Author
Listed:
- Wakeel Idewu
- Dogucan Mazicioglu
- Hana Naghawi
Abstract
Walking is a mode of travel used by billions of people daily. Facilities that promote walking such as crosswalks often involve sharing space with conflicting vehicular traffic. These areas are not immune to receiving pedestrians that either do not obey or do not understand today’s pedestrian signals, which are used to communicate periods of safe crossing. Therefore, improving comprehension would subsequently improve safety and crash rates. The Traditional Pedestrian Signal in the United States displays an illuminated man and a hand to indicate a cautionary-crossing period, a transition period, and a crossing-prohibited period. This signal type was evaluated and compared to a relatively new Experimental Pedestrian Signal. The Experimental Pedestrian Signal presented in this paper utilized the figure of a walking man changing only by the colors green, yellow, and red. Both signals were analyzed to identify the phases that best communicated the intended action. Video files depicting a Traditional and Experimental Signal were administered with a questionnaire to test the comprehension of rural and suburban participants. The results indicated that the Experimental Pedestrian Signal was not better understood than the current Traditional Signal, although a vast majority of participants preferred the Experimental Signal. The lowest comprehension occurred during the transition phase for both pedestrian signal types. The results also suggest that the interpretation of the yellow color varies by location and may invoke mixed responses if incorporated in pedestrian signals. A more appropriate solution may be to combine both symbolic and color cues into future pedestrian signals.
Suggested Citation
Wakeel Idewu & Dogucan Mazicioglu & Hana Naghawi, 2018.
"Determining Confusion for Traditional and Experimental Pedestrian Signals in Rural and Suburban Areas in the United States,"
Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(9), pages 1-87, September.
Handle:
RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:12:y:2018:i:9:p:87
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:12:y:2018:i:9:p:87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.