sona lit y and Social Psychology 39 , 806 -820.
Weinstein , N.D., 1984. Wh y it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and
susceptibility. He a lth Psychology 3, 431 -457.
Zu ckerman, M . , 1994. Behav ioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases ofSensation Seek -
ing. Cam bridge Uni v ersity Pres s, New York.
 Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities

Chapter 3

Pedestrian Facility Design

3.1 Designing Roadways to Accommodate Pedestrians
Designing a roadway that successfully meets the needs of both vehicular traffic and d pedestrians can
be a challenging task. The attributes of good roadway design that shoul be considered in accommodating
pedestrians include:

3.3 Intersection Design

Street crossings are an essential component of any roadway design. A street may have
excellent sidewalk facilities but, if the intersection crossings are intimidating, few pedestri-
ans will use the street. Pedestrians, therefore, should be included as "design users" for all
intersections where they can be expected to cross. Intersections are often the best and most
direct place for pedestrians to cross a roadway and are the most common pedestrian cross-
ing locations. This section discusses the various design features, as well as crossing tech-
niques that can facilitate convenient and safe pedestrian travel at intersections. Some of the
attributes associated with good intersection crossing design include:

• Clarity-It should be obvious to motorists that there will be pedestrians present; it

should be obvious to pedestrians where best to cross.

• Predictability-The placement of crosswalks should be predictable. Additionally, the

frequency of crossings should increase where pedestrian volumes are greater.

• Visibility- The location and illumination of the crosswalk allows pedestrians to

see and be seen by approaching traffic while crossing.

• Short wait- The pedestrian does not have to wait unreasonably long for
an opportumty to cross.

• Adequate Crossing Time-The time available for crossing accommodates users of

all abilities.

• Limited Exposure--Conflict points with traffic are few, and the distance to cross is
short or is divided into shorter segments with crossing islands.

• Clear Crossing- The crosswalk is free of barriers, obstacles, and hazards and is
acces-
sible to all users. Pedestrian crossing information is available in accessible formats.

Traffic signals create gaps that allow pedestrians to cross a street. However, adequate sight
distance at signalized intersections is desirable to enable motorists and pedestrians to see
one another during periods when there are signal malfunctions or periods when signals are
placed in a flashing operation. When this occurs, the signal often defaults to a flashing red
on the minor approach aiJ.d has traffic operations similar to a stop-controlled intersec- tion.
However, when the major approach defaults to a flashing yellow, adequate sight lines
should be provided for pedestrians attempting to cross the major street. Additional infor-
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
mation on traffic signal warrants and design can be found in Chapter 4.

There are three types of unsignalized intersections: (1) completely uncontrolled (usually
minor local roads or streets), (2) free-flow traffic conditions along the major road with stop
controls on the minor legs, or (3) stop- or yield-controlled for all approaches. When one
or more legs of an intersection are uncontrolled, pedestrian crossing movements become
more complex. While traffic control devices may be desired at every potential pedestrian
crossing, uncontrolled intersections can operate more safely for all users if street width,
traffic volume, speed, and line-of-sight issues are taken into account.

This section discusses these measures, as well as other design features that can enhance
the safety and functionality of both signalized and unsignalized intersections.
 0.8-0.9 m* 2.8 m (9.5') minimum

(2.5-3')

parking *A minimum of 0.9 m (3') is preferred in locations

where free-flowing motor vehicle traffic is adjacent
to the curb.

Figure 16-24 Bicycle Rack in the Right-of-Way

Source: Philadelphia Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines, Philadelphia, Pa.: Philadelphia Department of Streets, 1988.

Class I bicycle parking: This category includes bike lockers or locked and guarded storage areas that provide
high-security protection.

Advantages-High-security storage and ideal for long-term storage.

Disadvantages-Expensive.

Class II bicycle parking: This category includes racks that secure both wheels and bicycle frame, which usually
have moving parts and provide medium security with a user-supplied lock.

Advantages-Medium security and great when coupled with covered protection from the elements.

Disadvantages-Moving parts, complex design, and may not work with the common U-lock.

Class III bicycle parking: The most common type of Class III rack are inverted "U"s.

Advantages-Simple design, affordable, can be manufactured by a local 'vvelder, and supports frame as
well as wheel.

Disadvantages-Offers low-security for long-term parking.

Pedestrian Facility Design

There are a number of information sources for design guidelines that apply to pedestrian facilities. Design and Safety
of Pedestrian Facilities, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, contains recommended practices for
pedestrian improvements. The MUTCD and ADAAG also address a range of pedestrian facility design standards.
However, many of these national resources have been written to deal primarily with motor vehicle design and contain
limited pedestrian-related material, such as AASHTO's A Policy on the Geometric Design of Streets and Highways (also
known as the Green Book).At the local level, it is often more common to find examples of comprehensive design practices
that recognize pedestrian needs.

630
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics
TRANSPORTATION and Analysis
PLANNING HANDBOOK 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 Pedestrian Characteristics
There are basic definitions of concepts and characteristics of pedestrian movement, their relationship to various land
use contexts, and common pedestrian crash types to be considered when planning for pedestrian movement. These
characteristics can be found in the AASHTO's Green Book and Highway Capacity Manual and include information on:

Average pedestrian dimensions (the average pedestrian occupies a space of 450 mm X 600 mm or 18" X 24").
Walking speeds.
Capacities for pedestrian-related facilities.

Where pedestrian movement is very dense, such as on pedestrian bridges or tunnels, at intermodal connections, outside
stadiums, or in the middle of downtown, then pedestrian capacity analysis may be needed. Research has developed a
LOS concept for pedestrians that relates flow rate to spacing and walking speed.

An average walking speed of 1.2 m per sec. (4ft per sec.) has been used for many years. There is a growing tendency
to use 1.1 meters per second (3.5 ft per sec.) as a general value and 0.9 or 1.0 meters per second (3.0 or 3.25 ft per sec.)
for specific applications such as facilities used by the elderly or handicapped.

Design consideration must also take into account characteristics of pedestrians with physical, visual, or mental
disabilities. For example, average pedestrian dimensions increase for individuals using canes, walkers, wheelchairs,
shopping carts, or baby carriages.45 Pedestrians with ambulatory difficulties are sensitive to walking surfaces. Persons
with hearing or visual impairments or learning disabilities may be less able to process typical sensory information, such
as colors or signing.46

Pedestrian trip generation rates have been defined for different land uses. Where roads abut such uses, either existing
or proposed, these numbers provide an indication of potential trip making activity. Chapter 7 of this handbook provides
a summary of capacity; and the Highway Capacity Manual provides procedures for the operational analysis of walkways,
crosswalks and street comers.

Specific crash classification types have been developed for pedestrian collisions.47 Crashes often occur because of deficient
roadway designs or traffic control measures, or they may result from improper behavior on the part of motorists and
pedestrians. Examples of some of the more common types of pedestrian crashes and their likelihood of occurrence are shown
in Figure 16-25.

Guidelines on the design of a range of specific pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, shoulders, medians, crosswalks,
curb ramps, and so forth are provided in this chapter.

Pedestrian Facilities
An individual's decision to walk is as much a factor of security, safety, and convenience as it is the perceived quality
of the experience. Pedestrian facilities should be designed with the following factors in mind:

Sufficient width: sidewalks should accommodate anticipated volumes based on adjacent land uses, and they
should at a minimum allow for two adults to walk abreast. Greater detail on sidewalk dimensions is provided
later in this chapter.

Protection from traffic: high-volume or high-speed (>56 km/h or 35 mph) motor vehicle traffic creates dangerous
and uncomfortable conditions for pedestrians. Physical (and perceptual) separation can be achieved through a

45
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (Washington, D.C.: ITE, 1998).
46
Ibid, pp. 20-27.
47
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Pedestrian Crash Types: A 1990's Information Guide, FHWA Report No.
FHWA-RD-96-163 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1997).

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 631

 combination of methods: a grassy planting strip
with street trees, a raised planter, bicycle lanes, on-
street parallel parking, and others. Intersection
design should facilitate both vehicular and
pedestrian movement with geometric dimensions
that reduce pedestrian crossing distances and
provision of median refuge islands.

Street trees: street trees are an essential element

in a high quality pedestrian environment. Not
only do they provide shade, they also give a sense
of enclosure to the sidewalk environment, which
enhances the pedestrian's sense of walking in a
protected environment.
Midblock Dash
Frequency: 442 cases;8.7% of all crashes
Severity: 37% resulted in serious or fatal injuries.

Pedestrian-scale design: large highway-scale

signage reinforces the general notion that
pedestrians are out of place. Signage should be
designed to be seen by the pedestrian. Street
lighting should likewise be scaled to the level of
the pedestrian, instead of providing light poles that
are more appropriate on high-speed freeways.
Components such as street furniture, vistas, and
landmarks should be incorporated into designs to Vehicle Turn/Merge
help make walking routes interesting. Frequency: 497 cases; 9.8% of all crashes
Continuity: pedestrian facilities are often dis- Severity: 18% resulted in serious or fatal injuries.
continuous, particularly when private develop- Figure 16-25 Common Types of
ers are not encouraged to link on-site pedestrian
Pedestrian Crashes
facilities to adjacent developments and nearby
sidewalks or street comers. New developments Source: Pedestrian Crash Types: A 1990's Informational Guide,
should be designed to encourage pedestrian Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 1997.
access from nearby streets. Existing gaps in the
system should be placed on a prioritized list for new sidewalk construction.

Clearances: vertical clearance above sidewalks for landscaping, trees, signs, and similar obstructions should
be at least 2.4 m (8ft). In commercial areas and Central Business Districts (CBDs), the vertical clearance for
awnings should be 2.7 m (9 ft). The ve1tical clearance for building overhangs that cover the majority of the
sidewalk should be 3.6 m (12ft).

Conformance with National Standards: all pedestrian facilities should be consistent with Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements. Specific guidance is provided by Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board's Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

Sidewalk Design Overview

Sidewalks not only encourage walking, but they also improve the safety of pedestrians. The safety benefits of sidewalks
are well-documented: one study found that streets without sidewalks had 2.6 times more pedestrian and automobile
collisions than expected on the basis of exposure, while streets with sidewalks on only one side had 1.2 times more
pedestrian crashes.48 In the United States 5,412 pedestrians were killed and 82,000 were injured in 1996. Most pedestrian
fatalities in 1996 occurred in urban areas (71 percent).49

48
Richard L. Knoblauch, et. a!., "Investigation of Exposure Based Pedestrian Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets and Major Arterials," FHWA
Report No. FHWA-RD-88-038 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1988).
49
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 1996).

NHTSA's 632 TRANSPORTATION

National Center for PLANNING HANDBOOK
Statistics and Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
 All roadways should have some type of walking facility out of the traveled way. A separate walkway is often preferable, but a
roadway shoulder will also provide a safer pedestrian accommodation than walking in the travel lane.

Direct pedestrian connections should be provided between residences and activity areas. It is usually not difficult to ascertain where
connections between residential areas and activity centers will be required during the early stages of development.

Development density can be used as a surrogate for pedestrian usage in determining the need for sidewalks. Local
residential streets, especially cul-de-sacs, can accommodate extensive pedestrian activity on the street because there is little
vehicular activity. Collector streets are normally used by pedestrians to access bus stops and commercial developments on
the arterial to which they feed.

Sidewalks should be provided on all streets within a 0.4 kilometers (one quarter-mile) of a transit station. Sidewalks should
also be provided along developed frontages of arterial streets in zones of commercial activity. Collector and arterial streets in the
vicinity of schools should be provided with sidewalks to increase school trip safety.5°

Sidewalk Obstacles
Street furniture and utility poles create obstacles to pedestrian travel when located directly on the sidewalk. At the very
minimum there should be 0.9 m (3ft) of sidewalk width to allow wheelchairs to pass. Where possible, utilities should be
relocated so as not to block the sidewalk. Benches should not be sited directly on the sidewalk, but set back at least
0.9 m (3ft).

The design of new intersections or re-design of existing intersections presents an opportunity to improve pedestrian
circulation. Street furniture located near intersections can block sight lines. In general, the designer should consider the effect
on sight distance for all features located in the vicinity of roadway intersections.

Sidewalk Pavement Design

Sidewalks and roadside pathways should be constructed of a solid, debris-free surface. Regardless of the type of surface
chosen, it must be designed to withstand adequate load requirements. Standard depth of pavement should consider site-
specific soil conditions and is therefore left to local discretion. Brick and concrete pavers are popular materials for more decorative
sidewalks. (Figure 16--26.) The use of stylized surfaces is encouraged, however, they must be installed properly or they will
deteriorate over time.

Pedestrian Facility Maintenance

Maintenance is an important aspect of creating adequate and comfortable facilities for pedestrians. A crumbling
sidewalk is not only an eyesore but also a hazard to the pedestrian and a barrier to the disabled. Regular maintenance
protects public investment and reduces liability risk.

A periodic inspection schedule for pedestrian facilities should be adopted by local jurisdictions. Crosswalks will need re-
striping. A general maintenance budget should be allocated by each local government for use on a yearly basis, perhaps combined
with a maintenance budget for bicycle facilities.

Sidewalk Width and Setback Guidelines

The following are recommended guidelines for sidewalk width and setback for a typical community. It is important to note
that there are some areas that warrant wider sidewalks than the minimum. For example, sidewalks in and around local
universities and colleges must accommodate a much higher volume of pedestrians, and therefore they warrant

50
Transportation Research Board, Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Rural Areas, TRB Report No. 294A (Washington, D.C.:
TRB, 1987).

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 633

 Figure 16-26 Decorative Sidewalk Treatments
Source: The RBA Group, Morristown, N.J., Green ways Incorporated, Cary, N.C.

additional width. The recommendations below are based on ITE and ADA guidelines and common practices used by
other pedestrian-friendly communities in the United States.

Sidewalks in CBDs. Sidewalk widths in CBDs are, for the most part, already determined by building setback
and street width. Should a reconstruction project warrant further study of sidewalk width in a CBD, service
standards have been set by AASHTO's Green Book.

Arterial and collector streets in commercial and residential areas. Sidewalks on arterial and collector streets
in commercial and residential areas should be a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft) wide. A minimum of a 0.6 m (2ft)
wide planting strip should be provided. If no planting strip is possible, the minimum width of the sidewalk
should be 2.1 m (7 ft).

Sidewalks on local streets in residential areas. On local streets in residential areas, sidewalk width may be based
on the number of units per acre. For multifamily developments and single-family homes with densities that
exceed 4 units per acre, the sidewalk should be a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft) wide with a minimum setback of
0.6 m (2ft). For densities up to 4 dwelling units per acre, the sidewalk should be a minimum of 1.2 m (4ft)
wide with a 0.6 m (2ft) setback.

Sidewalks on streets with no curb and gutter. The setback requirements in this section are based on roadway
cross sections that include curb and gutter. Sidewalks located adjacent to "ribbon pavement" (pavement with
no curb and gutter) are not recommended. However, if no other solution is possible, sidewalks adjacent to ribbon
pavement should have a much greater setback requirement, depending on roadway conditions. Engineers
should consult AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets for more specific guidelines.

Sidewalks in rural areas. In most rural areas, the low volume of pedestrians does not warrant sidewalk
construction. In most cases, 1.2 m (4 ft) wide paved shoulders can provide an adequate area for pedestrians
to walk on rural roadways, while also serving the needs of bicyclists. Exceptions should be made in areas where
isolated developments such as schools, ballparks, or housing communities create more pedestrian use. For
example, motorists might regularly park along a rural road to access a nearby ballpark. A sidewalk may be
warranted in this circumstance so that pedestrians can walk separately from traffic. Sidewalks in rural areas
should be provided at a width based on the anticipated or real volume of pedestrians, with 1.5 m (5 ft) being
the minimum width.

634 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HANDBOOK

 Continuity in Construction Zones
Work zone areas can disrupt pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and they often create total barriers for pedestrians. Just
as traffic is re-routed during roadway construction, pedestrians and bicyclists should be provided a safe alternative through
the work zone. If a safe alternative is not provided, they will often try to make their way across the site unprotected.

Pedestrians and bicyclists should be re-routed well in advance of the construction barriers, since most are unlikely to
retrace their steps to get around the work zone. The MUTCD provides appropriate signage for these situations, and it
provides limited guidance for pedestrian detours in Section 6C-9. If a path is to be provided within the work zone, it
should be constructed of a smooth and even surface, with no gaps. Pedestrians should be protected from construction
vehicle traffic, roadway traffic, and falling debris.

Construction sites are particularly difficult to traverse for disabled pedestrians. An alternate accessible route should always
be provided when the main accessible route is interrupted by construction activities.

Intersection Design and Pedestrian Crossings

Intersection design is extremely important for the safety of pedestrians. No single feature creates a safe intersection for
pedestrians-the design elements described in the next sections should be combined as site conditions warrant.

Crosswalks
Marked crosswalks should be provided at intersections that can-y significant pedestrian volumes, or where newly installed
· sidewalks are likely to generate more pedestrian traffic.

Crosswalks can serve to channel pedestrian traffic through an intersection, as well as heighten the awareness of
motorists of possible pedestrian crossing movements. It is important to note that, although crosswalks are an important
element in intersection design, a crosswalk alone does not insure the safety of a pedestrian. Too often, crosswalks are
the sole provision for pedestrians at intersections when other safety measures are also needed.

Paragraph 3B-18 of the MUTCD provides guidance on crosswalk design. High visibility designs are recommended.
(Figure 16--27.) Crosswalk lines should be 0.3-0.6 m (1-2ft) in width and spaced be 0.3-0.6 m (1-2ft) apart. A nonskid,
long-life striping material is the preferable marking material for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The optimum width of crosswalks is 3m (10ft) wide, with a minimum width (as set by the MUTCD) of 1.8 m (6ft) wide.
Wider crosswalks should be installed at locations with higher pedestrian volumes. At signalized intersections with stop bars, a
minimum separation of 1.2 m (4ft) is necessary between the stop bar and edge of the crosswalk. At midblock locations
stop or yield bars should be placed to allow motorists adequate stopping time, particularly on multilane sections. Crite1ia
for installing crosswalks is shown in Figure 16--28.

Curb Ramps
A deciding factor in the location and design of crosswalks is the placement of curb ramps at street comers. Curb ramps
should always be placed so to lead the pedestrian directly into a striped crosswalk area. Comers should either include
two curb ramps or one broad ramp that serves both crosswalks. Curb ramps should always be provided with a matching
ramp on the opposite side of the road, as well as ramps at pedestrian refuge islands.

ADA provides federal guidance for curb ramp installation, and use of either guideline is acceptable. Current ADA standards
state that the slope of curb ramps cannot exceed 1:12, with a maximum rise of 0.76 m (30 in). If the curb ramp is located
in an area where pedestrians might typically walk, it must have flared sides that do not exceed a slope of 1:10. It is also
extremely important that the bottom of the curb ramp be even with the street surface. A raised lip at the street edge can
cause a wheelchair to tip over, even if it is only 6 mm (0.25 in) high.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 635

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.thwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

U.S'.epartment of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology

Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Federal Highway Administration > Publications > Research Publications >Safety> Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety> 03042 >A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the
United States and Abroad

Publication Number: FHWA-RD-03-042

Date: November 2003

A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad

Final Report

Part 3. Overview Of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures And Safety Programs

Cautions Regarding Design Problems in Studies of Countermeasure Effectiveness

This report is based on a review of many evaluation studies of pedestrian safety initiatives, so it is useful to comment on the difficulties inherent in this
kind of research and the study design problems that plague such research efforts.

