U.S. Department 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
| REPORT |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
|
 |
| Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-098 Date: January 2014 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-13-098 Date: January 2014 |
To handle different levels of pedestrian traffic, the next set of analyses examine the data in terms of the proportion of crossings at each location in this section. The proportion of crossings and the types of crossings at each location are examined as a complete group here. In addition, the relationship between environmental factors and the proportions of crossing types are examined.
Table 51 summarizes the percentage of pedestrians, by location, who crossed at a marked intersection and unmarked non-intersection. An additional column, “rule-breaking,” lists the percentage of people within each area whose crossing was not completed entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersection (e.g., an unmarked non-intersection or a marked intersection in the don’t walk phase). The percentage of each type of crossing is presented at each location. For example, at Location 19, 86.90 percent of the total crossings took place in the marked intersection during the walk phase. The mean percentage of pedestrians crossing in the marked intersection is 83.88. Location 3 is considered an outlier, with a mean percentage of 50.88 pedestrians crossing at the marked intersection (2.70 standard deviations below the mean). As was noted in phase 1, Location 3 is unique in that there is an unmarked intersection present between the two marked crosswalks.
A mean percentage of 13.89 pedestrians crossed in an unmarked non-intersection area. Location 15 is considered an outlier, with a mean percentage of 36.55 pedestrians crossing at the unmarked non-intersection (2.34 standard deviations above the mean). Location 15 (as described in phase 2) includes a large median that divides traffic. This median provides pedestrians with an opportunity to travel on a more direct (and potentially faster) path between public transit and the neighboring residential area. It is likely that this played a role in the proportion of unmarked non-intersection crossings.
Next, to examine rule-following, crossings made entirely within the walk phase in the marked intersection were compared with all other crossings. (These other crossings are referred to as “rule-breaking.” However, note that these crossings are not necessarily against the rules and/or laws in all states. Rather, it is a simple convention for ease of description.) A mean percentage of 70.89 pedestrians crossed entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersections. Location 13 was an outlier at 28.41 percent (2.46 standard deviations below the mean).
A t-test was performed to confirm a difference in the percentage of pedestrians crossing the marked intersections (M = 83.88 percent) and the unmarked non-intersections (M = 13.89 percent). A significant difference between the two locations was found, t(19)= 15.95, p < .001. A second t-test examined the percentage of crossings that occurred entirely during the walk phase (M = 70.89 percent) and the percentage that occurred during rule breaking (M = 29.11 percent) crossings. Indeed a difference between the groups was found, t(19) = 5.40, p < .001.
Table 51. Percentage of pedestrians crossing at each area in each data collection location.
|
Location |
Marked Intersection |
Unmarked Non-Intersection |
Rule-Breaking |
||||||||
|
Walk |
Don’t Walk |
Overall in Intersection |
With Traffic |
Against Traffic |
Overall in Unmarked Non-Intersection |
||||||
|
without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
||||
|
1 |
75.14 |
0.72 |
8.47 |
3.60 |
87.93 |
5.23 |
0.45 |
5.77 |
0.63 |
12.07 |
24.86 |
|
2 |
87.91 |
1.12 |
1.75 |
0.52 |
91.30 |
6.24 |
