China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Human Factors Considerations in Preparing Policy and Regulation for Automated Vehicles
Published in Donald L. Fisher, William J. Horrey, John D. Lee, Michael A. Regan, Handbook of Human Factors for Automated, Connected, and Intelligent Vehicles, 2020
Picture an everyday interaction on a public road: a car and a pedestrian at a pedestrian (or “zebra”) crossing; that is, a crossing without traffic lights that gives right of way to pedestrians. A car approaches. At the same time a pedestrian is about to step out onto the crossing. The pedestrian looks at the car, to make sure it is slowing down (it is). The pedestrian makes eye contact with the car’s driver. The pedestrian is now confident that the driver has seen her. The car driver nods or uses a hand gesture to wave the pedestrian through. The pedestrian walks across the crossing and the car proceeds on its way. Parts of this interaction are regulated (vehicle must give way to pedestrians), but others are not (making eye contact, gestures).
Children’s and parents’ perceptions on safe routes to schools: a mixed-methods study investigating factors influencing active school travel
Published in Journal of Urban Design, 2023
Ritwik Swain, Prue Oswin, Verity Truelove, Grégoire S. Larue
A second part investigated risk perception of crossing types. Both parents and children were presented with seven different types of pedestrian crossings and were asked to rate them in terms of their perceived risk level, in order to understand which types of crossings children and parents feel are safer. Perceived Risk was measured on a five-point Likert Scale ranging from Very Risky to Very Safe. Parents were asked: ‘How risky do you feel it is for children you care for to use the following types of crossing?’ where children were asked: ‘How risky are the following types of crossings in your experience?’. The crossing types were as follows: unprotected crossing, untreated crossing side road (a side road where no crossing facility is provided), a refuge, standard zebra crossing, raised zebra crossing, mid-block signalized pedestrian crossing and signalized crossing at intersection (see Figure 1).
Proactive pedestrian safety evaluation at urban road network level, an experience in Kolkata City, India
Published in International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2022
Dipanjan Mukherjee, Sudeshna Mitra
The study findings show that several pedestrian-level characteristics such as the share of pedestrians not following zebra crossing, the share of distracted pedestrians, and the share of pedestrian crossing alone substantially affect the average PET value of a location (model 4, Table 5; model 9, Table 6). The share of pedestrians not following zebra crossing is negatively correlated with the risk of pedestrian-vehicular conflicts at the intersection level as well as midblock level. Further, the study outcomes show a positive relationship between the share of distracted pedestrians and the risk of pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. Nasar et al. (2008) exposed that pedestrian distracted by their mobile phones generally cross dangerously. Nasar and Troyer (2013) reported that in the US mobile phone-related pedestrian injuries were increased significantly from the year 2004 to 2010. The authors also identified that using a mobile phone while driving is additionally risky to pedestrians. The ‘Safety Net Accident Causation Database’ also acknowledged pedestrians’ distraction as a major cause of crashes in the European Union (Talbot et al., 2013). Horberry et al. (2019) documented that in Melbourne, Australia nearly 20% of the critical interactions between pedestrians and vehicles occur when a pedestrian uses a smartphone while crossing.
Identifying the most suitable road crossing infrastructure based on estimated delay to pedestrians and vehicle users
Published in Transportation Letters, 2018
Mihir Prajapati, Mukti Advani, Purnima Parida
Table 10 shows the results for another location, i.e. Ashram Chowk. Gross delay for existing condition (zebra crossing) and alternate scenarios (signalized crossings) has been calculated. As shown in Table 10, optimized signal cycle increase the gross delay in all three scenarios. Accordingly, comparison between existing condition and proposed scenarios result increase the gross delay, at-grade zebra crossing which is existing one is preferable at that site. Last column shows the delay calculation in case FOB with escalator is provided. As shown in last column of the table, gross delay increased to 118625 s compared to 48983 s of Scenario III of signalized crossing. Interesting outcome from the study for four-lane divided road is to provide a zebra crossing instead of any at-grade facility. Signalization is not always the most appropriate form of traffic control for an intersection, and it is sometimes possible to create a larger benefit by removing a traffic signal than by retiming it. (Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2008)