First, research on the effectiveness of pedestrian safety initiatives is inherently difficult because pedestrian crashes are generally quite rare at any given
location; therefore, a study may not have enough data for numerical stability. It is common that years will pass between instances of a pedestrian-
vehicle collision at a given site. While the rarity of pedestrian collisions at a site is fortunate, it makes the study of countermeasures difficult.

To compensate for small numbers, investigators often aggregate data from many sites. Many intersections will be studied, and the study period will be
extended for as long as possible because this is the only way that usable numbers of crashes can be accumulated. However, such aggregation of sites
and long time periods creates other sources of crash variability, perhaps partly offsetting the benefit of the larger sample size.

The other significant problem is the almost inevitable study design flaws in many research efforts. These critical study design flaws include selection
bias and regression to the mean. These particular study design problems generally are encountered because of the procedures used to decide where
to install treatments.

Given limited funds and great needs, authorities earmark countermeasure sites based on some kind of priority procedure. It may be a formal warranting
procedure, or an informal approach of placing the remedies where the problem is judged to be greatest. This latter procedure is prudent, and is
completely justified from an operational standpoint. However, from a research standpoint it can be troublesome, especially in assessing pre- and post-
treatment data.

The problem is that the sites where the treatments are introduced were usually different from the comparison sites before the interventions were
introduced. That is why the treatments were put there rather than somewhere else.

This pre-existing difference is very likely to overwhelm the effect of the treatment. If the "after" experience is different from the "before" experience, one
cannot know how much of the change was produced by the treatment and how much is a continuation of the pre-existing difference.

A special case of selection bias is regression to the mean. If the pretreatment collision record is the basis for introducing an intervention at a particular
site, and if the "worst" sites are selected for introduction of countermeasures, then the after-crash experience will be better than before the experience
because of the operation of the probability phenomenon called "regression to the mean." When that particular flaw is embedded in a study design, one
cannot know whether the favorable results are from the countermeasure, from the regression effects, or from a combination of the two.

Many studies reviewed herein likely suffer from one or the other of these study design flaws. This is not said as a particular criticism of the study
authors: Sometimes it is virtually impossible to carry out a study without such flaws, given the manner in which operational decisions are made to install
treatments.

If studies are to be done in a way that avoids these study design problems, it will be necessary to change the manner of deciding how treatments are to
be introduced. These study design problems are not mentioned in many following reviews, but the reader should keep these cautions in mind in
assessing the studies reported in the following discussion.

1 of34 9/20/2017' 5:06 p

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

Marked Crosswalks /.'

Crash Studies
Zegeer, Stewart, Huang and Lagerwey (2002) have completed what is the largest and most comprehensive study of marked crosswalks reported so far.
The authors analyzed data from 1,000 marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matching unmarked sites in 30 U.S. cities. Information was collected at each
of the 2,000 sites, including pedestrian crash history (average of five years per site), daily pedestrian volume, traffic volume, number of lanes, speed
limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of crosswalk marking, location type (midblock vs. intersection), and other site characteristics. All
study sites were at intersection or midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approaches. The comparatively large sample size
permitted analysis of relevant data subsets.

A number of site factors were found to be related to crashes and therefore had to be used as control variables in the analysis. Such factors included:
higher pedestrian average daily traffic {ADT), higher traffic ADT, and number of lanes {three or more lanes vs. two lanes). In addition, multilane roads
with raised medians had significantly lower crash rates than similar roads with no median or painted medians only. There was also a significant regional
effect: Sites in western U.S. cities had a significantly higher crash risk than in eastern U.S. cities (after controlling for other site conditions).

Some site factors were not found to be associated with crashes in and of themselves. These
Solid Standard Contrnontal Dashed Zebra Ladder included area type, speed limit, and type of crosswalk marking pattern (see figure 12 for various
crosswalk marking patterns from that study).

-- median type, and region of the country) were then included in the statistical models used to
All site factors that were related to crashes (i.e., pedestrian ADT, traffic ADT, number of lanes,

determine effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks. (Poisson and negative binomial
regression models were used.)

The study found that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an
uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to
Figure 23. Crosswalk marking patterns an unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000
vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone, without other substantial
improvements,was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate after controlling for other site factors, compared to an unmarked crosswalk (see
figure 13). Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multilane roads, compared to roads with no raised median. Older
pedestrians' crash rates were high relative to their crossing exposure.

The authors state (page 1): "Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely.
Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should be identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access."

Some improvements suggested by the authors at unsignalized crossing locations:

• Providing raised medians on multilane roads, which can substantially reduce pedestrian crash risk and also facilitate street crossing
• Installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) where warranted and/or where serious pedestrian crossing problems exist
• Reducing the effective street-crossing distance for pedestrians by providing curb extensions and/or raised pedestrian islands, "road diets" (i.e.,
reducing four lane undivided roads to two through-lanes with left turn lane)
• Installing raised crossings (raised crosswalk, raised intersection, speed humps)
• Providing street-narrowing measures {chicanes, slow points, "skinny street," etc.)
• Using intersection designs (traffic mini walks, diagonal diverters)
• Providing adequate nighttime lighting for pedestrians
• Designing safer intersections and driveways for pedestrians (e.g., tighter turn radii)
• Constructing grade-separated crossings or pedestrian only streets
• Using innovative signs, signals and markings shown to be effective

I.
;
..'' ------------------------------ ---------r.-----1
c
: 12
.. . f
;:; • -1---------- ------i
r:.= .. :f
S oef------------ --1
5; i!! osf-----------r--r---1
e""

.....5 o • -1---- ----...----i

a..
5
i 02-l-on nT--
!:.

NoMtdiJO
AIAOTs ! 12,CXXIAOT
tl) Rat$led MIIClan
12,00G-15.00JAOT ,. 1S,OOOADT
Rao$0d ..., ...
,! 15.000AOT R"*""""'
> 15.000 AOT
2Unl!s lto S Lanes 3 tD8L.anes 3 t o 8Lanes lto8 u l 1D 8 Unts
(9..511<0) (l60S... .) ·95101) (4 1751\ts) (81 S<1H) OI3SIH)

Ty pe of Cronlng

2 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

Figure 24. Pedestrian crash rates at types of crossing

Two studies by Knoblauch were conducted on pedestrian and motorist behavior as part of the overall FHWA study on crosswalks in conjunction with the
study summarized above.

One study was conducted to determine the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized intersections (Knoblauch,
Nitzburg, and Seifert, 2000). A before-and-after evaluation of crosswalk markings was conducted at 11 locations in 4 U.S. cities. Behavior observed
included: pedestrian crossing location, vehicle speeds, driver yielding, and pedestrian crossing behavior. The authors found that drivers approach a
pedestrian in a crosswalk somewhat slowly, and that crosswalk usage increases after markings are installed. No evidence was found indicating that
pedestrians are less vigilant in a marked crosswalk. No changes were found in driver yielding or pedestrian assertiveness as a result of adding the
marked crosswalk. Marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low-speed, low-volume, unsignalized intersections was not found to have any
measurable negative effect on pedestrian or motorist behavior at the selected sites, which were all 2- or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 35 or 40 mph.

In a comparison study, a before-and-after evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk markings was performed in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona (Knoblauch
and Raymond, 2000). Six sites were selected that had been recently resurfaced. All sites were at uncontrolled intersections with a speed limit of 56
km/h (35 mi/h). "Before data" were collected after the centerline and edgeline delineation was installed but before the crosswalk was installed. "After"
data were collected after the crosswalk markings were installed. Speed data were collected under three conditions: no pedestrian present, pedestrian
looking, and pedestrian not looking. All pedestrian conditions involved a staged pedestrian. The results indicate a slight reduction at most, but not all, of
the sites. Overall, there was a significant reduction in speed under both the no-pedestrian and the pedestrian-not-looking conditions.

These more recent studies must be considered in the context of contradictory results among several earlier studies. The above study shows that
marked crosswalks do not differ in safety from unmarked crosswalks under most circumstances, while in the high-volume, multilane case, the use of
marked crosswalks alone is associated with increased pedestrian risk. This does not fully agree with several other studies that reported that marked
crosswalk crashes in general were much more frequent than at unmarked crosswalks. However, most of the older studies typically did not analyze the
effects of marked crosswalks as a function of number of lanes, traffic volume, or other roadway factors.

For example, Herms (1972) authored an early and oft quoted (and sometimes mis-quoted} study from San Diego, CA, reporting that crashes on marked
crosswalks were twice as frequent per unit pedestrian volume. In this study, 400 intersections were selected, each having one marked and one
unmarked crosswalk leg on the same street.

Herms made no mention in 1972 of warrants used to determine where to paint crosswalks, but an earlier version of the study did (Herms, 1970). The
warrant directive for San Diego (January 15, 1962) established a point system calling for painting crosswalks when: 1) traffic gaps were fewer rather than
more numerous; (2) pedestrian volume was high; (3) speed was moderate; and (4) "other" factors prevailed, such as previous crashes. Thus, it is
possible that crosswalks may have been more likely to be painted in San Diego where the conditions were most ripe for pedestrian collisions, compared
to unmarked sites.

In a 1994 study, Gibby et al. revisited the issue in an analysis of crashes at 380 California highway intersections. These were picked in a multi step
selection process from among more than 10,000 intersections. Results showed that crash rates at the selected 380 unsignalized intersections were 2 or
3 times higher in marked than in unmarked crosswalks when expressed as crash rates per pedestrian vehicle volume.

Other studies on crosswalk effects have also been conducted. Gurnett (1974) described a project to remove painted stripes from some crosswalks that
had shown a bad crash experience in the recent past. This is a before after study of three locations picked because they had a recent bad crash record.

Crosswalk paint was removed. Subsequent crashes were tallied and fewer were found. The findings of this study are likely an artifact of the well known
statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean.

Another study of marked crosswalks at non signalized intersections was reported by the Los Angeles County Road Department in July, 1967. In a
before after study of 89 intersections, painted crosswalks were added at each site. Collisions increased from 4 during the before period to 15 in the after
period. All sites that showed crash increases after crosswalks were installed had ADT of less than 10,900 vehicles. At sites with smaller ADT volume,
no change in crashes was seen. (NUMBERED NOTE)

The above finding regarding ADT above approximately 11,000 is consistent with the findings of Zegeer, Stewart, and Huang and Lagerwey (2002)
reported at the beginning of this section. Moreover, Zegeer eta!. attempted to compare their results with those of Herms. They lumped all their study
sites together and computed a simple ratio of crashes divided by pedestrian crossing volume, as did Herms. By replicating the Herms analysis method
on the 2000-site (30-city) data set, they too found the marked crosswalks were worse by slightly more than 2-to-1 than the unmarked. It is only when
the data were disaggregated (and more appropriate Poisson and negative binomial modelling analyses were done) that it was seen that higher
pedestrian crash risk of marked crosswalks is confined to the high volume, multi lane case.

In contrast to the foregoing, however, Tobey and colleagues (1983) reported reduced crashes associated with marked crosswalks. They examined
crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of pedestrian volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V). When the P x V product was
used as a denominator, crashes at unmarked crosswalks were overrepresented, and considerably underrepresented at marked crosswalks.
Communication with the authors indicates that this study included controlled (signalized) as well as uncontrolled crossings. It seems likely that more
marked crosswalks were at controlled crossings than were unmarked crosswalks, which could partially explain the different results compared to other
studies.

It should be noted that the study methodology was useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for a variety of human and location features. It was
never intended, however, to be used for quantifying the specific safety effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway
situations.

Results of a study of pedestrian crossings in London, England calculated crash risk as the ratio of crashes per unit time to pedestrian volume counts
(Mackie and Older, 1965). The authors found that the risk was lower in zebra crosswalks than in areas up to 45.7 m (50 yards} away from the
crosswalks. There was a gradient effect, with crash risk highest nearer to the zebra crossing, but the risk was lower in the crossing. They found similar
results for zebra crossings near a signalized crossing.

However, Ekman of the University of Lund in Sweden found in 1988 that "a pedestrian experiences approximately a double risk of being injured when
crossing on a zebra crossing compared to a crossing location without any signs or road markings, presupposed that all other conditions are equal."
Ekman contrasted his results with those from a similar Norwegian study, which reported that pedestrian risk associated with Norwegian zebra crossings

3 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 Pl-.

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042...

was significantly lower than on the Swedish counterparts. .-

In 1985, Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto, Ontario, intersections. The basis for selecting the intersections was
not described. A before after study was carried out and it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to
increase at the same pace after crosswalks were installed. It would appear that marking the crosswalks did not have much of an effect. However, the
author pointed to an increase in tailgating crashes after crosswalk painting. He also reported that the increased crashes during the after phase seemed
to be explained by involvement of out of town drivers.

It is difficult to summarize these disparate findings, but it can be said that marked crosswalks have little or no association with pedestrian crash risk on
two-lane roads and also on multilane roads with ADT less than approximately 10,000. However, for multilane facilities with ADT greater than 10,000, a
significant crash risk is associated with using marked crosswalks alone without other, more substantial pedestrian safety treatments.

Behavioral Studies

It is logical to expect behavioral studies of driver and pedestrian reaction to marked

crosswalks in view of the counterintuitive crash results reported in the literature. In his 1972
study, Herms stated: "Evidence indicates that the poor crash record of marked crosswalks is
not due to the crosswalk being marked as much as it is a reflection on the pedestrian's
attitude and lack of caution when using the marked crosswalk."

No behavioral data were presented in that study, however. Other authors advanced similar
assertions with regard to pedestrian behavior in marked crosswalks (Public Works, 1969)
(Los Angeles County Road Department, 1967). In a 1994 study, Gibby et al. provided a
thorough review of the literature including behavioral studies. Some are reviewed here in a
separate consideration of pedestrian vs. motorist behavior.

PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR
Figure 25. Unsafe motorist behavior at marked
In 1999, Knoblauch and his colleagues carried out a study intended to directly observe
crosswalks is one of the causes of pedestrian
incautious or reckless pedestrian behavior, such as Herms and others postulated to exist,
crashes at marked crosswalks
and that might account for the negative crash results reported in some studies. They found
no such behavior (Knoblauch, 1999).

The research team collected data at eleven sites before and after crosswalks were marked. They measured vehicle speed and volume, pedestrian
volume, and recorded pedestrian and motorist behavior. Their study addressed three hypotheses related to pedestrian behavior:

Hypothesis: Will pedestrians, perhaps feeling more protected, act more aggressively when crossing a marked crosswalk compared to one not marked?

No difference was seen in blatantly aggressive pedestrian behavior whether the crossing was marked or not.

Hypothesis: Will pedestrians keep in the corridor defined by the stripes?

Pedestrians walking alone tended more to use marked crosswalks, especially at busy intersections. Pedestrians in groups tended not to use the
marked crosswalks. Overall, crosswalk usage increased once markings were in place.

Hypothesis: Will marked crosswalks result in less pedestrian "looking behavior," perhaps because they feel more protected?

Looking behavior increased significantly after crosswalk markings were installed. No evidence was seen that the pedestrians were less vigilant in a
marked crosswalk compared to one not marked.

The findings are generally consistent with an earlier study that likewise addressed pedestrian looking behavior and how well they kept within the area
defined by the markings (Knoblauch et al., 1987). Of one case study, these authors said, "The analysis of behavioral data indicates that there were little
or no changes in pedestrian behavior resulting from the installation of the pedestrian crosswalk markings." (p. 21)

Of a second case study, the authors said, "...pedestrians tended to stay in the crosswalk. There was no change in the number of pedestrians looking
before entering the roadway; fewer pedestrians continued to look during the first half of the crossing. There was no change in looking behavior during
the second half of the crossing. (pp. 25 26)

Hauck (1979) reported a before after study done in Peoria, IL, in which 17 crosswalks at traffic signals were re painted. Operational evaluation at the
sites showed a general decrease in both pedestrian and motorist violations when comparing "before-and-after results. It was found that the percentage
of pedestrians who stepped out in front of traffic during the after period decreased at 12 of the 17 locations; crossing against the DON'T WALK phase
(signalized intersections) decreased at 13 of the 17 locations, though jaywalking was unchanged.

These studies show pedestrian behavior to be generally better in the presence of marked crosswalks Certainly there is no indication of incautious or
reckless pedestrian behavior associated with the marked crosswalks. What would be of interest, however, would be a study of pedestrian behavior at
the kind of high ADT multilane facility where crashes at marked crosswalks were significantly higher than at unmarked. A study under those
circumstances might not be advisable, however. It should be noted that the study by Zegeer and colleagues found that much of the increase in
pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks on multilane roads {above 10,000 ADT) involved "multiple-threat" crashes, where a vehicle stops in the curb
lane to let a pedestrian cross and the pedestrian steps into the street and is struck by a vehicle in the adjacent lane (whose view of the pedestrian is
blocked by the stopped vehicle). Some agencies have used an advance stop bar with the sign STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS to improve sight
distance (i.e., when stopping vehicles stop further back from the crosswalk) and reduce the risk of this type of crash.

MOTORIST BEHAVIOR

t of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

Motorist behavior changes at marked (vs. unmarked} crosswalks, have been studied by looking at speed (with and without pedestrians present),
yielding, and other factors.

In 1998, Knoblauch reported results of speed measurements at six locations before and after crosswalk markings were applied. Some measurements
were made with no pedestrians present, some with a pedestrian present and looking at traffic (the pedestrian was a member of the research team) and
another condition in which the pedestrian approached and stood at the edge of the curb, looked straight across the road and not at traffic. The results
were not clear cut. Traffic behavior at the sites was not consistent. One site showed a considerably slower speed after the markings were painted even
though no pedestrian was present. This speed change was unexpected and could not be explained; such changes were not seen at other crossings.

When the pedestrian was present and looking at traffic, the result summed over all six sites was a small speed decrease of less than 1 kph (.6 mph},
which was not statistically significant. However, one site showed a significant decrease in speed and one showed a significant increase. The author
pointed out that given the overall speed of the vehicles and the point at which the measurements were taken, a reasonable driver would assume that a
pedestrian looking at traffic would not begin to cross. The driver would therefore see no need to slow down.

When the driver was present and not looking, however, overall the speeds were about 4 kph (2.5 mph} lower after the markings were applied; a
statistically significant change. The author concluded that drivers are aware of and respond to the crosswalk markings in most cases, particularly when
a pedestrian is present but does not look toward the motorist.

In a 1999 study, Knoblauch and colleagues observed motorist behavior to address two questions:

1. Did crosswalk markings affect the ways drivers respond to pedestrians? The differences were small, but drivers appear to drive slightly slowly
when approaching a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk compared to one that is unmarked.
2. Might crosswalk markings disrupt vehicle flow by causing drivers to stop and yield to pedestrians? No change was observed. Drivers were
neither more nor less likely to yield to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk than they had been when the crosswalk was not marked. It should be
mentioned that all sites used in Knoblauch's 1999 study were two or three lanes (no four-lane roads} and all had speed limits of 56-64 kph (35 or
40 mph}.

Ekman reported in 1988 that motorists in Sweden did not reduce their speeds when approaching zebra crossings. Insofar as this study measured
vehicle speed when no one was present in the crosswalk or at the curb, one might expect speed to change little or not at all.

In another 1996 Swedish study, Varhelyi measured motorist behavior at non signalized zebra crossings. He reported that in 73 percent of "critical"
cases, the vehicle maintained or even increased speed and in only 27 percent of cases did they slow down as required. Despite what the motorists
actually do, it was found in a separate survey that motorists in 67 percent of the cases say they "always" or "very often" slow down.