0.30 |
1.60 |
0.56 |
8.70 |
12.09 |
|
3 |
44.56 |
0.38 |
5.73 |
0.21 |
50.88 |
1.00 |
0.15 |
3.15 |
0.15 |
4.46 |
55.44 |
|
4 |
67.98 |
0.71 |
17.89 |
4.59 |
91.17 |
5.38 |
0.17 |
2.77 |
0.52 |
8.83 |
32.02 |
|
5 |
93.43 |
0.37 |
0.49 |
0.05 |
94.33 |
5.19 |
0.14 |
0.33 |
0.01 |
5.67 |
6.57 |
|
6 |
90.63 |
0.82 |
0.92 |
0.90 |
93.26 |
4.67 |
0.27 |
1.11 |
0.68 |
6.74 |
9.37 |
|
7 |
75.46 |
1.30 |
18.69 |
1.53 |
96.98 |
1.81 |
0.01 |
1.20 |
0.00 |
3.02 |
24.54 |
|
8 |
74.21 |
0.64 |
1.33 |
0.64 |
76.81 |
16.58 |
0.64 |
5.46 |
0.51 |
23.19 |
25.79 |
|
9 |
77.64 |
2.48 |
4.10 |
4.84 |
89.07 |
3.60 |
0.50 |
6.58 |
0.25 |
10.93 |
22.36 |
|
10 |
84.28 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
84.47 |
8.71 |
0.19 |
6.44 |
0.19 |
15.53 |
15.72 |
|
11 |
58.82 |
0.00 |
11.76 |
0.00 |
70.59 |
17.65 |
0.00 |
11.76 |
0.00 |
29.41 |
41.18 |
|
12 |
64.86 |
0.54 |
3.24 |
0.00 |
68.65 |
15.68 |
1.08 |
14.59 |
0.00 |
31.35 |
35.14 |
|
13 |
28.41 |
10.84 |
46.80 |
4.93 |
90.97 |
5.09 |
0.33 |
3.61 |
0.00 |
9.03 |
71.59 |
|
14 |
80.49 |
1.46 |
4.88 |
2.93 |
89.76 |
6.34 |
0.00 |
3.41 |
0.49 |
10.24 |
19.51 |
|
15 |
55.24 |
0.36 |
6.79 |
1.07 |
63.45 |
28.21 |
0.83 |
7.38 |
0.12 |
36.55 |
44.76 |
|
16 |
82.86 |
5.71 |
2.86 |
2.14 |
93.57 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
0.36 |
1.07 |
6.43 |
17.14 |
|
17 |
73.33 |
1.78 |
5.78 |
0.89 |
81.78 |
10.67 |
0.00 |
7.56 |
0.00 |
18.22 |
26.67 |
|
18 |
73.03 |
5.47 |
4.20 |
1.40 |
84.10 |
12.47 |
0.13 |
3.31 |
0.00 |
15.90 |
26.97 |
|
19 |
86.90 |
8.33 |
0.00 |
1.19 |
96.43 |
1.19 |
0.00 |
1.19 |
1.19 |
3.57 |
13.10 |
|
20 |
42.70 |
2.25 |
22.47 |
14.61 |
82.02 |
3.37 |
0.00 |
12.36 |
2.25 |
17.98 |
57.30 |
To better understand influences on crossing behaviors, the relationship between crossing area and the aforementioned environmental factors were examined. Only significant relationships are discussed. A significant correlation was found between the width of the crossing and the percentage of pedestrians crossing entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersection, r(18) = .504, p = .024. In other words, the greater the travel distance, the more likely pedestrians were to be rule followers; or the shorter the travel distance, the more likely pedestrians were to be “rule breakers.”
Interestingly, there was also a significant negative relationship between the length of the walk phase and crossing in the unmarked non-intersection against traffic, r(18) = -.456, p = .043. In other words, the shorter the time available to cross during the walk phase, the more likely pedestrians were to cross in the unmarked non-intersection against traffic flow.
The presence of physical barriers that might block all or part of the sidewalk from the roadway (away from the marked intersection) were significantly negatively correlated with crossing in the unmarked non-intersection, rs(18) = -.496, p = .026. In other words, with more physical barriers present, pedestrians were less likely to cross in unmarked non-intersection areas.
Finally, traffic direction was significantly negatively correlated with crossings in the marked intersection entirely during the don’t walk phase, rpb(18) = -.565, p = .005. In other words, pedestrians were significantly more likely to cross entirely during the don’t walk phase on one-way streets (16.76 percent) than on two-way streets (3.91 percent).
Table 52 summarizes the percentage of pedestrians who yielded to vehicles within each crossing type. The mean percentage of pedestrians yielding to vehicles across each of the 20 locations is 0.98. Location 17 was an outlier with a mean of 6.67 percent of pedestrian crossings involving yielding to a vehicle (3.60 standard deviations above the mean). This is the result of a high percentage of pedestrians yielding to turning vehicles while crossing in the marked intersection. This is discussed in more detail later.
