Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian crossing types: Observational study and...

Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian

crossing types: Observational study and

survey

學生：董瑩蟬

Purpose

• This paper investigated the driver and pedestrian at the misunderstanding traffic signal crossing type.

• Used showcard ask pedestrian and driver respondents when they in the various situation.

Reference• Pedestrian accidents has high percentage

in many countries. For example US and Australia. (NHTSA,2006; WHO,2002) \

• In NSW, there were many old pedestrians fails to cross at marked crossing. (RTA,2002; Rouse,2002)

• According to the US data showed that pedestrian accidents occurred at intersection when driver turning to left or light. (daSilva et al.,2003;Preusser et al.,2002)

Reference

• Preusser et al.(2002) and Job(1998) found that there was high percentage of collision when Green/Walk situation in Australia.

• Marko et al.(1990) and Rouse (2002) found that the various traffic situation and participants that have different perception.

Method

• Site: the observed at 4 lane intersection with traffic light (with no left or right turn arrows).

• Country: Sydney and NSW (New South Wales).

• Participants: driver and pedestrian.

• Questionnaire: two versions (driver and pedestrian)

Method• There are 2854 participants observed at

intersections. Characteristic distribution

gender female 50.9%,

age 10~21 5.6%

21~50 62.7%

51~70 25.6%

less 10 and more 70 6%

Method

• The observed pedestrian only less 50% for interview. Total about 574 person were interviewed. Data described in table 1.

• The age was significantly different at area.(F(1,656)=8.6,P=0.004)

• The road crossing frequency also significantly different at area.(F(1,569)=57.6,P<0.001)

Method• The observation behavior (sheet) include:

– Which street pedestrians crossed– Gender– Age– Signal at start of crossing for the pedestrian and for parallel traffi

c– How far from the marked crossing pedestrians began crossing– Whether or not the pedestrian looked for traffic before starting to

cross– Whether or not traffic was present – Whwthwr or not the pedestrian waited for traffic to stop before st

arting to cross– Whether the pedestrian or driver’s view of the other was obscure

d– Where the pedestrian looked while crossing– The time taken to cross

Method• Materials: observation sheet, participant in

formation sheet, consent form, showcards

• Procedure:– Data collect every 10:30~11:30,11:45~13:30,

14:30~16:00 and 16:45~18:30 period of 2 months.

Result-Pedestrian signal and parallel traffic signal at start of crossing

Result-Attention to traffic

Result-Attention to traffic

• Comparison A (Green/Walk V.S. Green/ Flashing Don’t walk)

• Comparison B (Green/Walk V.S. Green/ Don’t walk).

• Phase was significantly associated with area for comparison B

• Age was significantly different Comparisons A and B.

• Phase was not associated with gender.

Result-Attention to traffic

• Comparison A:– Associated with looking at traffic before

crossing (B (exp)=1.87,P=0.002)

– Waiting for traffic to stop before crossing (B (exp)=0.49,P<0.001)

– Looking at traffic during crossing (B (exp)=0.13,P=0.009)

Result-Attention to traffic

• Comparison B:– Associated with looking at traffic before crossi

ng (B (exp)=34.98,P<0.001)

– Waiting for traffic to stop before crossing (B (exp)=0.14,P<0.001)

– Looking at traffic during crossing (B (exp)=4.00,P=0.001)

Result-Conflict

• Phase had a significant impact on experience of conflict.

• Numbers were too low to test the association between phase my-right-of-way responses.

Result-Interview data

Result-Interview data

Result-Interview data

Result-Interview data

Result-Beliefs regarding right-of-way

• For showcard 2, there has higher percentage of pedestrian.

• For showcard 3,there were lower percentage of respondents of pedestrian.

• The area effected the responses situation for showcard 1, 4, 6, 8.

• Age effected the responses dituation for showcard 1, 9, 5, 2 and 3.

• Number of streets crossed per week effect responses situation for showcard 7.

Result- Intentions regarding right-of-way

• The different version may effect the responses on all showcard, except 8.

• The pedestrian version has higher presentage of responses for showcard 7,10 and 1.

• The interview site effect responses on showcard 10, 6 and 2.

Conclusion

• The crossing traffic light effect pedestrian crossing behavior.

• At an unmark road, many pedestrian respondents that prove refuge or reported as like gave pedestrian right-of-way.

• There are more than 20% participants responses that they would take right-of-way.