In 1992, Van Houten studied factors that might influence motorists to yield for pedestrians in marked crosswalks. He measured several behaviors at
intersections in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where a series of interventions was sequentially introduced to increase the vividness of crosswalks. First signs
were added, then a stop line, and then amber lights activated by pedestrians and displayed to motorists. The percentage of vehicles stopping when
they should do so increased by amounts up to 50 percent. Conflicts dropped from 50 percent to about 10 percent at one intersection and from 50 to
about 25 percent at another. The percentage of motorists who yielded increased from about 25 percent up to 40 percent at one intersection and from
about 35 to about 45 percent at another.

Malefant and Van Houten studied in 1989 ways to increase the percentage of drivers who yield to pedestrians. An experiment was conducted in St.
John's, Newfoundland, and Fredericton and Moncton Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada. Countermeasures included additional markings, feedback to
the pedestrians as to compliance, warning signs for motorists, and enforcement. Associated with these multiple interventions were large increases in
the proportion of motorists who yielded to pedestrians, ranging from 50 percent (before) to 70 percent (after) in one city; from 10 to 60 percent in
another, and from 40 to 60 percent in the third.

In 1975, Katz et al. carried out an experimental study of driver-pedestrian interaction when the pedestrian crossed. The pedestrians in question were
members of the study team and they crossed under a variety of conditions in 960 trials. It was found that drivers stop for pedestrians more often when
the vehicle approach speed is low, when the pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk, when the distance between vehicle and pedestrian is greater rather
than less, when pedestrians are in groups, and when the pedestrian does not make eye contact with the driver.

Cynecki and Associates, 1993 reported the results after rumble strips were installed in advance of marked crosswalks. The strips were placed at 19
uncontrolled locations. After installation, there was little change in vehicle speed. The authors also reported that 85th percentile speeds showed
essentially no change. Presumably most of the time when the motorist encountered the rumble strip, the marked pedestrian crosswalk ahead would
have been empty.

Assessment of Literature

It appears that there is a greater crash risk associated with marked crosswalks alone (i.e., if no other substantial improvement also is present) on multi
lane facilities with ADT greater than approximately 10,000. Otherwise, it appears that marking a crosswalk has no clear effect one way or another on
pedestrian crashes. The apparent large negative effect reported by earlier authors disappears on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads having ADT's
below approximately 10,000. The pedestrian behavior hypothesized to account for the negative results was not observed under the circumstances
discussed.

Alternative Crossing Treatments

Innovative approaches to pedestrian crossing protection were tested in Detroit, Ml (Malo et al., 1971). Combinations of signing, marking, lighting, and
pedestrian signal actuation were installed. The alternative configurations included overhead signs with internal illumination, flashing beacons, and
pedestrian signals.

Thirteen sites were chosen on the basis of poor crash records and/or judgment that indicated an unusual hazard. Implementation of the devices was

5 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 Piv

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

preceded by a considerable educational and publicity effort by the Traffic Safety Association of Detroit, using leaflets, demonstration installations, press,
releases, and other public information methods. Field measurements included approach speeds, gaps, volumes, driver response (slowing), pedestrian
attributes, gap acceptance, and behavior. In addition to the engineering studies, opinion surveys were conducted of both pedestrians and drivers as
well as evaluations by experts.

Figure 26. Crosswalk treatments such as lighted

signs have been used in an attempt to affect
pedestrian and/or motorist behaviors

The engineering studies led to the following findings:

• There was a significantly greater relative use of crosswalks following installation of devices, primarily during daylight hours.
• The speed distribution of free-flow vehicles in the vicinity of the crosswalk did not change substantially.
• Many more drivers slowed for pedestrians waiting to cross the street.
• Pedestrian use of push buttons increased but not to the level expected.

Interviews of pedestrians and drivers showed drivers were usually satisfied with the devices, but pedestrians were not satisfied with driver response. It
was concluded that drivers did not expect to have to stop or slow down significantly unless a traffic signal or stop sign were in use. Pedestrians
expected traffic to slow down when the device was activated.

A study of special crosswalks was conducted in five major Canadian cities (Braaksma 1976). Four evaluation criteria were used-safety, delay,
aesthetics, and cost. Special crosswalks were defined as those with some extra features in the form of overhead signs and lighting, pavement
markings, parking prohibitions, or, in some cases, special laws. The best system of performance rating per unit cost was in Toronto. Excluding cost, the
Calgary system performed best.

The Toronto system consisted of pavement markings and roadside signs. Large "Xs" were marked on the pavement in each lane 30.5 m (100ft) back
on the approach to the crosswalk. The stripe widths were between 304.8 mm and 508 mm (12-20 in), and the X was 6.1 m (20ft) long. A standard
advanced pedestrian crossing warning sign was mounted adjacent to the X at the roadside. The crosswalk was marked no less than 2.44 m (8ft) wide
with two 152.4-mm to 203.2-mm (6-8 in) stripes, 2235.2 mm (88 in) apart, delineating each side of the crosswalk.

The Calgary system employed a large overhead sign bearing the word PEDESTRIAN with two large "Xs" on either side of the word. On either side of
the "Xs" were mounted 203.2-mm (8-in) flasher units. Below the word PEDESTRIAN a smaller flasher was mounted for pedestrian viewing. The
flashers were activated by a pedestrian button having an appropriate sign instructing the pedestrian to push the button and cross with caution. Standard
crosswalk markings were employed. A sign was post mounted at the roadside 45.75 m- 76.25 m (150ft to 250ft) before each approach, containing the
words WHEN LIGHT FLASHING-MAXIMUM 20*-DO NOT PASS-HERE TO CROSSWALK. A flasher was placed above the sign. The flasher was also
activated by the pedestrian button.

Before-and-after studies in Toronto showed a marked decline in pedestrian fatalities, although two hazardous behavior patterns were noted. First, some

676 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
of34
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042..

pedestrians would step off the curb without signaling their intention to cross the roadway; they apparently expected vehicles to stop instantaneously.
Second, pedestrians noted that vehicles passed each other just before the crosswalk. The need for consistent laws regarding crosswalks, pedestrian,
and driver education in this regard, and improved enforcement, were also cited.

Illuminated crosswalk signs were installed and evaluated at 20 locations in Tokyo, Japan, using before-after comparisons of crashes (Accident
Prevention Effects, 1969). Findings show both pedestrian crossing-related and other unrelated crashes increased after the installation of the signs by
4.8 and 2.4 percent, respectively, in 200-m (218-yd) sections on either side of the installation. Both crash types increased 11.4 percent in 50-m (55-yd)
sections. It was concluded that the illuminated crosswalk signs did not seem to be effective in reducing crashes; whether this type of device increases
crashes, however, is unclear, as the average annual rate of crash growth on major streets in Tokyo is approximately 24 percent.

Crosswalk Illumination
A two-stage study of floodlighting of pedestrian crossings was conducted in Perth, Australia (Pegrum, 1972). A pilot study showed sufficient success to
initiate a broader scale lighting program. Sixty-three sites were studied. The illumination consisted of two floodlights, one on each side of the roadway,
on either side of the crosswalk, mounted about 3.66 m (12ft) from the crosswalk at a height of 5.185 m (17ft), and aimed at a point .915 m (3ft) above
the pavement. The luminaire was a 100-watt sodium lamp. The ambient lighting was not from sodium luminaires. The author found sodium floodlighting
resulted in a significant decrease in nighttime pedestrian crashes, as shown in table 25.

A combined illumination and signing system for pedestrian crosswalks was developed and tested in Israel (Polus and Katz, 1978). The nighttime crash
change at the 99 illuminated study sites and 39 unilluminated control sites is shown in table 26 on the following page. The reductions were concluded to
be primarily due to the illumination, since daylight crashes were relatively unchanged. Other threats to validity were checked, including changes in
pedestrian and vehicle flow, weather differences, and national crash trends. None of these showed any effect on the results.

*The sign indicating "maximum 20" refers to kph.

Table 25. Crash effects of providing sodium floodlights at pedestrian crossings

(Perth, Australia).

Pedestrian Crashes Crashes Involving Vehicles Alone

Day Night Total Day Night Total

Pilot Test: 6 crossings

5 years before 19(1) 7(1) 26(2) 5 1 6

5 years after 21(1) 2 23(1) 9 0 9

Follow On Test: 57 additional crossings

2 years before 57(2) 32(1) 89(3) 19 2 21

2 years after 58(2) 13(1) 71(3) 18(1) 1 19(1)

Fatalities shown in parentheses.

Source: Pegrum, 1972.

Table 26. Effects of crosswalk illumination on pedestrian crashes (Israel).

Number of Night Crashes

Before After

Illuminated Sites 28 16

Unilluminated Control Sites 10 16

Source: Polus and Katz, 1978

A study in Philadelphia assessed the impacts of installing improved lighting at seven sites (Freedman et al., 1975). The impacts were evaluated on the
basis of behavior as measured for 728 pedestrians and 191 drivers at the 7 study sites and 7 control sites. The study sites were high-crash locations,
while the control sites were low-crash locations. The illumination improvement consisted of 90-watt low-pressure sodium lamps. Each system was
controlled by a photocell that energized the circuit at sundown and turned it off at sunrise. Experimenter override was possible.

The evaluation was conducted using two primary comparisons of pedestrian attribute changes. One approach used five basic factors-search behavior,
crossing path, concentration, erratic behavior, and clothing brightness. The results of comparing the five basic factors before and after lighting
improvements showed that "perceived clothing brightness" increased significantly on the basis of all comparisons for high-crash locations with the
installation of the special illumination. Observers searching the street in a fashion similar to drivers perceived the general appearance of pedestrians as
brighter. There was significant improvement in the apparent concentration of pedestrians to the crossing task at all signalized locations. Search

7 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 P:N

:>art 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

behavior was found to improve significantly under all conditions. Drivers appeared more aware of approaching hazardous crosswalks when the
illumination was present. It should be noted that the crash data changes in both groups moved as if toward the mean, consistent with what would be
expected since one group consisted of high-crash sites and the other low-crash sites. However, the behavioral measures should not have been
influenced by regression to the mean.

Barriers, Signals, and Signage to Restrict Pedestrian Movements

Median Barriers
As part of a test of various countermeasures, median fence barriers were installed at two sites (Washington, D.C., with a 1.22-m-[4-ft-] high fence, and
New York City, with a 1.83-m- (6-ft-) high fence) (Berger, 1975). One site had two gaps at intersecting minor streets. After installation of the barrier, 61
percent of the pedestrians identified the barrier as the reason for using the crosswalk. When asked whether the barrier affected the manner in which
they crossed the street, 52 percent stated it had no effect, while 48 percent indicated the only effect was to force them to cross at the intersection.

Of those who were crossing midblock before the installation, 61 percent did so out of convenience. About one-third indicated they would use the
crosswalk only if midblock traffic were "very heavy." After the fence was installed, 32 percent of the 22 pedestrians interviewed who previously made
midblock crossings stated inconvenience as the major factor, with high turning volume at the intersection as a close second (23 percent). Older
pedestrians were generally concerned with the intersection turning-traffic problem. Many cited recent crash experience. Almost one-quarter of those
interviewed indicated they had walked along the median to the end of the barrier, or an opening, before completing the crossing. While merchants at a
control site did not indicate anticipating much effect from a median barrier, 58 percent of those at the experimental sites indicated their belief that its
major effect was to discourage customers from shopping both sides of the street. Most residents accepted the barrier. Only 7 percent wanted it
removed. A few complained about inconvenience and its unsightly appearance.

Freeway Barriers
As part of the analysis of freeway pedestrian crashes, attempts were made to estimate the maximum national impact of right-of-way fencing and/or
median barriers on freeway crashes if these pedestrian barriers were employed and were completely effective in controlling crashes identified as
related to this countermeasure (Knoblauch et al., 1978). The field investigators estimated that 14 percent of freeway pedestrian crashes were
susceptible to this countermeasure. One analysis of the crash types and the contributing factors suggested that these countermeasures could address
between 160 and 222 of these usually severe nationwide crashes per year.

Roadside/Sidewalk Barriers
Chains, fences, guardrails, and other similar devices have been proposed in several studies as a means for channelizing and protecting pedestrians
(Knoblauch, 1977; Snyder and Knoblauch, 1971; Knoblauch et al., 1978; Model Pedestrian Safety Program, 1987 edition).

Parking meter post barriers were tested at three sites in urban areas (Berger, 1975). All involved use of chains that connected parking meter posts. The
barrier was .9 m (3ft) high and involved 1, 2, or 3 chains. In Washington, DC, 6 parking meter post barriers were created on one side of a street,
resulting in a series of 3.66-m (12-ft) long single chain sections. In New York City, 19 posts were utilized, 9 on one side of the street and 10 on the other.
These were 3.66-m- (12-ft-) sections with 2 chains. The third site was a section of one-way street along which three-chain sections were installed on
eight posts. The results were mixed. A vandalism problem (stolen chains) interfered with the experiment, a noteworthy concern. Twenty-six percent of
those interviewed who crossed at the intersections after the installation mentioned that a factor in their choice of crossing location was the illegality of
crossing elsewhere. Since only 12 percent had mentioned this before the change, the barriers may have reminded pedestrians that it is illegal to
jaywalk. While 65 percent of merchants perceived no negative effects from the countermeasure, 15 percent noted interference to street crossing, and
18 percent cited a problem when loading or unloading goods.

In London, research was done on a 548.4-m (600-yd) road segment that had been provided with pedestrian barriers on both sides (Jacobs, 1966). The
access openings were not directly across from each other. Pedestrian crossing movements were mapped and crash data were compiled. Crashes
during the previous 8 years were shown as a ratio to 4-hour pedestrian volume, fewer than 20,000 people. The resulting risk ratio was compared with
that for 11 other sites in London that did not have pedestrian barriers. The only significant differences occurred at points within 45.7 m (50 yds) of a
signalized intersection (more than twice the risk ratio with the pedestrian barrier) and at other midblock locations within 18.28 m (20 yds) of an
intersection where controlled crossings were not present and approximately 10 times the risk ratio. The overall risk ratio was lower at the test site but
was not found to be statistically significant.

The longitudinal path taken by each pedestrian was studied. This was the distance between barrier openings used to get on and off the roadway,
measured parallel to the curb. The results indicate most pedestrians would cross away from the crosswalk when the longitudinal distance between
barrier openings on either side of the street was less than 9 m (10 yds). It was suggested by the author that longitudinal distances between the
openings on opposite sides of a street be greater than 9 m (10 yds).

Pedestrian barrier fences were installed along 18 sections of road in Tokyo (Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). Crashes were analyzed before and
after the installation. Crashes related to crossing pedestrians declined by nearly 20 percent. An overall 4-percent reduction was observed, including
non-pedestrian crashes. It had been thought that even though crashes related to pedestrians' crossing out of crosswalks might decrease, crashes
related to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalks might increase. The results indicated both types of pedestrian collisions were reduced equally by 20
percent.

Signalization

678 9/20/2017, 5:06PM

of34
Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

Signals are widely employed to direct and assist pedestrians at crossings. A study of 30 locations in Tokyo where pedestrian-activated signals were
installed showed that crashes declined by 37.5 percent (Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). Little difference was noted in the severity of crashes
between the before and after periods. The effective range of the signal influence seems to be between 25-50 m (27-55 yds) on either side of the signal.
The pedestrian-activated signals were found to be much more effective in reducing night crashes than daylight crashes. Rear-end vehicular crashes,
which are usually expected to increase after signalization, decreased by 12 percent.

Several behavioral studies of pedestrian signals have been conducted in the U.S. Most have found pedestrian compliance to be poor. One study
compared pedestrian crossing behavior at sites with and without standard pedestrian signals (Mortimer, 1973). Observers noted specific behaviors
twice on different days. A total of 24 sites in Detroit, Ml, were analyzed, 12 of which had pedestrian signals. More than 3,200 pedestrians were
observed. Illegal starts on amber/DON'T WALK were about 4 percent less at sites with pedestrian signals. The percent arriving at the far side of the
green/WALK was 20 percent higher at the sites with pedestrian signals.

An observational sampling study of pedestrian behavior at a site in Brooklyn, NY, noted any change occurring with the installation of a pedestrian signal
(Fleig and Duffy, 1967). A before-after crash analysis was also performed on 11 additional sites at which pedestrian signals had been installed. Neither
the behavioral analysis nor the crash analysis showed any significant difference between the before and after periods.

As part of a behavioral analysis at a variety of intersections in Washington, DC, San Francisco and Oakland, CA (Petzold, 1977), observations were
made of compliance with pedestrian signals at six intersections. Based on four intersections with pedestrian signals displaying a flashing WALK
indication (550 pedestrians) and two intersections having steady WALK indications (139 pedestrians), no difference was observed between flashing and
steady WALK signals in terms of pedestrian usage of the cycle. A very large portion of the users paid little, if any, attention to the pedestrian signal. This
same study demonstrated that few pedestrians understand the meaning of flashing WALK and DON'T WALK pedestrian signals, whereas symbolic
pedestrian signalization such as the walking pedestrian and upheld hand offers an improved understanding over word messages. One study showed
that, at most, only about half of the pedestrians pressed the button to activate the WALK light (Palamarthy et al., 1994).

A comparison was made in Massachusetts of the behavior of pedestrians at intersections with flashing and solid WALK segments of the pedestrian
signals (Sterling, 1974). The sites were controlled by vehicle-actuated signals having a fixed pedestrian phase length. Sites with high pedestrian and
traffic volumes were chosen. Pedestrians at the sites with flashing WALK were found to cross in a legal manner only 29 percent of the time compared
with 51 percent who did so at the sites with a steady WALK indication. The percentage of crossings for which a vehicular conflict occurred was 6
percent for the steady indication and 8 percent for the flashing indication. This difference was statistically significant.

An area-wide, centralized computer-controlled signal system was installed in West London. The impact on pedestrian safety and other impacts were
studied (Crook, 1970). A significant 5-percent reduction in pedestrian crashes occurred in the experimental area while a 20-percent increase in
pedestrian crashes occurred in a comparison (control) area.

Studies in the U.S. and Israel have quantified the effects of pedestrian signals and signal timing on pedestrian crashes. The most comprehensive study
involved the collection and analysis of pedestrian crashes, traffic and pedestrian volume, signal timing, roadway geometries, and other data at 1,297
signalized intersections (2,081 total pedestrian crashes) in 15 U.S. cities. The following pedestrian signal strategies existed (Zegeer et al., 1982, 1983):

• Concurrent (standard) timing allows pedestrians a WALK interval concurrently (parallel) to traffic flow, while vehicles are generally permitted to
turn right or left on a green light across the pedestrian's path. These represented 658 intersections, or over 50.7 percent of the sample, and is by
far the most common type of pedestrian signal timing in the U.S.
• Exclusive timing refers to a pedestrian signal timing where pedestrians are given an exclusive interval each signal cycle while traffic is stopped in
all directions. "Scramble" or "Barnes Dance" timing is exclusive timing where pedestrians are also permitted to cross the street diagonally. There
were 109 such intersections, or 8.4 percent of the total, in the database.
• Other timing patterns include early release, where pedestrians are given a head start in the cycle before motor vehicles are permitted to turn
behind pedestrians. Late-release timing holds pedestrians until motor vehicles make their right (and/or left) turns before pedestrians are allowed
to cross. Only 22 intersections, or 1.7 percent of the total, had one of these timing patterns.
• Pedestrian signal indications were not present at 508, or 39.2 percent, of the sample intersections.

