Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Driver/Pedestrian Understanding and Behavior at Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mitman, Meghan F.
  • Ragland, David R
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Pedestrian injuries at crosswalk locations represent a significant problem. In 2002, 22.7 percent of US pedestrians involved in collisions were in a crosswalk at the time of the collision, and over 96% of these occurred at an intersection. Almost all crosswalk collisions resulted in pedestrian injury or fatality (98.6 percent), and about one-third resulted in severe or fatal injury (National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and General Estimates System (GES) 2002). As the owner of the California State Highway System, Caltrans is responsible for providing access to safe and convenient travel for pedestrians as users of a shared roadway network. Inadequate pedestrian safety in marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections continues to challenge transportation engineers and planners. Results from thirty years of numerous localized studies have been confirmed by a nationwide study which indicate that marked crosswalks across multi-lane roads with travel volumes exceeding 10,000 average daily traffic (ADT) present a higher accident risk for pedestrians than do unmarked crossings. Many other agencies around the nation have addressed this by removing marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. This approach results in unacceptable pedestrian mobility restrictions and should not be embraced as Caltrans’ policy. The Traffic Safety Center (TSC) at the University of California, Berkeley, recently completed an extensive study of pedestrian and driver knowledge of right-of-way laws. This study focused on identifying potential human factors explanations for the crosswalk dilemma. Several statistically significant differences in marked versus unmarked crosswalks were identified: (1) Pedestrians and drivers lack an accurate knowledge of right-of-way laws related to marked versus unmarked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. (2) Pedestrians and drivers exhibit different behaviors in marked versus unmarked crosswalks on multi-lane, higher volume roads. In this report we will present our research and offer recommendations and analyses of countermeasures to improve pedestrian crosswalk safety.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/7xn8m790.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley in its series Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings with number qt7xn8m790.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 01 Jul 2008
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt7xn8m790

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 109 McLaughlin Hall, Mail Code 1720, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720
    Phone: 510-642-3585
    Fax: 510-643-3955
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/its/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt7xn8m790. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.