The study found that the factors significantly related to increased pedestrian crashes include higher pedestrian and traffic volumes, street operation
(two-way streets have higher pedestrian crashes than one-way streets), wider streets, higher bus use, and greater percentage of turning movements.
The presence of concurrently timed pedestrian signals had no significant effect on pedestrian crashes when compared with intersections with traffic
signals alone. Sites with exclusive pedestrian signal timing had significantly lower pedestrian experience (about half as many) as sites with either
standard timing or with no pedestrian signals. This exclusive timing scheme was effective, however, only at intersections with more than 1,200
pedestrians per day. The authors controlled for pedestrian volume, traffic volume, intersection geometries, and other factors in their analysis. A
summary of results for various signal timing schemes is given in table 27.

Of possible relevance to the issue of early or late release timing is a study of pedestrian traffic conflicts at T intersections (Lord, 1996). This study
confirmed earlier work that showed more pedestrian conflicts with left-turning vehicles at T intersections than at standard X intersections. Because left-
turning traffic at T intersections has no oncoming vehicle traffic to cause a delay, the driver can initiate the turn immediately and may intercept a
pedestrian who starts at the same time. At an X intersection, left-turning traffic may have to wait for oncoming vehicle traffic to pass, which may amount
to an early release for the pedestrians.

Zegeer and colleagues (1982, 1983) cite these explanations for the possible lack of effectiveness of concurrent signal timing:

• The possibility that many pedestrians of pedestrians misunderstand pedestrian signal messages, such as the flashing DON'T WALK (i.e.,
pedestrian clearance interval meaning don't start, but finish crossing if already in the street)
• The false sense of security that some pedestrians may have regarding the WALK interval (e.g., they sometimes incorrectly believe that a WALK
interval protects them by stopping traffic in all directions including turns, such as with exclusive signal timing)
• Poor compliance by many pedestrians to pedestrian signals in the 15 test cities (65.9 percent of pedestrians were found to begin crossing during
the flashing or steady DON'T WALK at 64 intersection approaches)
• Reluctance by many pedestrians to activate the push-button pedestrian signals (e.g., the study found that 51.3 percent of all crossing
pedestrians pushed the button to activate the signal)

9 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

The study concluded that highway agencies should not indiscriminately install pedestrian signals at all traffic signalized locations. Instead, the cost of
pedestrian signals should be weighed against their effectiveness at a given location. On the other hand, the authors cite a need for pedestrian signals at
some signalized locations (e.g., within established school crossings, wide street crossings, or where vehicle signals are not visible to pedestrians) as
discussed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988).

In a 1987 study from Israel by Zaidel and Hocherman, pedestrian crashes were used to compare the safety of various types of pedestrian signal
options at signalized intersections in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. These included sites with a concurrently-timed pedestrian signal, an exclusively
timed pedestrian interval, and no pedestrian control. Extensive control data were collected for use in the analysis.

A total of 1,310 pedestrian crashes and 5,132 vehicle crashes were analyzed at 320 intersections. The factors most strongly associated with higher
pedestrian crashes include increased pedestrian and traffic volume and greater intersection complexity (as evidenced by number of intersection legs or
number of conflict points). The type of pedestrian crossing provision was found to have only a slight effect on pedestrian crashes, and no effect on
vehicle injury crashes, particularly where vehicle volumes were relatively low (i.e., less than 18,000 vehicles per day). Exclusively timed pedestrian
signals showed evidence of crash reduction where high vehicle and pedestrian volumes existed.

Table 27. Summary of effects of pedestrian signal timing on pedestrian crashes.

Adjusted Means Significant

Dependent Level of
Comparison (Sample Sizes in Control Variables Difference (at
Variable Significance
Parentheses) the 0.05 level)

Pedestrian Volume
No Ped. Signal: (AADT)
0.36 (508) Total Traffic Volume
A. Mean
Concurrent: 0.40 (AADT)
Pedestrian
(658) Street Operation Yes 0.001
Crashes per
Exclusive: 0.22 (One-Way/Two-
Year
(109) Way)
Other: 0.38 (22) Ped. Signal
1. All Ped. Signal Alternatives
Alternatives Pedestrian Volume
No Ped. Signal: (AADT)
0.13 (508) Total Traffic Volume
B. Mean
Concurrent: 0.17 (AADT)
Pedestrian
(658) Street Operation Yes 0.001
Turning Crashes
Exclusive: 0.01 (One-Way/ Two-
per Year
(109) Way)
Other: 0.20 (22) Ped. Signal
Alternatives

Pedestrian Volume
(AADT)
Total Traffic Volume
A. Mean No Ped. Signal:
(AADT)
Pedestrian 0.36 (508)
Street Operation No 0.130
Crashes per Concurrent: 0.40
(One-Way/Two-
Year (658)
Way)
2. No Ped. Signal Ped. Signal
Indication vs. Alternatives
Concurrent Ped.
Signal Timing Pedestrian Volume
(AADT)
B. Mean No Ped. Signal: Total Traffic Volume
Pedestrian 0.12 (508) (AADT)
Yes 0.048
Turning Crashes Concurrent: 0.15 Street Operation
per Year (658) (One-Way/ Two-
Way) Ped. Signal
Alternatives

Pedestrian Volume
(AADT)
Total Traffic Volume
A. Mean No Ped. Signal:
(AADT)
Pedestrian 0.33 (508)
Street Operation Yes 0.001
Crashes per Exclusive: 0.15
3. No Ped. Signal (One-Way/Two-
Year (109)
Indication vs. Way)
Exclusive Ped. Ped. Signal
Signal Timing Alternatives

B. Mean No Ped. Signal: Pedestrian Volume

Pedestrian (AADT)
0.11 (508)
Total Traffic Volume Yes 0.001
Turning Crashes Exclusive: 0.00
per Year (109) (AADT)

680 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
of34
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

Street Operation
(One-Way/Two-
Way)
Ped. Signal
Alternatives

Pedestrian Volume
(AADT)
Total Traffic Volume
A. Mean Concurrent Timing:
(AADT)
Pedestrian 0.43 (658)
Street Operation Yes 0.001
Crashes per Exclusive: 0.27
(One-Way/Two-
Year (109)
Way)
4. Concurrent Ped. Ped. Signal
Signal Timing vs. Alternatives
Exclusive Ped. Pedestrian Volume
Signal Timing (AADT)
Total Traffic Volume
B. Mean Concurrent Timing:
(AADT)
Pedestrian 0.17 (658)
Street Operation Yes 0.001
Turning Crashes Exclusive: 0.03
(One-Way/Two-
per Year (109)
Way)
Ped. Signal
Alternatives

Source: Zegeer et al., 1983

*Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

A 1984 study by Robertson and Carter examined the safety, operational, and cost impacts of pedestrian signal indications at signalized intersections.
The study was based on information obtained from existing literature, an analysis of pedestrian crashes, a delay analysis, and a benefit-cost analysis.
The authors concluded that pedestrian signal indications appear to reduce pedestrian crashes at some intersections, have little or no effect at others,
and even increase such crashes at other intersections. Also, while the presence of pedestrian signals apparently did not significantly offset pedestrian
and vehicle delay, the operation of pedestrian and vehicular signals (i.e., signal timing) had a profound effect on delay.

The authors recommended that further efforts be made to determine intersection conditions for effective use of pedestrian signals.

As stated above, many pedestrians do not fully understand the meaning of pedestrian signals and markings, nor the legal obligations underlying them,
and that may explain, in part, the less than perfect performance associated with these devices. A 1995 study by Tidwell and Doyle reported survey
results based on data collected in 48 states. The following survey responses were reported:

• 86-94 percent say crossing should be at intersections or marked midblock crossings.

• 92-97 percent understand that motorists should give way to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk.
• 79-87 percent know that RTOR vehicles should yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
• 59-61 percent did not know that motorists are not obliged to stop when a pedestrian is waiting on the sidewalk.
• 42-46 percent erroneously believe the DON'T WALK signal means return to the original curb.
• 47 percent think a WALK signal means there will be no conflict with turning vehicles.

Signing
A variety of pedestrian-related signs are used by state and local agencies. Examples of regulatory signs include PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED, WALK
ON LEFT FACING TRAFFIC, NO HITCHHIKING, and others. Warning signs for pedestrians include the advance pedestrian crossing sign, school
warning sign, and others. Guide signs provide travel information and can direct pedestrians to sidewalks, walkways, hiking trails, overpasses, and other
facilities. Criteria for the design and placement of signs are contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (1988) and
supplemented by the Traffic Control Devices Handbook, (1988). A 1988 study for the Transportation Research Board summarizes experiences from 48
state and local agencies regarding traffic and roadway conditions where certain signs are most (and least) effective (Zegeer and Zegeer, 1988).

An experiment was conducted using a novel fluorescent yellow green sign warning motorists of pedestrians (Clark et al., 1996). A before-and-after
study was done, including a comparison group where no such sign was deployed. An increase was found in the proportion of vehicles slowing or
stopping for pedestrians. However, no decrease was seen in conflict events.

Right Turn on Red

The effects of RTOR on pedestrian safety was investigated in a 1981 study by Preusser and Associates. Right turn crashes increased from 1.47
percent before RTOR to 2.28 percent of all pedestrian crashes after RTOR went into effect. A common RTOR pedestrian crash resulted when a
motorist was stopped at the intersection looking for approaching vehicles from the left and failed to see a pedestrian crossing from the right side.
Directional movements related to RTOR crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists are illustrated in figure 27. The study concluded that there was a
small but clear safety problem for pedestrians because of RTOR. A 1994 NHTSA report to Congress said that about two-tenths of 1 percent of all fatal
pedestrian and bike crashes result from RTOR (Compton and Milton, 1994).

II of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 P"tv

)art 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research!safety/pedbike/03042...

Figure 27. Directional movements of

pedestrians and bicyclists involved in
right-turn-on-red crashes

A 1986 study by Zegeer and Cynecki investigated motorist violation rates related to NO TURN ON RED (NTOR) signs and resulting pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts. Observational data for more than 67,000 drivers at 110 intersections were collected at intersections in Washington, DC, Dallas, Austin, Detroit,
Lansing, and Grand Rapids. It was found that 3.7 percent of all right-turning motorists at RTOR-prohibited intersections violate the NTOR signs.
However, approximately 21 percent violate the NTOR signs if given an opportunity (e.g., first in line at the intersection with no pedestrians in front of
them and no vehicle coming from the left). A summary of motorist violations and resulting conflicts at RTOR-prohibited sites is shown in table 28.

According to Zegeer and Cynecki's findings, approximately 23.4 percent of all RTOR violations result in a conflict with a pedestrian. These types of
conflicts are summarized in table 29 for the near and far crosswalks. At intersections where RTOR is allowed, 56.9 percent of motorists fail to make a
full stop before turning right on red. This compared with 68.2 percent of vehicles that failed to make a complete stop at other intersections with stop-sign
control. The higher violation rate (i.e., not fully stopping) at stop sign intersections was attributed in part to the greater opportunity for a rolling stop or no
stop (because of lower side street volumes and pedestrian activity at stop-sign locations compared with signalized locations). Based on locational
factors, 30 candidate countermeasures were developed to improve pedestrian safety relative to RTOR.

A follow-up evaluation of promising countermeasures was conducted for RTOR pedestrian crashes. Seven countermeasures were tested at 34
intersection approaches in six U.S. cities on the basis of motorist violations and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts related to RTOR and right turn on green
(RTOG). The results showed that the NTOR sign with the red ball was more effective than the standard black and white NTOR signs. For RTOR
motorists, an offset stop bar was found to increase compliance (i.e., making a full stop before turning right on red) and also reduced conflicts with cross-
street traffic. An electronic NTORI blank-out sign (actuated only during critical times, such as during school crossing times) was slightly more effective,
although considerably more costly than traditional signs. In general, driver compliance was improved when the RTOR restriction was limited to the peak
pedestrian times instead of full-time restrictions. The NTOR WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT sign was found to be effective at intersections
having moderate or low RTOR volumes. Several of these countermeasures are illustrated in figure 28. The study also showed that generally the
likelihood of an RTOG collision was higher than a RTOR collision. In some cases, prohibiting RTOR may lead to a greater RTOG collision potential.

Table 28. Violations and conflicts related to right turn on red.

Number of
RTOR
Number of RTOR Conflicts Percent of RTOR
Percent of RTOR Vehicles
Number of Conflicts (No. per Involved in Conflict
Plus Vehicles Involved in
Total Hour) Interactions Conflicts or Interactions
Number of RTOR
Number (No. Per
Intersection Maneuvers
of Hour)
Approaches (No. per
Hours
Hour) Pedestrians
Cross Cross
Plus Cross
Street Pedestrians Street Pedestrians Total Pedestrians Pedestrians
Street
Vehicles Vehicles
Traffic
RTOR-
8,507 324
Allowed 496.7 108 428 (0.86) 3.8 5.0 8.8 792 (1.59) 9.3 13.1
(17.13) (0.65)
Sites

RTOR-
2,225 133
Prohibited 435.8 91 135 (0.31) 6.0 6.0 12.0 222 (0.51) 10.0 16.0
(5.11) (0.31)
Sites

Total 10,732 457

932.5 199 563 (0.60) 4.3 5.2 9.5 1,014 (1.09) 9.4 13.7
Sites (11.51) (0.49)

Source: Zegeer and Cynecki, 1986.

682 9/20/2017, 5:06PM

of34
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

Table 29. Summary of traffic conflicts related to right-turn-on-red pedestrian crashes.

Hours of Near Crosswalk Far Crosswalk Total Crosswalks

Types of Type of
Data
Sites Conflict
Collected Conflicts Interactions Totals Conflicts Interactions Totals Conflict Interactions Total

118 279 5,018 7,422 5,136 7,701

RTOG 161 (0.32) 2404 (4.84) 2,565 (5.16)
(0.24) (0.56) (10.10) (14.94) (10.34) (15.50)

RTOR- 151 336 277 456 428 792

496.7 RTOR 185 (0.37) 179 (0.36) 364 (0.73)
Allowed (0.30) (0.67) (0.56) (0.92) (0.86) (1.59)

269 615 5,295 7,878 5,564 8,493

Totals 346 (0.70) 2,583 (5.20) 2,929 (5.90)
(0.54) (1.24) (10.66) (15.86) (11.20) (17.10)

181 321 5,234 7,888 5,415 8,209

RTOG 140 (0.32) 2,654 (6.09) 2,794 (6.41)
(0.42) (0.74) (12.01) (18.10) (12.43) (18.84)

RTOR- 84 138 135 222

435.8 RTOR 40 (0.09) 44 (0.10) 95 (0.22) 43 (0.10) 87 (0.20)
Prohibited (0.19) (0.32) (0.31) (0.51)

221 405 5,329 8,026 5,550 8,431

Totals 184 (0.42) 2,697 (6.19) 2,881 (6.61)
(0.51) (0.93) (12.23) (18.42) (12.74) (19.35)

Source: Zegeer and Cynecki, 1986.

Innovative Traffic Control Devices

Various problems have been identified in recent years regarding traffic controls for pedestrians, particularly related to the ineffectiveness and confusion
associated with pedestrian signal messages. A 1982 study by Zegeer et. al. developed and tested alternatives to warn pedestrians and/or motorists of
potential problems between pedestrians and turning vehicles at intersections. Field testing was conducted at selected intersections in several cities
(Washington, DC, Milwaukee, Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Saginaw, Ml). The results revealed that:

• A red and white triangular sign, 914 m (36 in) on each side and inscribed YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN WHEN TURNING was effective in reducing
turning conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. It was recommended that this sign be added to the MUTCD for optional use at locations with
a high incidence of pedestrian crashes involving turning vehicles.
• A PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES warning sign with black letters on a yellow background was significantly associated with
reduced vehicle turning crashes involving pedestrians. This sign was also recommended as an optional sign to be incorporated into the MUTCD.
• A pedestrian signal explanation sign had no detectable effect at two sites where pedestrian violations were not a problem before the signs were
installed (Saginaw), but was associated with lower pedestrian violations and turning conflicts at two other sites where pedestrian violations had
been a serious problem (Washington, DC).
• A three-section pedestrian signal with the message WALK WITH CARE displayed during the crossing interval was tested at four sites in three
cities to warn pedestrians of possible turning vehicles and/or vehicles that run red lights. The signal message was associated with significantly
fewer pedestrian signal violations and also fewer turning-related conflicts. This special message was recommended as an addition to the
MUTCD for use only where pedestrian collisions were high, especially since overuse was believed to result in its decreased effectiveness.

Previous research has also shown a general misunderstanding by pedestrians of the flashing DON'T WALK interval (Robertson and Carter, 1984). As
part of the 1982 Zegeer et. al. study, several devices were developed as alternatives to the flashing DON'T WALK, including:

• A three-message DON'T START display (to be used with the standard WALK and DON'T WALK where the DON'T START is a steady yellow
message) resulted in a significant reduction in pedestrian violations and conflicts compared with the flashing DON'T WALK without the DON'T
START message. This finding prevailed at three of four test sites. It's further testing was recommended for possible eventual adoption
nationwide.
• A steady DON'T WALK message for the clearance and pedestrian prohibition intervals provided no improvement over the flashing DON'T WALK
interval and was not recommended.

An illustration of some of these innovative traffic control alternatives is shown in figure 29.

13 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PN

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

Figure 28. Examples of treatments that have

been tested to reduce pedestrian crashes
related to right-turn-on-red (RTOR) motorists.

Huang, Zegeer, and Nassi conducted an evaluation of innovative pedestrian signs at unsignalized locations in conjunction with marked crosswalks to
improve the crosswalk visibility and increase the likelihood that motorists would yield to pedestrians. Their study evaluated three such devices: (1) an
overhead CROSSWALK sign in Seattle, WA; (2) pedestrian safety cones with the message, "STATE LAW·YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN
CROSSWALK IN YOUR HALF OF ROAD" in NY State and Portland, OR; and (3) pedestrian-activated "STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK"
overhead signs in Tucson, AZ. The signs were used under different traffic and roadway conditions.

The New York cones and Seattle signs were effective in increasing the number of motorists who stopped for pedestrians. At one location in Tucson, the
overhead sign increased instances of motorists' yielding to pedestrians. The signs in Seattle and Tucson were effective in reducing the number of
pedestrians who had to run, hesitate, or abort their crossing. None of the treatments had a clear effect on whether people crossed in the crosswalk.

The authors concluded that these devices by themselves cannot ensure that motorists will slow down and yield to pedestrians, and that it is essential to
use such devices together with education and enforcement. Finally, the authors recommended that traffic engineers should use other measures,
including designing "friendlier" pedestrian environments at the outset.

Figure 29. These innovative pedestrian crossing

signs had mixed results

684 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
of34
Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

Figure 30. Examples of Innovative Pedestrian Signalization

Alternatives

A novel overhead illuminated crosswalk sign and high-visibility ladder style crosswalk were evaluated in Clearwater, FL by Nitzburg and Knoblauch
(2000) using an experimental/control design. The effect of the novel treatments on driver and pedestrian behavior was determined. A significant 30-40
percent increase in daytime driver yielding behavior was found. A smaller (8 percent) and insignificant increase in nighttime driver yielding behavior was
observed. A large (35 percent) increase in crosswalk usage by pedestrians was noted along with no change in pedestrian overconfidence, running, or
conflicts. It was concluded that the high-visibility crosswalk treatments had a positive effect on pedestrian and driver behavior on the relatively narrow
low-speed crossings that were studied. Additional work was recommended to determine whether they also have a desirable effect on wider roadways
where speeds are greater.

At many intersections, pedestrians must push buttons to activate the WALK phase. However, they often do not know
whether the button has been pressed and whether it is functional. If the WALK phase does not appear soon after the
button has been pressed, they may believe that it does not work and start crossing early, while the steady DON'T
WALK is still being displayed. When a pedestrian presses an illuminated push button, a light near the button turns
on, indicating that the WALK phase has been activated and will appear. Huang and Zegeer conducted in 2000 a
study to evaluate the effects of illuminated push buttons on pedestrian behavior. In general, illuminated push buttons
did not have a statistically significant effect on how often the pedestrian phases were activated, how many people
pushed the button, how many people complied with the WALK phase, or such pedestrian behaviors as running,
aborted crossings, and hesitation before crossing. Only 17 and 13 percent of pedestrians pushed the button in the
"before" and "after" periods, respectively. In both the before and after periods, someone pushed the button in 32
percent of signal cycles with pedestrians. The majority of pedestrians (67.8 percent with, and 72.3 percent without Figure 31. The Clearwater
illuminated push button) who arrived when parallel traffic had the red and who pushed the button complied with the pedestrian crossing treatment
WALK phase. resulted in a positive influence
on pedestrian and drive
Automated pedestrian detection systems provide the means to detect the presence of pedestrians as they
behavior
approach the curb before crossing the street, and then "call" the WALK signal without any action required on the
part of the pedestrian. Hughes, Huang, Zegeer, and Cynecki conducted a study to determine whether automated pedestrian detectors, when used in
conjunction with standard pedestrian push buttons, would result in fewer overall pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and fewer inappropriate crossings (i.e.,
beginning to cross during the DON'T WALK signal). "Before" and "after" video data were collected at intersection locations in Los Angeles, CA (infrared
and microwave), Phoenix, AZ (microwave), and Rochester, NY (microwave). The results indicated a significant reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
as well as a reduction in the number of pedestrians beginning to cross during the DON'T WALK signal. The differences between microwave and infrared
detectors were not significant. Detailed field testing of the microwave equipment in Phoenix revealed that fine tuning of the detection zone is still needed
to reduce the number of false calls and missed calls.

Pedestrian Refuge Areas

Some pedestrians cannot cross an intersection within the signal time provided, and some midblock crossings are
too wide for the available gaps. Running across intersections has been shown to be a common cause of pedestrian
crashes. Pedestrian refuge areas between traffic lanes offer a place where pedestrians may pause while crossing a
multilane street. They also allow pedestrians to cross one direction of travel at a time. Refuge areas may be
delineated by markings on the roadway or raised above the surface of the street.

15 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 P1
)art 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

Figure 32. Illuminated·

pedestrian push buttons were
not found to alter pedestrian
crossing behavior.

Figure 33. Automatic pedestrian

detectors have been found to
significantly reduce pedestrian
violations of the DON'T WALK
indication and reduce pedestrian
vehicle conflicts.

The use of central refuge islands, or medians, for pedestrians is often proposed but seldom studied. One analysis reports before-after comparisons of
personal injury crashes at sites where pedestrian refuges were installed (Lalani, 1976). "Double-D" shaped islands were installed at 120 sites in
London. The installations were in conjunction with other roadway improvements, including anti-skid surfacing, illuminated bollards, bus lanes, and
cross-hatch markings. The crash records for comparable before-and-after periods were subjected to statistical tests to determine significant changes. It
was found that provision of refuges, thought of as a facility for pedestrians, reduced vehicle crashes but increased pedestrian crashes. Significant
pedestrian crash reduction at intersections could be identified only where the purpose of the refuge was very clearly established, such as: provision of
the refuge specifically on the basis of safety, reinforcement of the refuge with cross-hatch markings, or provision of the refuge for channelization or
vehicular traffic. For single refuges not at junctions, it was possible to identify significant reductions in vehicle crashes when the refuges were fitted with
fully illuminated bollards. It was possible to identify overall significant reductions in crashes where the refuges were provided in the vicinity of active
pedestrian areas.

Figure 34. Some pedestrians

are not able to cross an
intersection within the signal
time provided

Additional studies do not fully remove the ambiguity cited above. Bowman and Vecellio (1994A, 1994B) reported comparisons of several kinds of
medians, including undivided multi lane roadway, TWLTL, and raised curb medians. Raised curb facilities seem to be associated with lower pedestrian
crash rates, as might be expected. But the authors say," . .. it appears that both raised and TWLTL medians significantly reduce the number and
severity of vehicular crashes .... The literature did not provide a conclusive indication that medians improved pedestrian safety," (Bowman and
Vecellio, 1994B, p. 186).

----- -----, In general, raised curb medians may be better than TWLTL
medians which are, in turn, better than undivided highways
(Bowman and Vecellio, 1994A}. The data were broken down

: ! "' "'! --
several ways, and recombined several ways. Some differences
were significant and others were not.

The need for refuge areas is presumably related to street widths,

pedestrian walking speed, and vehicle gaps. The Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires clearance
intervals to be based on a walking speed of 1.2 mls (4 ftls);
however, this may not be sufficient for pedestrians with mobility
_....;..,;;.. . impairments. Knoblauch and colleagues measured pedestrian
start up and walk times in 1996. The measures varied according
Figure 35. Raised medians and pedestrian islands may provide a measure of to many factors, but the differences, though statistically
safety to pedestrians. significant, were mostly too small to matter from the design
standpoint. The authors recommend, however, use of a walking
speed of 0.91 m/s for elderly pedestrians and 1.22 ml s (4 ft/s) for a typical pedestrian.

16 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

Further indications of variability of possible relevance to designers are two studies of pedestrian walking speeds in the tropical countries of Thailand and
Sri Lanka.(Tanaboriboon and Guyana, 1991; Morrall et al., 1991), where walking speeds are slower than typical in the U.S. Thus, when the temperature
is high and when pedestrians may be encumbered with loads, walking speed may be slower.

Provisions for Pedestrians with Disabilities

A study of collisions involving pedestrians with disabilities in Atlanta, GA led to conclusions regarding various countermeasures for reducing elderly and
handicapped pedestrian crashes (Templer, 1979). A telephone interview was used to determine information not available from the collision report or
hospital records of 989 pedestrian crash reports. Field reconnaissance was made of the crash sites. The number of crashes in the sample that might
have been prevented by each of the following countermeasures is noted below:

• Design and operate pedestrian facilities to accommodate the handicapped: 5 crashes

• Design traffic facilities for the safety of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic: 17 crashes
• Provide appropriate separation between pedestrian and non-pedestrian areas: 5 crashes
• Use traffic engineering measures to ensure each street is used for its intended purpose: 2 crashes
• Provide a safer school trip for young pedestrians: 3 crashes
• Encourage parents to take more responsibility for the supervision and education of their children in pedestrian safety: 24 crashes
• Provide information to school children and safety personnel about safe and proper pedestrian behavior: 17 crashes
• Provide information to elderly people about safe and proper pedestrian behavior: 11 crashes
• Prosecute drivers for repeated violations of traffic regulations: 14 crashes
• Keep the pedestrian environment clean and free from debris: 2 crashes
• Remove objects that obstruct visibility between drivers and pedestrians: 3 crashes
• Provide information about the dangers of alcohol overconsumption : 1 crash

In addition to those crashes analyzed for Atlanta, the same study sampled reactions to environmental hazards by handicapped people in five U.S.
cities. Four elements of the pedestrian system were identified as accounting for 81 percent of the crashes they reported:

Walks and corridors 36 percent

Streets and crosswalks 17 percent

Curbs and curb ramps 11 percent

Stairs 17 percent

Countermeasures for Pedestrians with Vision Impairments

Crossing the street is a major hazard for people with vision impairments. A non-visual system to assist the vision-impaired has two distinct aspects,
according to Hulscher (1975).

• Making the person with vision impairments aware of any special facility so it can be used properly
• Conveying the information normally displayed by visual means

From a series of interviews with 10 persons with vision impairments in Washington, DC, Hulscher showed the need for careful consideration of this
impairment when widening streets and intersections, or accomplishing other physical changes. Major recommendations by those interviewed included:

• Greater separation between vehicle and pedestrian facilities, such as grade-separated crossings
• Use of textured pavements
• Angular, instead of round, corners (better for directional orientation)
• Braille maps at strategic points

Particular problems were noted for pedestrians with vision impairments at signalized crossings, including their
difficulty in finding the pedestrian push buttons at actuated signals. Another problem for visually impaired
pedestrians was in determining when the WALK and clearance intervals were displayed. Conveying signal
information under such circumstances has been achieved by both tactile and audible means. These may be used
to provide information regarding signal status as well as crossing guidance (Hulscher, 1975; Roberts, 1972). One
study reported that, in Japan, sound equipment was used to generate bird calls or little songs to indicate signal
status (Van Der Does, 1976). These have been found least disturbing to others and can be installed to vary in
loudness depending on ambient sound levels.

Combinations of buzzers and beepers have been used in Australia (Chalis et al., 1976). These were combined with
a vibrator, which the pedestrian with a vision impairment must touch at the curb to determine when it is safe to walk.
The beeper then provides information on the clearance interval. Disturbance to others and masking due to ambient
noise were noted as problems. Interviews with pedestrians with vision impairments uncovered a pronounced
mistrust of mechanical aids at intersections, based upon experience with the vibrating signal. Several new designs
were evaluated on the basis of behavior on the part of pedestrians with a vision impairment. The recommended
mechanism employed an audible DON'T WALK sound device mounted on a pole to which the pedestrian could go
and wait for the WALK signal. The signals were automatically adjusted to ambient noise level.

17 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PN

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

An evaluation of audible pedestrian signals was conducted in 1988 by the San Diego Association of Governments.
The study estimated that as many as 100 cities in the U.S. use audible pedestrian signals, and they were reported Figure 36. Without adequate
to be used in Australia, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, and other countries in Europe. One aspect of the study facilities, vision-impaired
involved a review of pedestrian crashes at 60 intersections in San Diego, CA, where pedestrian signals had been pedestrians are at increased
installed. No differences were found in the number of pedestrian collisions before and after installation of the risk
audible devices. Drivers were at fault in more than half of the pedestrian collisions, and most crashes occurred
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. in clear weather with the vehicle going straight. In spite of the signals' lack of a measurable effect on pedestrian crashes, the
authors developed specific criteria for their use.

Tactile strips have been laid down to assist pedestrians with a vision impairment in crossing the street. In San Diego, tests at three sites showed tactile
guide strips made of epoxy cement and pea gravel to be effective and durable under sustained traffic and weather conditions (Herms et al., 1975). They
reported no evidence that the raised strip (102 mm [4 in] wide with 6-mm [0.25-in.] gravel) caused any subsidiary problems for motorists, bicyclists, or
other pedestrians. The authors cautioned that these tactile strips should not be applied on an areawide basis but rather at selected locations of proven
need, under joint supervision of a traffic engineering specialist and a trained mobility expert. This will help insure that such devices are provided
consistently and to warn visually-impaired pedestrians where it is appropriate to do so.

Research was done by Gallon and colleagues on the use and utility of tactile surfaces in the traffic environment for people with visual impairments
(Gallon et al., 1991; Gallon, 1992). The 1991 report included four study parts:

1. A review of literature, and usage practices current in England during the late 1980s
2. A survey of the walking habits of people with visual impairments
3. An experimental search among 20 different surfaces for a subset whose members were mutually distinguishable
4. An evaluation of how well people with visual impairments could distinguish among the selected surfaces, and how well they learned the intended
uses

Five or six surfaces were found to be reliably distinguished, though none was "perfect," and color differences were important for people with some sight.
The study also called for training people with visual impairments and consistent deployment of the various surfaces. In the 1992 study, Gallon reported
that the selected surfaces posed no problems for those with mobility impairments. In contrast, O'Leary et al. (1995) cite some concerns by people with
mobility impairments to the surfaces that assisted people with visual impairments.

Another device for pedestrians with a visual impairment, tested in Japan is a radio receiver carried by the vision-impaired pedestrian to receive
information on traffic signal status from the signal installation (Van Der Does, 1976). For the color-blind, red and green are most often difficult to
distinguish, so blue has been included in the green signal, or replaced green, for easier identification.

These "system" approaches can augment motorist behavior in response to seeing a handicapped pedestrian. In one experiment, a member of the
research team crossed traffic with and without carrying a cane (Harrell, 1992). Drivers stopped more often when the cane was carried, but even under
this condition, an average of three cars passed by before one stopped.

Safety Measures for Pedestrians with Hearing Impairments

A survey of 60 people with hearing impairments in Washington, DC, emphasized the visual dimension of travel on foot (Roberts, 1972). These
pedestrians indicated the need for better, clearer signs at more appropriate locations; the use of audible crossing signals at various frequencies for the
hearing impaired; more and better lighting facilities along pedestrian routes; and support structures, such as handrails, at critical locations such as bus
boarding areas.

Guides and Manuals for Accommodating Pedestrians with Disabilities

Several published reports, guides, and manuals provide guidance on the selection and use of facilities for pedestrians with physical or mental
impairments. For example, Earnhart and Simon in 1987 prepared a manual entitled, Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians- A Manual
for Cities , written to provide guidance to planners and other officials in the development of a program for improved accessibility. The manual includes
information on planning, programing, and design of such facilities, and also provides example problems and solutions along with a checklist that can be
used to solve various problems. Design details are provided relative to walkways and sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, parking and
loading areas, ramps and stairs, handrails, signing, street furniture, lighting and illumination, traffic signals, and tactile surface treatments.

Several FHWA reports address efforts to improve accommodation for elderly and handicapped pedestrians in U.S. cities. They involve the priority
accessible network (PAN) approach, which is based on planning principles designed to provide for the special needs of these pedestrian populations.
(Larsen, 1984; Hawkins, 1984). The goals of the PAN approach are to:

• Provide continuous accessibility to all desired pedestrian destinations.

• Provide a transportation network tailored to the special needs of all handicapped users (e.g., wheelchair users, and those with vision
impairments).
• Efficiently use resources so the highest priority routes are constructed first.

The PAN process has been applied successfully and documented in, among other cities, Seattle, WA; New Orleans, LA; and Baltimore, MD (Larsen,
1984; Hawkins 1984; Zegeer and Zegeer, 1989). A summary of the various types of roadway and engineering improvements for elderly and
handicapped pedestrians has been documented in a 1989 publication by Zegeer and Zegeer, which discusses the many possible measures related to
traffic signals, sidewalks, signs, and design features.

The FHWA's two-part Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access report provides further guidance on designing sidewalks and walkways for people with
disabilities. Part 1: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices looks at existing sidewalk and trail conditions for people with disabilities. By conducting a
literature search and site visits around the U.S., the authors compiled data and reviewed designs to identify factors that affect accessibility for all
populations (Axelson et al., 1999). Building on the foundation of Part I, Part II: Best Practices Design Guide was created to improve understanding

18 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042..

among city planners, urban designers, and transportation engineers with respect to how sidewalks and trails can be developed to promote pedestrian
access for all users, including people with disabilities (Kirschbaum et al., 2001).

Bus Stop Location

Two percent of all pedestrian collisions in urban areas can be classified as pedestrian collisions at bus stops. Most do not involve a pedestrian's being
struck by a bus; rather, the bus creates a visual screen between approaching drivers and pedestrians crossing in front of the bus. In rural areas,
pedestrian crashes related to school bus stops were identified in 3 percent of all pedestrian crashes. The countermeasure proposed for the urban
crashes involved bus stop relocation to the far side of the intersections to encourage pedestrians to cross behind the bus instead of in front. This allows
the pedestrian to be seen and to see oncoming traffic closest to the bus. To determine the effect of such relocation on pedestrian crossing behavior, two
studies addressed before-and-after bus stop relocation. One was a site in Miami, FL, on a two-way, four-lane street intersecting with a two-way, two- lane
street at an unsignalized location. The other was in San Diego, CA, on a two-way, four-lane street intersecting with a one-way, three-lane street at
a signalized location that included pedestrian signals (Berger, 1975). The relocation of the bus stops to the far side eliminated the undesired crossing
behavior; previously, half those crossing after disembarking were crossing in front of the bus.

An analysis of pedestrian crashes in Sweden found school bus stops were not located with the greatest care regarding pedestrian safety factors
(Sandels, 1979). They concluded bus stops should be located:

• So as not to be hidden by vegetation or other obstacles

• Away from roadway curves or superelevated locations
• To provide adequate standing and playing area for the waiting passengers
• So that each location provides maximum sight distance to all critical elements

A U.S. study of crashes involving trips to and from schools investigated the location of school bus stops and developed guidelines for planning, routing,
and scheduling school buses (Reiss, 1975A).

School Trip Safety

Pedestrian safety dealing with the school trip has received much attention from the public and researchers. It is therefore treated as a separate entity
here, referencing a variety of traffic guidance and control countermeasures.

An inventory of crashes in 1,335 U.S. cities revealed that 25.4 percent of 220 child pedestrian deaths reported for 1967 occurred as the children were
en route to or from school (AAA Special Study, 1968). Among 1,854 child pedestrian injuries, 18.6 percent took place en route to or from school. From
this study, a national estimate was made of 500 fatalities and 11,000 injuries resulting from the walk to school. The highest proportion of these occur at
ages 12 to 14. This is the junior high school age when the student is usually without the presence of student crossing controls for the first time. Further
analysis showed about 93 percent of all children involved were struck at locations where no school safety patrols, adult guards, or police officers were
stationed. (This study was carried out many years ago and may now be out of date.)

An intensive study of the school trip was conducted at sites in New York, Maryland, and Virginia (Reiss, 1975A), surveying both students and drivers.
Crashes were also analyzed. The student surveys sought information on knowledge, behavior, and possible means for modifying these. Driver surveys
sought data regarding perceptions, motivational factors, and reactions to the school zone environment and their correlation to actual behavior.

The four sites studied employed school warning and speed limit signs. Walking to school accounts for between 10 and 20 percent of the annual young-
pedestrian crashes in the U.S. Significantly more younger students than older ones indicated they are unaware of or do not differentiate among various
traffic control devices. They consider uniformed crossing guards safer than other control devices. They would vary their route to school on the basis of
parental instructions.

Zegeer and Deen in 1978 conducted an evaluation in Kentucky of the 25 MPH WHEN FLASHING sign at
48 high-speed school-zone locations with yellow flashing beacons. Speeds were predominantly 56-73
km/h (35-45 mi/h) without the flasher. Vehicle speeds overall were an average of only 5.8 km/h (3.6 mi/h)
less during the fiashing periods compared with the non-flashing periods. Speed reductions of 16 km/h (10
mi/h) or more were found at only two sites, and only 18 percent of all motorists complied with the 40 km/h
(25 mi/h) flashing limit. The regulatory flashing signs were not considered effective in reducing vehicle
speeds to 40 km/h (25 mi/h}. At rural school zone locations, the 40 km (25 mi) flashers during school
periods resulted in an increase in speed variance and thus, they created the potential for increased rear-
..--1:::-1 end vehicle crashes. The presence of crossing guards and/or police speed enforcement, however,
,...,,
I
dJ contributed to improved speed compliance
Another discouraging note is added in a 1990 study by Burritt et al. in which yellow flashers were added to
Figure 37. Studies have found that existing 24 km/h (15 mi/h) school zone signs at a school crossing on a highway in Tucson, AZ. The
uniformed crossing guards are safer flashers, installed over the objections of the Arizona highway authorities, were then evaluated in December
than other control devices such as before the flashers and in May after the flashers. Speed was somewhat worse after the flashers were
signs or markings alone installed, increasing from 26 to 32 km/h (16-20 mi/h} at one site and from 24 to 27 km/h (15-17 mi/h} at the
other. The authors provided no behavioral data.

19 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PN

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research!safety/pedbike/03042...

Figure 38. School regulatory flashes have been

found to have only limited success in reducing
vehicle speeds in school zones, unless adult
crossing guards are also helping to control
traffic

Alternatives to Signalization for School Crossings

A school pedestrian signal design concept has been used with stop signs on the minor approach and traffic signals on the major approach. Some
western states have used these devices to create adequate pedestrian crossing gaps across high-speed, high-volume facilities used by school children,
the elderly, and/or those with disabilities where full signalization was not warranted.

A 1977 study by Petzold was directed at identifying and evaluating alternatives to full signalization at school pedestrian crossings. These crossings
were located at the intersection of a high-volume arterial street and a low-volume residential street where traffic gaps are inadequate to allow
pedestrians to cross the arterial street safely without an unreasonable delay. These locations would not otherwise warrant full signalization.

The following five school pedestrian crossing designs were selected for field testing at installations in six U.S. cities:

• Sign and beacon: Sign and beacon on the major street approach and stop sign on the local residential street
• Flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon: Standard traffic signal dwelling in flashing yellow on the major street and a flashing red beacon
on the local residential street
• Flashing green signal and stop sign: Standard traffic signal dwelling in flashing green on the major street and stop signs on the local residential
street
• Signal and stop sign: Standard traffic signal dwelling in solid green on the major street and stop sign on the local residential street
• Crossing guard: Crossing guard on the major street and stop signs on local residential street

The five school pedestrian crossing designs were evaluated in a time series, matched experimental-control design. Six measures of effectiveness were
used: compliance, behavior, and volume, for both pedestrians and vehicles; vehicle delay;gaps in the major street vehicular traffic stream; and driver
understanding. In all experiments, a fully signalized intersection was used as a control site. Based on the data analysis and observations at each school
pedestrian crossing design, Petzold (1977) listed the following advantages as compared with full signalization:

• Increased pedestrian compliance with the pedestrian signal

• Reduction in the percentage of vehicles stopping on the major street approach
• Reduction in the stop time per vehicle on the major street approach
• Reduction in installation costs

Disadvantages to the full signal alternatives as found by Petzold include:

• Reduction in both pedestrians' and drivers' understanding of how the traffic control devices operate
• Increase in conflicts between vehicles approaching at a right angle (not significant).

Based on the comparison between each school pedestrian crossing design and its fully signalized control site, the authors made these conclusions:

• The sign and beacon design revealed many undesirable characteristics, especially concerning vehicle compliance with the flashing red beacon.
It was concluded that full signalization is more desirable than the beacon and stop sign design
• The flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon show characteristics similar to those obtained at the fully signalized control site. The flashing
yellow signal and flashing red beacon are judged equivalent to full signalization, except full signalization could generate through traffic on the
minor street approach
• The remaining three school pedestrian crossing designs (crossing guard, signal and stop sign, and flashing green signal and stop sign) were
judged to have operating characteristics more desirable than those measured at the fully signalized control site

Based on the comparison of mean rank scores among the five school pedestrian crossing designs, the crossing guard had significantly better operating
characteristics than the beacon and stop sign or the flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon designs. The crossing guard operating
characteristics were not significantly different from the operating characteristics observed at the signal and stop sign and flashing green signal and stop
sign designs.

20 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042..

Reflectorization and Conspicuity

Research has identified reflectorization as a highly effective means of improving visibility (Allen et al., 1969; Hazlett and Allen, 1968; Jacobs, 1968b). In
a survey of safety specialists, reflectorization countermeasures were identified as having the highest overall rating to reduce school children crashes
occurring during darkness (Reiss, 1975). The key issue is attaining proper usage. A study of reflectorization treatments showed that a person dressed
in black wearing a thumb-sized retroreflective tag is detected at greater distances than a person completely dressed in white (Rumar, 1966).
Maintaining the retroreflective power of the tag was also shown to be important to achieve good results, thus highlighting the need to regularly replace
or clean the tag.

A 1984 study by Blomberg et al. investigated countermeasures to improve the conspicuity of pedestrians and bicyclists. Nighttime field tests were
conducted for baseline pedestrians (i.e., wearing a white tee shirt and blue jeans), compared with pedestrians with dangle tags, a flashlight, jogger's vest,
and retroreflective material on head band, wrist bands, belt, and ankle bands ("rings"). On average, the flashlight was detected by a driver at 420.5 m
(1,379ft). This was slightly more than 183m (600ft) further away than rings, which were the next best target (at 231.8 m [760ft]) and jogging vest
(227m [744ft]), as shown in figure 40. The average detection distance of the baseline pedestrian was 68 m (224ft).

Owens and Antonoff in 1994 conducted an experiment in which retroreflective materials were placed on different
body locations. Pedestrians with reflective materials on knees, waist, elbows, and shoulders were seen more
readily than when placed on a pedestrian (e.g., chest or back) where no movement was evident. Authors said
"biological motion" was an important part of detection and recognition. Seen at night, such motions of the
reflectorized materials are more pronounced and are more readily interpreted as characteristic of human motion.

As an engineering countermeasure, retroreflective materials are used for roadway markings such as crosswalks,
stop lines, and lane markings. These materials reflect light from vehicle headlights and from roadway illumination.
Reflective vests and other clothing for pedestrians have also been made with reflective materials. Reflectorization
has been shown to increase the visibility of a pedestrian by a factor of five. The difficulty is making retroreflective
clothing that can last more than a few wash cycles.

One-Way Streets as a Pedestrian Crash Countermeasure

A comprehensive study of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in several Canadian cities found fewer crashes on one-
way streets in the core of a city than on two-way streets (Lea, 1978). Thus, conversion to a one-way street system ....,.. _,
may also be a relatively low-cost pedestrian countermeasure, having as high as 40-60 percent effectiveness on
Figure 39. Reflectorization has
amenable crashes. However, the applicable crashes were estimated to represent only about 10 percent of the city
been shown to result in a major
total. increase in the visibility of a
pedestrian at night
A study in Manhattan, NY highlighted the aspects of one-way street grids that tend to provide safer traffic
operation (Fruin, 1973). The simplification of the crossing and turning conditions, which has been noted to occur for vehicles at the intersection of two
one-way streets, is also helpful to pedestrians. Two-hundred fifty-three pedestrian crashes, occurring over a 5-year period in an 8-by-4 grid, were
studied. Almost 70 percent of these occurred at intersections. Only five fatalities occurred in the area during the 5 years; all were males over age 60.

The four crosswalks at each intersection were divided into two groups, two where there was a conflict with a vehicle completing a turn (conflict side),
and two with no turning conflict. The results of that study showed that crossings on the turning conflict side of the intersection accounted for 69.7
percent of the intersection crashes. This total consisted of 44.7 percent turning crashes, 17.5 percent straight crashes, and 7.5 percent backup crashes.
A pedestrian is more than twice as likely to be struck by a vehicle when crossing on the turning conflict side than when crossing on the non-turning
conflict side.

Short vehicle and pedestrian counts were taken at the intersections in the study area. While the conclusions were not statistically significant, the results
offer some useful perspectives. Although vehicle turning movements averaged only 14 percent of the total intersection volume, turning crashes were
almost 45 percent of the total. Left-turn crashes exceeded right-turn crashes by a ratio of two to one. The front left vehicle window post was suggested
as a factor, blocking the driver's view of a critical part of the crosswalk area. Of course, the left turn is inherently a more complex task for the driver.

In many cases, converting two-way streets to one-way streets may not be justified solely by pedestrian safety considerations. Several concerns such as
capacity, traffic circulation, and overall traffic safety are the major considerations. Vehicle speeds may also increase after conversion from two-way to
one-way street patterns. However, one-way streets can greatly simplify the task of crossing a street and in some cases may improve safety for
pedestrians.

Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses

An analysis was made of reported pedestrian crashes for 6 months before and 6 months after the installation of pedestrian overpasses at 31 locations
in Tokyo, Japan (Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). The overall results are shown in table 30. The table shows data for 200-m (218-yd) sections and
100-m (109-yd) sections on either side of each site. The "related" crashes (assumed to be pedestrian crossing crashes) decreased substantially after
overpass installation, but non-related crashes (not defined) increased by 23 percent in the 200-m (218-yd) sections. There was also a greater reduction
in daylight pedestrian collisions than in those occurring at night.

The effectiveness of pedestrian overpasses depends largely on the amount of use by pedestrians. A 1965 study by Moore and Older found that use
depended on walking distances and convenience of the facility. A convenience measure (R) was defined by the authors as the ratio of the time to cross
the street on an overpass divided by the time to cross at street level . As illustrated in figure 41, the study found that approximately 95 percent of
pedestrians will use an overpass if the walking time in using the overpass is the same as crossing at street level (i.e., R = 1). However, if crossing the
overpass takes 50 percent longer than crossing at street level (R = 1.5), almost no one will use the overpass. Usage of pedestrian underpasses

21 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

(subway) was not as high as overpasses for similar values of R.

Table 30. Comparison of crashes before and after installation of pedestrian

overpasses (Tokyo, Japan).

200-M Section 100-M Sections

Type of Crashes
Before After Reduction Before After Reduction

Related Crashes 2.16 0.32 85.1% 1.81 0.16 g1.1%

Non-related Crashes 2.26 2.77 2.29% 1.65 1.87 -13.7%

Total 4.42 3.og 2g.9% 3.46 2.03 41.1%

Source:Accident Prevention Effects, 1g69

Problems have also been identified relative to pedestrians' use of overpasses. A panel of people with disabilities was asked to comment on problems
after using three pedestrian overpasses in San Francisco, CA (Swan, 1g78). The major elements identified as creating a barrier or hazard to the user
with disabilities included:

• Lack of adequate or no railings to protect pedestrians from dropoffs on the bridge approaches
• Greater than acceptable cross slopes
• No level area at terminals of bridge ramps on which to stop wheelchairs before going into the street
• Lack of level resting areas on spiral bridge ramps
• Railings difficult to grasp for wheelchair users
• Lack of sight distance to opposing pedestrian flow on spiral ramps
• Use of maze-like barriers on bridge approaches (to slow bicyclists) that create a barrier to those who use wheelchairs or who are visually
impaired
• Lack of sound screening on the bridge to permit people with visual impairments to hear oncoming pedestrian traffic, and otherwise more easily
detect direction and avoid potential conflicts

1 600

U79
HOO

LlOO

1 000

J ...
...
..
lOO

ou•PNI O•n V)ITt;t f iU.fl t9\'lt .J09g ng:v•u R_,gt.

,.,••t

Figure 40. Nighttime detection and recognition distance of pedestrians

A study in 1980 by Templer et al. investigated the feasibility of accommodating pedestrians with physical disabilities on existing overpass and
underpass structures. A review of 124 crossing structures revealed that 86 percent presented at least one major barrier to the physically handicapped,
the most common being:

• Stairs only (i.e., no ramps for wheelchair users) leading to the overpass or underpass
• Ramp or pathway to ramp that is too long and steep
• Physical barriers along the access paths on structure
• Sidewalk on the structure that is too narrow
• Cross slope on the ramp that is too steep

Various solutions to these access problems were developed and compared based on cost-effectiveness.

22 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

... -
,_
w
::>

>1
;g
!CO
!10

to

111
..,
-.......;.. ......
'"''-
u
ol
.,.
\
.
0 ...... ,_.,
._.,,_.,
r--
1-
1-

v>
50
,.. . . . -1)'
e: I
"w' :
. ..
111 . .14..-
I
l5 2n
.<.:>.,
10
:;; :!o..O.
I l l
X • TIME ON SUBIIAY OR 6RIOGE ROUTE
T!f"£ ON ALTERA. TI VE GROUND t:E VEL ROUTE

Figure 41. Expected usage rate of pedestrian bridges and

underpasses, relative to time needed to cross at street level

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) law of 1990 has since required the barriers to wheelchair users to be removed, requiring more gentle slopes.
While these gentle slopes make it easier for bicyclists and other users, it has also greatly increased the length of ramps, which may discourage usage.
Methods such as carefully planned fencing have been used to channel pedestrians to the overpasses and underpasses to increase usage.

Grade separations such as overpasses and underpasses for pedestrian crossing can be beneficial under certain circumstances if the pedestrian can be
persuaded to use the grade-separated crossing (i.e., perceive it as safer, convenient). However, they are very costly and may not be used by
pedestrians if not planned properly.

Traffic Calming

What is Traffic Calming?

At an Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) meeting attended by traffic calming experts, the following definition was prepared:

"Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and
improve conditions for non-vehicular traffic." (Lockwood, 1997, page 22)

The need for a definition process grew out of the fact that a variety of activities are called traffic calming by one person or another. Lockwood (1997)
said:

"...traffic calming could mean anything from lowering motor vehicle speeds to an all-encompassing transportation policy." (page 22) and
"...everything from slowing down motor vehicles to changing tax laws." (page 24)

According to Lockwood, the term "mainly physical measures" is meant to include the supporting political environment, policy, and legislation. The
"negative effect of motor vehicle use" refers to speeding, neighborhood intrusion, energy consumption, pollution, urban sprawl, etc. Many traffic calming
measures typically create an improved environment for pedestrians by reducing vehicle speeds or volumes, and/or shortening the crossing distances
for pedestrians.

Traffic-Calming Measures
Many measures can be considered traffic calming. A 1995 document prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) (Kemper and Fernandez, 1994)
discusses "neighborhood traffic control measures" and lists 13 types, and other initiatives are not included on the ITE list. :

1. Street closures
2. Cui-de-sacs
3. Diverters (diagonal or semi-diagonal)
4. Traffic circles
5. Woonerfs
6. Chicanes
7. Flares, chokers
8. Speed humps
9. Speed limit signs and speed zones
10. Speed watch and enforcement programs
11. Walkways
12. Parking controls
13. Other signage

Other measures include traffic diversion, which involves moving traffic onto other streets, while still others, such as speed limit signs and enforcement,
fall into traditional traffic engineering approaches. Figure 43 illustrates some of the above.

23 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 Pl\

)art 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042...

A study in 2000 by Huang and Cynecki evaluated the effects of a variety of traffic-calming measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior at midblock
and intersection locations. "Before" and "after" data were collected in Cambridge, MA (bu/bouts and raised intersection), Corvallis, OR (pedestrian
refuge island}, and Seattle, WA (bulbouts). Data were also collected at "treatment" and "control" sites in Durham, NC (raised crosswalks}, Greensboro,
NC (bu/bouts), Montgomery County, MD (raised crosswalks}, Richmond, VA (bulbouts), and Sacramento, CA (bulbouts). The key findings include:

• Overall vehicle speeds were often lower at treatment than control sites.
• The combination of a raised crosswalk with an overhead flasher increased the percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists yielded. It is not
known what part of the improvement was attributable to the raised crosswalk and what part was attributable to the flasher. None of the other
treatments had a significant effect on the percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists yielded.
• The treatments usually did not have a significant effect on average pedestrian waiting time.
• Refuge islands often served to channelize pedestrians into marked crosswalks. The raised intersection in Cambridge also increased the
percentage of pedestrians who crossed in the crosswalk.

In conclusion, these devices have the potential for improving the pedestrian environment. However, these devices by themselves do not guarantee that
all motorists will slow down or yield to pedestrians.

Figure 42. Grade-separated crossings can be

beneficial to pedestrians under certain
situations but are very costly and may not be
used by pedestrians if not planned properly

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

L
J L _j
JIL J+L
•I
l l r
Tra f fic Cffc1•
0
Ro ad Cto.aute
S tat O l vett tr

0I l
L l J-L
l I
L
S•ml· O iver er
( out)

CIOI•Ot· S•c; Olt.QQnal Olvera: Stai·O l venu 1 111 0 Olver t tr

(In)
I
I
J ll
Hl
I
I
I

I One•Way Ctlohr
i

R l.,:u Turn O l ver:er

r
Ch lcn; •

I 1

Figure 43. Illustrative traffic calming devices

1. Play Streets

4 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

Play streets have been employed in the United States in center-city neighborhoods to provide safe play areas in or near residential areas. A play street
is a residential street closed to vehicular traffic during specific hours to permit a supervised program of recreational activities in the roadway. A series of
interview studies was performed at 20 sites in Philadelphia and New York City. The interviews sought behavioral and opinion data regarding play streets
from users, residents, merchants, play street supervisory staff, and city officials (Reiss, 1975B).

Play streets were found to be effective in eliminating traffic and parking. The streets drew 67 percent of the users from among those who live along the
street. The remainder came from within a radius of three blocks. Ninety-six percent of the residents and merchants interviewed believed the play street
reduces the likelihood that children will be hit by cars. Eighty-eight percent noted no problems to them because of the 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. street closure.
However, only 12 percent of the play supervisors interviewed perceived a safety benefit. It was recommended that signing and barricades be judiciously
used to control vehicular access to a play street. The authors recommend that appropriate traffic engineering studies should be made before selecting a
play street site. Guidelines were developed for the creation and operation of urban play areas. No evaluations of the safety benefits of play streets were
conducted.

Figure 44. Many traffic-calming measures create

an improved environment for pedestrians by
reducing vehicle speeds or volumes, and/or
shortening crossing distances for pedestrians

A study of the effect of recreational facilities on child pedestrian crashes was made in Philadelphia (Bartholomew, 1967). Traffic crash records were
analyzed for 2 years before and 2 years after the opening of seven different recreational facilities in various parts of the city. Service areas for each
were defined on the basis of population density and physical barriers. There was a significant reduction in pedestrian crashes involving children ages
5-14 for the combined areas after facilities were opened. Outside the seven areas, there was a city-wide trend of an increase in child pedestrian
collisions. The greatest impact was noted within a radius of one-quarter mile of each facility. This occurred even though more children were using the
facilities and crossing streets going to and from the sites.

2. Community Streets

Japan's traffic-calming strategies have been directed toward community streets. Community streets rely on treatments such as speed humps, bulbouts,
chicanes, and other devices to slow down motor vehicle traffic (Replogle, 1992). In addition, motorists and pedestrians are separated. Community
streets are most appropriate when traffic volumes are 200 vehicles per hour or less.

Road-pia are neighborhood-wide installations of community streets that give priority to pedestrians and cyclists. In the Koraku district of Nagoya, a
road-pia scheme introduced community streets to connect schools and transit stations to homes. The number of car-pedestrian crashes resulting in
injury or death fell from 32 in the 4 years before the road-pia scheme was installed to only 2 in the 2 years after. While the effects of individual
components such as speed humps or bulbouts was not known, the combination of these devices was effective in reducing traffic, vehicle speeds, and
collisions (Replogle, 1992).

3. Woonerf

The Netherlands is one of the leaders in traffic calming. They developed the "woonerf' based on the concept of the residential yard (Kraay, 1976).
These are areas where the physical and visual treatments of the public right-of-way create a pedestrian-oriented area. Only local traffic is allowed to
use the roadway and all modes are "forced" to travel almost as slow as the slowest mode (the pedestrian) through design features. The residential
yard's function differs from a conventionally designed residential street. The paved area is used in common for various functions, including driving,
playing, cycling, walking, and parking. This is intended for application only along low-volume streets having minimal parking demand.

Special legal and behavioral rules apply to traffic in the residential yard:

• Roads located within a designated residential yard may be used over their entire width by pedestrians and children at play.
• Drivers must move with the greatest caution, being intruders within the residential yard.
• The speed of all modes is limited to about 11.3 km/h (7 mi/h).
• Pedestrians must not unnecessarily obstruct vehicle progress.
• Motor vehicles with more than two wheels can park in a residential yard only at places with a parking sign or a letter "P" in spaces on the road
surface.
• A new traffic sign indicates residential areas designated as residential yards.

4. Transit Malls: Shared Use of Pedestrian-Oriented Space

The use of transit malls is common in Europe, and is increasing in U.S. cities.

Studies were conducted of crashes occurring before and after implementation of transit malls in Philadelphia and Minneapolis (Edminster and Koffman,
1979). Analysis showed non-pedestrian collisions decreasing sharply on transit malls with no evidence of an increase on nearby streets. Total
pedestrian crashes appear stable with the only increase related to an increase in the exposure rates of pedestrian and vehicular volumes. Bus-
pedestrian conflicts are much higher on transit malls than on other streets. Fortunately, creating the malls has not resulted in a higher number of bus-

25 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 P1-

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

pedestrian collisions. Factors related to pedestrian crashes in Philadelphia include:

• Change from a one-way street to a two-way bus flow appears to cause confusion and carelessness on the part of pedestrians.
• Illegal pedestrian behavior, particularly jaywalking, results in more collisions in which pedestrians are at fault.
• Jaywalking is partly encouraged by a low volume of buses.
• Inadequate mall design included roadways that were too narrow, and the lack of barriers to discourage jaywalking.
• Jaywalking was encouraged by certain amenities such as phone booths used by pedestrians and placed too close to the curb.
• Construction of bus shelters too far away from crosswalks encouraged bus riders to cross the roadway outside the crosswalks.
• Midblock pedestrian crossings caused the entire roadway to be viewed in a casual manner by pedestrians.
• Operational problems may contribute to pedestrian crashes.

Although some people believed speeding buses, encouraged by the freedom from other traffic, were a danger to pedestrians, there was no evidence of
buses speeding.

As a result of a review of studies involving shared use of pedestrian-oriented space, it was concluded that plans that restrict private vehicles from small
sections of the roadway but allow other public service vehicles have only marginal or small positive safety benefits (Edminster and Koffman, 1979; Katz,
1978). Other pedestrian measures, such as pedestrian delay, are improved.

5. Area-wide Traffic Restrictions

Area-wide traffic restriction plans have been employed in town centers and residential areas. Observations of pedestrian risk were made in Upsala,
Sweden, both before and after the implementation of an area-wide traffic restriction plan in the center of town (Lovemark, 1974). This involved closing
streets to vehicular traffic, institution of one-way flow on bypass routes, and bus-only streets. Risk was defined as the probability of a collision occurring
that would result in personal injury and was predicted from serious traffic conflicts for various types of pedestrian and driver behaviors. Risk for
pedestrians in the restricted area declined by 29 percent. Risk for pedestrians on surrounding streets outside the restricted area, which experienced a
30-percent increase in volume after the restrictions were implemented, increased 12 percent.

In similar traffic management efforts in London, the impact of street closures and a few other devices on pedestrian safety was analyzed for 19 areas
(Brownfield, 1980). Ten sites showed declines in pedestrian collisions and two sites remained the same. The overall result was a pedestrian crash
decline of 24.4 percent. However, this decline was not statistically significant.

6. Speed Humps and Speed Tables

Also known as road humps, undulations, or "sleeping policemen," speed humps were developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in
Great Britain. The purpose of speed humps is to promote the smooth flow of traffic at slow speeds, around 32-40 km/h (20-25 mi/h). The speed hump is
an elongated bump with a circular-arc cross-section, rising to a maximum height of 76 mm (3 in) above the normal pavement surface and having a
length of 3.7 m (12ft) in the direction of vehicular travel. Speed humps usually extend the full width of the road.

Speed tables are flat-topped or trapazoidal speed humps. When used in conjunction with crosswalks, the flat top of the hump can extent the width of
the crosswalk. Speed tables are generally the same height of speed humps, and the raised portion can be built with brick pavers. Speed tables are
more common in Europe and Australia than in the U.S.

The ITE notes that, Speed humps have the advantage of being largely self-enforcing and of creating a visual impression, real or imagined, that a street
is not intended for speeding or 'through' traffic. Some items to consider before speed hump installation are their initial construction and continuing
maintenance costs, any potential negative impact on emergency and service vehicles, increases in vehicle noise, inconvenient access, and to some,
their unsightliness. They must be appropriate for use at all hours, day and night. In addition, it is mandatory that they be supplemented with a
combination of signs and/or pavement markings to warn motorists. (ITE Technical Council, 1993)

Other concerns related to speed humps and speed tables include the effect on drainage, snow removal, and the effect on emergency access of fire
trucks and ambulances.

7. Effects of Speed Humps

According to the ITE, speed hump research and testing have found that:

• Traffic speeds decrease at the humps and at locations between properly spaced successive humps. Speeds of the fastest drivers are affected as
well as those of average drivers. The speed distribution generally narrows, with the greatest effect on higher vehicle speeds.
• A single hump will only act as a point speed control. A series of humps is usually needed to reduce speeds along an extended section of street.
On long straight streets, speed humps will be needed about every 153m (1 block) to more uniformly control speeds.
• Speed humps may divert traffic to other streets, especially in those situations where a significant amount of traffic is using the street as a
shortcut, detour, or overflow from a congested collector or arterial roadway. Volume reduction is affected by the number and spacing of humps
and availability of alternative routes.
• Studies indicate that speed humps do not have the same effect on all vehicles. Humps tend to have a more significant impact on longer wheel-
base vehicles such as pickup trucks, buses, and fire trucks, and less of an impact on vehicles with good suspension.
• Speed humps are said not to pose a traffic safety hazard when properly designed and installed. In fact, crash experience generally remains
stable or decreases due to reduced speeds and volume (ITE Technical Council, 1993). Surveys of various agencies have failed to identify any
clear liability problems associated with the use of speed humps.

8. Experience with Speed Humps

Several agencies have reported on the use of speed humps.

OMAHA, NE (Kiik and Faghri, 1993)

• Humps installed on 60 residential streets

• Before-after measurements of 85th percentile speeds at 10 locations showed significant speed reductions (5 percent significance level)
• Personal injury crashes decreased at 19 locations
• Some residents complained about increased noise levels, vehicle damage, and that speeding still existed

26 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042.

• Officials were concerned about emergency vehicle response, potential liability, and need for monitoring signs and pavement markings near
speed humps

BELLEVUE, WA (Clarke and Dornfield, 1994)

• Sixteen speed humps installed in five residential neighborhoods

• 85th percentile speeds declined from before level of 58-63 km/h (36-39 mi/h), to 39-43 km/h (24-27 mi/h) after installation
• Traffic volumes declined when alternate routes existed
• Most residents said humps were effective and favored continued use

HOWARD COUNTRY, MD (Walter, 1995)

• Seven humps on Baltimore Avenue lowered 85th percentile speeds from 61 km/h (38 mi/h) to 43-47 km/h (27 to 29 mph) between humps, and
24 km/h (15 mi/h) at humps; no crashes in 4 years after vs. 4 crashes in the 2 years before
• Four humps on Dogwood Drive reduced the 85th percentile speed from 64 km/h to 45 km/h (40 mi/h to 28 mi/h); volumes fell 24 percent
• On Shaker Drive, 85th percentile speed fell from 69 km/h to 47 km/h (43 mi/h to 29 mi/h) following the installation of two flat-top humps; speed
between humps and at humps was essentially the same

AGOURA HILLS, CA (Cline, 1993)

• Five speed humps were built along a 0.8-km (0.5-mi) stretch of Grey Rock Road. The humps were 70 mm (2.75 in) high instead of 76 mm (3 in)
• 851h percentile speeds fell10-15 km/h (6-9 mi/h) after installation
• Volumes remained constant. Observations indicated motorists did not speed up between the humps, drive in the gutter, or divert to other
residential streets

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA (Cline, 1993)

• Humps were 67 mm (2.625 in) high

• 85th percentile speed fell15-23 km/h (9-14 mi/h) after the humps were installed

Several other demonstration projects in Los Angeles used the 67-mm (2.625-in) speed humps, with results similar to Agoura Hills and Westlake Village

CORIO, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA (McDonald and Jarvis, 1981)

• Two residential streets each had three road humps. The separation between the humps was 110 to 150m (361 to 492ft)
• 85th percentile traffic speeds at humps dropped by nearly half
• Volume fell 28 percent on one street and 24 percent on the other

STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA (Richardson and Jarvis, 1981)

• Eight humps installed, with 115 to 160 m (377 to 525ft) between humps
• 85th percentile traffic speeds at humps dropped from 65 km/h (40 mi/h) to 21 km/h (13 mi/h)
• Speeds between the humps fell from 70 to 45 km/h (43 to 28 mi/h)
• Volumes fell by roughly half

Other Australian cities conducted evaluations on speed tables. In Croydon, Victoria, the 85 1h percentile speeds between speed tables fell as much as
36 percent (Hawley et al., 1992). In Mosman, New South Wales, the noise levels after speed tables were installed fell by up to 11 decibels, partly the
result of lower traffic volumes (Hawley et al., 1992). With speed tables in place, the character of vehicle noise changes to thumping (as motorists drive
over the tables) and acceleration (as motorists speed up between tables). Nearby residents may perceive these changes as increased noise.

A Danish study developed a regression model to calculate expected speed changes associated with speed humps, lateral dislocations, and street
narrowing (Engel and Thomsen, 1992). According to their model, every centimeter in height is expected to reduce speed by 1.0 km/h (0.6 mi/h). (Street
narrowing is predicted to produce a 4.7-km/h (2.9-mi/h) speed reduction. A single lateral dislocation is predicted to reduce speed by 2.0 km/h (1.2 mi/h),
while a double lateral dislocation by 4.7 km/h (2.9 mi/h).)

Zaidel et al. in 1992 surveyed individuals and organizations about speed-reduction devices. Based on 23 responses from 13 countries, they concluded
that "many communities in several countries experienced neither vehicle damage nor driver loss of control when passing over humps. Also, no real
operational or comfort problems with bus, truck, or emergency vehicles were reported."

9. Guidelines for Speed Hump Use

Drawing upon experiences with speed humps, the ITE proposed the following guidelines:

• A traffic engineering study, including consideration of alternative traffic control measures, should precede any installation.
• Speed humps should only be installed on local two-lane residential streets with less than 3,000 vehicles per day, with a posted speed or prima
facie speed of 48 km/h (30 mi/h) or less.
• Hump locations should be coordinated with street geometry and grades.
• Speed humps should not be installed on streets with significant numbers of emergency vehicles, transit, or long wheelbase vehicles.
• Support from a documented majority of affected residents should be obtained before any installation (ITE Technical Council, 1993).

In the United Kingdom, road hump regulations were first issued in 1983, with more flexible regulations in 1986 and 1990 (Road Safety Division, 1993).
Among other changes, the 1990 regulations allowed tapered-edge and flat-top humps in addition to the conventional round-top, curb-to-curb hump. The
new regulations allow humps at pelicancrossings and do not limit the number of humps in a series. When a hump coincides with a crossing, only flat-
top humps should be used. Humps may not be placed closer than 30m (98ft) from a pelican or zebra crossing. Pavement markings delineating a
crossing should be placed along the flat top of the hump, not on the ramps leading to and from the hump. A tactile surface may be necessary to indicate
the sidewalk/street edge for pedestrians with vision impairments. At junctions, humps across side streets can be set back 5-8 m (16-26 ft) from the main
road to discourage pedestrians from crossing the side street to near the main road and thereby reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning traffic
(Speed Control Humps, 1990).

27 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 P:t\

 art 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

Although speed humps reduce vehicular speeds and volumes to the benefit of pedestrians, they have their disadvantages. Adjacent residential streets
and arterials are likely to experience higher levels of traffic as motorists are diverted from the treated street. The noise caused by vehicle acceleration
and "thumping" over humps may disturb residents who Jive near the humps. Signing and pavement markings can render humps unattractive. Because
humps reduce speeds, emergency response time may increase. They can impede maintenance activities such as sweeping and snowplowing and may
affect drainage (Clarke and Dornfield, 1994). Speed humps also require extra care when resurfacing of the street is required.

Thus, speed humps are certainly not a cure-all for traffic problems on residential streets. Less restrictive and more passive devices that may address
these problems should be considered first. However, where high vehicle speeds create an unsafe environment on local streets, speed humps may be
one possible treatment. Care should be taken to inform the residents of the advantages and disadvantages of the humps before they are installed.
Residents should provide a show of consensus for the humps, particularly those who will be most directly affected.

10. Bulbouts and Street Narrowing

The purpose of a bulbout, also known as a choker, bu/bout, or curb bulb, is to reduce the width of the vehicle travel way at either an intersection or a
midblock pedestrian crossing location. It shortens the street crossing distance for pedestrians, may slow vehicle speeds, and provides pedestrians and
motorists with an improved view of one another, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle-pedestrian collision.

Figure 45. Street narrowing can reduce vehicle speeds and provide pedestrians
with a narrower street to cross

In two Australian cities, Keilor (Queensland) and Eltham (Victoria), "curb blisters" (i.e., bulbouts) had little effect on reducing vehicle speeds (Hawley et
a/., 1992). However, in Concord, New South Wales, a comparison of a subarterial street with both curb blisters and marked parking lanes versus an
untreated street showed that the crash rate on the treated street was only one-third that of the untreated street (Hawley eta/., 1992). The number of
these crashes involving pedestrians was not stated, nor is it known how the streets compared before treatment.

Australia's "wombat" crossings usually consist of a raised platform with a marked crosswalk on top, and a refuge and curb blisters where space permits.
Thus, they combine features of speed tables and bulbouts. They are designed to slow motorists, shorten pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles, and
increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. Wombat crossings have generally reduced 85th percentile vehicle speeds by 40 percent (Hawley et al., 1992).

Anne Arundel County, MD, has been using a combination of medians and bulbouts near intersections. The medians narrow the traveled way, while the
bulbouts force drivers to make a lateral deflection as they enter the narrowed area. Medians with lateral deflection have reduced the 85th percentile
speeds by 3-8 km/h (2-5 milh) (Walter, 1995).

The Dutch towns of Oosterhout and De Meern have installed street-narrowing variations. The Oosterhout project consisted of installing two bulbouts so
as to require motorists to deviate from a straight path. Both the 85th percentile vehicle speed and the degree of pedestrian-motor vehicle conflict fell after
the deviation was installed. De Meern's deviation was created by placing two bulbouts opposite one another to narrow the width of the traveled
way. A significant reduction in the 85th percentile vehicle speed was observed at the deviation. Opinions of the deviation in De Meern were mixed.
There was not a strong sense of neighborhood improvement among residents. Swerving cars were thought to endanger bicyclists. School teachers
thought that children would be confused by the deviation. Retailers were concerned about accessibility and parking. There was little concern about
emergency vehicle access (Replogle, 1992).

Macbeth in 1995 reported favorable speed changes seen on five raised and narrowed intersections and seven rnidblock bulbouts (two raised). The
speed limit was also lowered to 30 km/h (19 mi/h). The results of speed changes are given below.

Percent Exceeding

30km/h 40km/h 50km/h

Before 86 54 13

After 20 3 2

11. Roundabouts

In a Toronto traffic engineering workshop, Frederick (1995) reported modest reductions in 85th percentile speed after traffic circles were installed. It was
reported that local citizens asked for traffic- calming measures (Herget, 1995). Before the installation, the 85th percentile speed was 43-50 km/h (27-31
mi/h) and 81 percent of traffic was non-local. Two roundabouts were installed and 81 percent of citizens in the area approved. Herget said there was no
measurable effect of the application.

More recently, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in 2000 that roundabouts reduce crashes when compared to intersections with signals

l8 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06PM

Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042..

or stop signs, especially when injuries are considered. Researchers at the University of Maine, Ryerson Polytechnic University, and the Institute studied
crashes and injuries at 24 intersections before and after the construction of roundabouts. Though the study found that fewer pedestrian crashes
occurred when roundabouts were installed, the numbers were too small to be statistically significant. Accordingly, the topic of roundabouts and
pedestrian safety remain controversial, especially for people with disabilities. For motorists, however, the study found a 39-percent overall decrease in
crashes, a 76-percent decrease in injury-producing crashes, and a 90-percent decrease in crashes involving fatal or incapacitating injuries.

12. Cui de sacs

In the 1970's, Australia implemented street closures "on the grounds that the problem was caused by excessive connectivity in the network" (Brindle,
1997, page 26), but now latter-day planners want to return to connective local street networks as part of a neotraditional neighborhood design. A
disadvantage to cui de sacs is that extra right-of-way is needed to build the turnarounds. If complete closures are built, blocking pedestrian and bicycle
access, it may make travel by automobile more attractive.

The authors cite the "benefits" of the neotraditional designs as coming from "increased density, a mix of land uses, and a grid transportation system"
(Szplett and Sale, 1997, page 42), but they acknowledge the opposing view, saying "The volume of traffic is often a rallying point for the neighbors in an
adjoining residential area who are opposed to the project. The authors' experience is that the higher density is another element of citizen complaints" (p.
43).

13. Emergency Vehicles

Some apprehensions about certain traffic-calming measures relate to fears that emergency vehicles will be delayed in responding, and the traffic-
calming facilities will make vehicle access more difficult. Atkins and Coleman (1997) report the results of their study of several types of emergency
vehicles, with several drivers, in negotiating several types of traffic-calming devices including humps and roundabouts. This was carried out as an
experiment in non-emergency situations. They report that the delay was 0 or 1 second in some cases, ranging up to 10 seconds, maximum, in others.
They did not report the duration of the typical emergency run, but an additional 10 seconds is within the variation imposed by random factors
encountered on such runs. Despite this, many emergency service providers may be opposed to certain traffic-calming projects; some that involve street
closures, medians, chokers or other street-narrowing projects may make it more difficult for large fire trucks to negotiate the streets. It is always a good
practice to have the local fire officials review the project to make sure that essential emergency services will not be unnecessarily disrupted.
Implementing traffic-calming projects on streets that provide primary access to fire stations, hospitals, and other emergency services should be carefully
evaluated.

14. Traffic Diversion

Traffic diversion can be accomplished by street closures, diverters, and signs restricting access, either during the peak travel hours or on a 24-hour
basis. Traffic diversion projects are designed to shift traffic off of a neighborhood street that is suffering from cut-through traffic onto other streets. If
these "other streets" are major streets or arterial roads, the project generally can be considered successful. If the traffic is shifted onto adjacent
neighborhood streets, the problem is merely transplanted, not solved.

Figure 46. Traffic diversion projects are designed to shift traffic off
neighborhood streets.

Parent in 1995 reported that certain roads were closed for a year. When reopened, various traffic- calming measures had been installed such as
chicanes and narrowing. He reports that ADT was diminished from 3,865 to 1,850. Speed was reduced by 14 percent. Local citizens in the
neighborhood rated the changes as good. He did not discuss what happened to the 2,000 vehicles per day that "disappeared." Where did they go?
Were they safely diverted? Was the total system better?

When considering traffic diversion projects, the entire neighborhood area must be included in the decisionmaking process. This will allow input from the
entire affected area and will prevent one part of the neighborhood's being sacrificed to benefit another part. The boundaries of the affected
neighborhood should be broadened to include more than one or two streets that may be currently suffering from cut-through traffic.

Traffic diversion projects often limit resident access, as well as access for their guests and service vehicles. The affected residents should provide input
into the change or loss of access to ensure that the tradeoffs will be acceptable. Often, the traffic restrictions can be tested and evaluated before they
are made permanent. A test period can be used to identify potential problems to residents and emergency and school access, and to allow for
adjustments to accommodate those problems that were not readily apparent at the outset of the project.

Traffic Calming in Original Construction

Many residential streets have been designed to provide the most convenient automobile access, with little thought of the high traffic levels and speeds
that may result. In some cases, the curb returns and street widths are designed to allow easy access to the largest moving van that may serve an area.
While it is important to provide access to fire trucks and school buses, some communities may be able to make significant changes to the layout and
design of their neighborhood streets as a part of the design and review process to eliminate the potential for cut--through traffic or speeding before the
neighborhood streets are built.

29 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 Pl\1

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

This can include narrowing streets, providing smaller turn radii at corners, and preventing long straight streets that are unobstructed. Roundaboutsn( d
discontinuous street paths can be supplemented with connective bike and pedestrian paths to provide ideal access to transit, schools, and adjacent
shopping areas. Access to a large neighborhood should not be limited to one or two entry points, and an adequate system of arterial and collector
streets should be provided to diminish the attractiveness of using local streets.

West and Lowe make the point that traffic-calming measures are often thought of as modifications to an existing facility, but they urge consideration for
traffic-calming designs in original construction (1997).

Effectiveness Evaluation
Some documents on traffic calming report numerical changes in before-versus-after analyses. In many cases, it appears that the traffic calming
measures had the desired effect of slowing or diverting traffic. Likewise, fewer "after" crashes are reported in many cases. In some instances, little or no
change is noted. In many of these reports, it is not clear just how the evaluation was conducted.

Leonard and Davis (1997) cite a lack of evaluation of traffic calming installations (page 36) and list some indicators they say should be used in
evaluation:

• Annual use of all urban modes

• Spot monitoring of vehicle emissions and noise
• Network-based highway capacity
• Route choice and travel time
• Crash rates involving pedestrians, bikers, and motor vehicles
• Speed attainment by functional classification

Spielberg (1994) spells out research needs:

• What are the true safety issues?

• Does neotraditional neighborhood design result in slower operating speeds?
• Are dart-out crash rates and severity from on-street parking a real problem?
• Are there compensating benefits from slower speeds and fewer driveways?
• How are travel patterns influenced?
• Does the mixed-use design result in lower trip-generation rates?
• Are destinations changed, resulting in shorter trips and lower vehicle miles traveled?

The report also provides a good list of references.

Skene et al. (1997) comment that much is done in the name of traffic calming, but they say effectiveness is largely unknown. On page 34 they state
"there is little information available regarding the applicability, effectiveness, and geometric characteristics of various traffic-calming devices." They also
say there is little information on the adverse effects of traffic-calming initiatives.

Nevertheless, before-and-after data are reported for many projects. In "Traffic Calming in Practice" prepared by the County Surveyors Society in
England and published by Landor Publishing Limited in November, 1994, a total of 85 case studies is reported; in 74 cases, before-and-after-crash data
are cited. In 69 of those cases, the crashes after were fewer than before; in three cases, crashes were more numerous, and in two cases there was no
change. The sheer number of projects that experienced safety benefits is persuasive to a degree, especially when the very nature of the traffic-calming
measures was intended to reduce speeds and in some cases to induce traffic to go elsewhere. However, one cannot know the study designs used,
most notably what factors dictated the particular intervention at the particular site, and therefore the possible role of regression to the mean.

Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths

The 1992 Uniform Vehicle Code defines a sidewalk as "that portion of a street between the curblines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent
property lines, intended for use by pedestrians."

Several types of pedestrian walkways have been defined (Work Zone Traffic Management, 1989; Zegeer and Zegeer, 1988):

• Sidewalks: Walkways that are paved (usually concrete) and separated from the street, generally by a curb and gutter. Sidewalk widening may be
used to facilitate pedestrian travel.
• Pathway: Temporary or permanent walkways that may or may not be placed near a roadway and are usually made of asphalt or gravel.
• Roadway shoulder: In rural or suburban areas where sidewalks and pathways are not feasible, gravel or paved highway shoulders provide an
area for pedestrians to walk next to the roadway.

A study by Tobey et. al. (1983) investigated the safety effects of

sidewalks. Sites with no sidewalks or pathways were the most
hazardous for pedestrians, with pedestrian hazard scores of +2.6
and a PxV exposure score (i.e., exposure measure equals
pedestrian volumes [P] times traffic volume Ml of +2.2. This
indicates that crashes at sites without sidewalks are more than
twice as likely to occur than expected. Sites with sidewalks on one
side of the road had pedestrian volume and PxV hazard scores of
+1.2 and +1.1, compared with scores of -1.2 and -1.2 for sites with
sidewalks on both sides of the road. Thus, sites with no sidewalks
were the most hazardous to pedestrians, and sites where sidewalks
were present on both sides of the road were least hazardous. A

30 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042.

later study by Knoblauch et al. (1987) developed guidelines for Figure 47. Pedestrians are safer in areas with sidewalks than in areas
sidewalk installation separately for new and existing streets. without them.
A variety of factors are widely acknowledged to have an impact on the risk of pedestrian motor vehicle injuries. Those most extensively researched are
geometric characteristics of the road, including the presence of sidewalks. However, until recently, factors relating to demographics and neighborhood
characteristics have been mentioned but not sufficiently researched. To address that problem, McMahon, et al. (2000) used a case-control methodology
and applied conditional and binary logistic models to determine the effects of cross-sectional roadway design attributes and socioeconomic and other
census block group data on the likelihood that a site is a crash site. A total of 47 crash sites and 94 comparison sites were analyzed. Physical design
factors found to be associated with significantly higher likelihood of being a crash site are higher speed limit, the lack of wide grassy walkable areas,
and the absence of sidewalks. When these roadway factors are controlled for, non-geometric factors associated with significantly higher likelihood of
being a crash site are high levels of unemployment, older housing stock, and more single parents. This information suggest that some neighborhoods
may, due to increased exposure or specific types of exposure, be especially appropriate sites for pedestrian safety measures such as sidewalks, lower
speed roadway designs, and the addition of wide grassy shoulders. That FHWA study also developed guidelines and priorities for installing sidewalks
and walkways, as shown in table 31.

Table 31. Recommended guidelines for new sidewalk/walkway installation.

Sidewalk/Walkway
Roadway Classification/Land Use Future Phasing
Requirements

Rural highways (<400 average Shoulders preferred, with a Secure/preserve right-of-way (ROW)
daily traffic [ADT]) minimum width of 0.9 m (3ft) for future sidewalks.

1.5-m (5-ft) shoulders preferred,

Secure/preserve ROW for future
Rural highways (400 to 2000 ADT) and minimum of 1.2-m (4-ft)
sidewalks.
shoulders required.

Rural/suburban highway (ADT Sidewalks or side paths

Secure/preserve ROW for future
>2,000 and less than 1 dwelling preferred; minimum of 1.8-m (6-
sidewalks.
unit (d.u.)/.4 hectares (ha) ft) shoulders required.

Suburban highway (1 to 4 d.u/.4 Sidewalks on both sides

ha) required.

Sidewalks on both sides

Major arterial (residential)
required.

Urban collector and minor arterial Sidewalks on both sides

(residential) required.

Sidewalks on both sides

Urban local street (residential- Secure/preserve (ROW) for future
preferred; minimum of 1.5-m (5-
less than 1 d.u /.4 ha) sidewalks.
ft) shoulders required.

Both sides required if density

Urban local street (residential-1 to Sidewalks on both sides becomes greater than 4 d.u./ .4 ha (4
4 d.u./.4 ha) preferred d.u./acre) or if schools, bus stops, etc.
are nearby.

Local street (residential-more Sidewalks on both sides

than 4 d.u./.4 ha) required.

All commercial urban streets Sidewalks on both sides

(commercial areas) required.

Sidewalks on both sides

All streets in industrial areas preferred; minimum of 1.5-m (5-
ft) shoulders required.

Education Countermeasures
Numerous studies have evaluated efforts of educational programs on pedestrian behavior. For example, the NHTSA film on "Willie Whistle" is aimed at
grades kindergarten through 3, and teaches children the safe way to cross streets (Blomberg et al., 1983). It is 7 minutes long and contains live action
plus animation. It is directed at reducing midblock dart-out or dash crashes by teaching children always to stop at the curb and look left-right-left before
entering the street. After extensive testing in Los Angeles, Columbus, and Milwaukee, the film was reported to reduce dart and dash crashes by more
than 30 percent among 4- to 6-year old children, as illustrated in figure 49.

Non-midblock pedestrian crashes were used as a control group, since they were not considered to be affected by the "Willie Whistle" program. Crashes
in this group remained relatively unchanged, suggesting that the drop in midblock pedestrian crashes was the result of the educational messages and
not a general decline in pedestrian crashes.

A 15-minute follow-up educational film called "And Keep On Looking" (Preusser and Lund, 1988) was later developed by NHTSA to convey street-
crossing advice to older children (grades 4-7), such as crossing busy streets, safety in parking lots, and crossing at signalized locations. The
effectiveness of this film was examined through testing in Connecticut, Seattle, and Milwaukee. In a 2-year test in Milwaukee of the film's effects, the
number of 9- to 12-year olds involved in pedestrian crashes decreased by more than 20 percent. Positive results were also found in Seattle in terms of
children's observed behavior and in Connecticut through retained information after viewing the film.

31 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06 Ptv

Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/researchlsafety/pedbike/03042...

Other less formal evaluations of pedestrian educational programs have been conducted in the past 20 years, including:

• Pittsburgh, PA. A short film was shown and discussed with grade school students; it improved
"looking behavior" but no significant improvement in slowing or stopping before crossing (Blomberg
and Preusser, 1975).

• Stamford, CT. When informed through a question-and-answer pamphlet of correct crossing

behavior, adults showed a small improvement in stopping and searching behavior at crossings.
They stopped more often at intersections than at midblock, but looked less often at the intersections
(Blomberg and Preusser, 1975).

• New York City. A recorded message in buses advised passengers not to cross in front of the bus
when leaving. The message had little effect. Passengers based crossing behavior on the observed
degree of hazard without regard to the message (Blomberg and Preusser, 1975).
Figure 48. "Looking behavior" is
• Salt Lake City, UT. Public awareness was developed through radio, television, and print information encouraged in pedestrian education
(newspapers). A pedestrian safety contest was begun. Following classroom instruction, students in programs.
a primary school who were observed crossing safely were rewarded with praise and a good
pedestrian certificate. Correct crossings increased from 20 percent before to 80 percent after instruction (Reading, 1973).

• England. The Tufty Club, organized by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Crashes in England, initiated in 1961, included 2 million children
as members by 1971. The Tufty educational program taught crossing safety through graphic aids and stories featuring Tufty, a safety-minded
squirrel who does the right thing in dangerous situations. Improved crossing instructions, called the Green Cross-Code, were introduced in 1974.
Over a 3-month period, the pedestrian crash rate declined 11 percent. The greatest reduction in crashes was observed between the ages of 5
and 9, the target audience (Firth, 1975; Sargent and Sheppard, 1974).

• Sweden. On the basis of an elaborate program of developmental and educational research in safety-relevant behavior, the researcher found that
children of pre- and primary-school age do not have the perceptual, motivational, and judgmental maturity to learn and meet the demands of
modern traffic (Sandels, 1975).

CHILD MIDBLOCK
DART AND DASH ACCIDENTS BY AGE
.. .. (Loll Angeles,Columbus and Milwaukee)

·
> ,..
&.
.. .
11

I!
..70

.. .
u ..

i:
..'
10

CHILD AGE

Figure 49. Effects of "Willie Whistle" educational

campaign on pedestrian crashes.

In recent years, a number of other pedestrian educational programs have been developed in the U.S. and abroad, although no formal evaluations are
available for many of these. Most were directed at helping various pedestrian age groups, but a few were intended for either the parents or teachers of
young children. As discussed in the WALK ALERT Program Guide, some of these pedestrian educational materials include the following (National
Safety Council, 1988):

Figure 50. Preschool and elementary school children are

the target of many pedestrian education programs.

• For preschool children, various programs are directed at children, their parents, and/or teachers regarding the need to recognize and avoid
streets and traffic hazards. The programs include:
o Walking in Traffic Safely (WITS)
o Watchful Willie
o "Children in Traffic-Why Are They Different?" (a West German film)

32 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3- A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042..

o Child and Traffic

o Parents, Children and Traffic

• Elementary children (grades kindergarten to 3) represent the age group most at risk, and more than half of all pedestrian deaths and injuries to
children ages 5 to 9 involve crossing or entering residential streets. These educational programs emphasize safe street crossing behavior and
include:
o Willie Whistle Safe Street Crossing Program (discussed earlier)
o I'm No Fool As a Pedestrian
o Walk Safely
o AAA Poster Contest

• Elementary children (grades 4-6) need more complex safety messages, such as crossing at signalized intersections, multiple threat situations,
right turn on red, walking in parking lots, and others. Examples of educational programs include:
o And Keep on Looking (discussed earlier)
o Walk Safely
o Safety on Streets and Sidewalks
o The National Student Traffic Safety Test
o Guidelines for a K-12 Traffic Safety Educational Curriculum

• Junior high and high school students should also be taught about more complex street situations, but also about being seen at night, dangers of
alcohol use and walking, recreational walking, commercial bus stops, and others. Examples of programs include:
o Guidelines for a K-12 Traffic Safety Educational Curriculum
o WALK ALERT-A Pedestrian Safety Booklet for Junior High Students
o Driver Education
o Substance Abuse Programs
o Teaching About the Child

• Adult (including older adults) educational programs are more commonly in the form of:
o Walking tours led by traffic safety officers or civic leaders
o Public service announcements
o Print media
o Work place programs
o Hospitals and health-related print material

Since driver education is also an important component of pedestrian safety, numerous programs directed at drivers are also available, including:

• AAA's School's Open Drive Carefully

• Parents Can Be Serious Traffic Hazards
• About Children and Traffic
• Give Older Pedestrians a Break at Crossings

Education is certainly an essential ingredient of pedestrian safety programs along with engineering and enforcement. Cities that historically have had a
low incidence of pedestrian crashes have typically had active pedestrian-education programs. More information on various educational programs for
pedestrian safety and specific messages is available (National Safety Council, 1988; Preusser, 1988).

Media campaigns are one form of education, and they are sometimes accompanied by the promise of intensified law enforcement. Two studies carried
out in Canada are illustrative. In one, a multimedia campaign targeted left turns, aimed at increasing the proportion of drivers who yield to pedestrians
(Koenig and Wu, 1994). No enforcement emphasis was mentioned. Failure to yield was 25 percent before and 17 percent after. No change was seen in
right-turn behavior, which was not targeted.

Another study, in Seattle, reported little success (Britt et al., 1995). These authors evaluated a 4-year study in Seattle. Driver behavior at crosswalks
was observed; compliance with the yield law was not great (15 to 20 percent). A media campaign accompanied the enforcement effort, but it is not clear
whether the intensity of either was maintained during the full 4-year period. Enforcement seemed to produce a slight improvement in compliance, but
the authors said they were " ... unable to demonstrate that law enforcement efforts directed at motorists' violations of crosswalk laws significantly or
consistently increase drivers' willingness to stop for pedestrians." (p. 166)

It seems reasonable to believe that many pedestrian collisions are the result of poor behavior on the part of pedestrians and drivers. This would indicate
that educational countermeasures could improve pedestrian safety. Many public information and education campaigns have been conducted to improve
pedestrian and driver behavior. However, there is a clear need for further development and widespread use of effective pedestrian-safety programs that
are targeted at children of various ages, parents, and drivers.

Enforcement and Regulations

In addition to engineering and education, enforcement of traffic laws and regulations is another important element in safe pedestrian activity. This means
curtailing dangerous motorist actions that relate to pedestrians. Motorists who exceed the speed limit, fail to yield the right of way to pedestrians when
turning, run a red light or stop sign, and/or drink and drive can place pedestrians in jeopardy. Strong police enforcement programs are needed to help
reduce these violations (National Safety Council, 1988). Giving citations to pedestrians (for jaywalking, etc.) has not been shown to be effective in
improving behavior, and can create a public-relations problem for local police departments.

Unfortunately, no quantitative studies could be found that determined the specific effects of various types of police enforcement on pedestrian crashes
and injuries. However, many U.S. cities with exemplary pedestrian safety achievements (such as Milwaukee, Seattle, and San Diego) have maintained
active enforcement programs along with other pedestrian safety measures (National Safety Council, 1988). The effect of enforcement alone is difficult to
quantify because so many factors affect pedestrian crash experience over a given time period.

33 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM
Part 3 - A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States ... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042...

Several model pedestrian ordinances have been developed by NHTSA that have the potential to reduce certain types of pedestrian crashes. Thee
include the following (National Safety Council, 1988;

Development of Model Regulations, 1974; Mode/Ice Cream Truck Ordinance, 1979, Enforcement-Policing Pedestrian Protection, 1988):

• Model ice cream truck ordinance: This type of regulation is needed in many areas to deal with the problem of children who walk or run into the
street to or from ice cream or other vending trucks. This ordinance has several components, including: (1) requiring drivers to stop before
overtaking a vending truck, (2) requiring "stop then go if safe" swing arms and alternately flashing lights on vendor trucks, and (3) restricting the
locations where vending trucks are allowed. According to a 1979 NHTSA study, such an ordinance went into effect in Detroit in June, 1976.
During the first partial vending season, related crashes dropped 54 percent. In the first full vending season, related child crashes declined 77
percent (from a 3-year average of 48.7 crashes per year to 11 in 1977) (Mode/Ice Cream Truck Ordinance, 1979).

• Model bus stop ordinance: This measure requires that bus stops be relocated from the near side to the far side of an intersection. It also
prohibits pedestrians from crossing in front of a stopped bus unless allowed to do so by a traffic control device or police officer. This ordinance
can increase the visibility between an approaching motorist and crossing pedestrians and thus decrease bus-related pedestrian crashes.

• Multiple vehicle-overtaking ordinance: One of the common types of pedestrian crashes on multi-lane roadways is termed a " multiple-threat"
crash, which involves pedestrians who step into a traffic lane, often in a crosswalk, in front of a stopped vehicle and then into the adjacent lane
without looking and are struck by an oncoming vehicle. This ordinance would require drivers to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and to stop
before passing a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk.

• Disabled vehicle ordinance: To reduce pedestrian crashes on freeways, this ordinance requires that motorists move their vehicle as far as
possible off the road and place a warning device behind it. Reflective materials must also be carried in the vehicle for occupants to wear when
walking along access-controlled roads at night. It also prohibits standing in roadways during vehicle repairs.

• Parking near intersections or crosswalks ordinance: This ordinance provides that vehicles should not park within 15m (50ft) of a marked
crosswalk or within 18 m (60ft) of an intersection without a marked crosswalk on that approach. Access ramps and other provisions for people
with disabilities are included. This ordinance should help drivers approaching an intersection to see pedestrians more easily and will give
pedestrians a better view of approaching motorists.

The above ordinances can help reduce pedestrian crashes when implemented and followed by local jurisdictions. Effective police enforcement may be
needed to help ensure reasonably high compliance with these and other ordinances. Enforcement efforts have been most effective when they are long
term and consistent, have strong support from top management, and are upheld by the local judicial system (National Safety Council, 1988).

[:11As used in England, pelican crossings are midblock crossings controlled by traffic signals and pushbutton pedestrian signals. The pushbutton
hardware lights up and conveys specific messages to pedestrians during each interval (walk phase, clearance phase, and don't walk phase), with
dashed (not solid) parallel lines to mark the crosswalk (Zegeer, et al., 1994).

FHWA-RD-03-042

Previous I Table of Contents 1 Next

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT

Keywords: Pedestrians, safety research, crashes, countermeasures, education, enforcement

TRT Terms: Pedestrians--Safety measures--Research, Pedestrians--Protection--Research, Traffic safety--Research, pedestrian safety
Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update needed

This page last modified on 03/08/2016

Feedback

34 of34 9/20/2017, 5:06PM

33 of34 9/20/2017,5:06 PM