The mean percentage of pedestrians who yielded to vehicles in the marked intersection was 0.41. Not surprisingly, Location 17 was an outlier again with a percentage of 6.52 (4.22 standard deviations above the mean). All of these yielding behaviors were observed while pedestrians crossed entirely during the walk phase.
Next, the mean percentages of pedestrians who yielded to vehicles in unmarked non-intersections were examined. Overall, the mean percentage of yielding was 3.77. Location 20 is considered an outlier at 12.50 percent (2.03 standard deviations above the mean). However, given that there were only two instances of pedestrians yielding in the unmarked non-intersection, this is not discussed further.
Next, to examine rule-following, crossings made entirely within the walk phase in the marked intersection were compared with all other crossings. A mean percentage of 0.43 pedestrians yielded while crossing entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersections. As previously mentioned, Location 17 was an outlier at 7.27 percent (4.22 standard deviations above the mean). Overall, a mean percentage of 2.58 pedestrians yielded to vehicles while performing a rule-breaking crossing. Location 10 was an outlier at 13.25 percent (3.12 standard deviations above the mean).
A simple t-test was performed to determine whether the proportion of pedestrian yielding behaviors differed between the marked intersection (M = 0.41) and the unmarked non-intersection (M = 3.77). A significant difference between the groups was found, t(19) = -3.52, p = .002. A second t-test examined the percentage of yielding behaviors that occurred entirely during the walk phase (M = 0.43) and the percentage that occurred during “rule breaking” (M = 2.58) crossings. Indeed a difference between the groups was found, t(19) = -2.69, p = 0.014.
Table 52. Percentage of pedestrians yielding to vehicles in each crossing area at each data collection location.
|
Location |
Marked Intersection |
Unmarked Non-Intersection |
Rule-Breaking |
Grand Percentage |
||||||||
|
Walk |
Don’t Walk |
Overall in Intersection |
With Traffic |
Against Traffic |
Overall in Unmarked Non-Intersection |
|||||||
|
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
|||||
|
1 |
0.12 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.10 |
3.45 |
20.00 |
0.00 |
14.29 |
2.99 |
1.45 |
0.45 |
|
2 |
0.12 |
1.92 |
0.00 |
25.00 |
0.28 |
2.08 |
7.14 |
12.16 |
34.62 |
6.20 |
5.71 |
0.80 |
|
3 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.49 |
25.00 |
4.74 |
3.02 |
1.67 |
|
4 |
0.17 |
2.13 |
0.00 |
0.50 |
0.17 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
0.14 |
0.16 |
|
5 |
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.18 |
0.00 |
2.86 |
0.00 |
0.33 |
0.29 |
0.05 |
|
6 |
0.15 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.76 |
0.19 |
0.65 |
2.22 |
8.20 |
4.50 |
2.35 |
2.14 |
0.33 |
|
7 |
0.74 |
4.14 |
0.17 |
0.51 |
0.67 |
0.43 |
0.00 |
0.65 |
0.00 |
0.51 |
0.44 |
0.66 |
|
8 |
0.09 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
0.00 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.13 |
|
9 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.77 |
0.00 |
2.27 |
1.11 |
0.25 |
|
10 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
100.00 |
0.22 |
2.17 |
0.00 |
26.47 |
0.00 |
12.20 |
13.25 |
2.08 |
|
11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
18.52 |
0.00 |
8.62 |
7.69 |
2.70 |
|
13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
28.57 |
0.00 |
9.52 |
5.00 |
0.98 |
|
15 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
7.14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.56 |
2.08 |
0.36 |
|
17 |
7.27 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
6.52 |
4.17 |
0.00 |
11.76 |
0.00 |
7.32 |
5.00 |
6.67 |
|
18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
33.33 |
0.00 |
9.09 |
0.00 |
12.50 |
3.92 |
2.25 |
To better understand influences on crossing behaviors, the relationship between crossing location, pedestrian yielding, and the aforementioned environmental factors were examined. A significant correlation was found between the length of the walk phase and the percentage of pedestrians yielding to vehicles both in the marked intersection, r(18) = .450, p = .047, and crossings that took place entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersection, r(18) = .450, p = .047. Vehicle traffic, as estimated by AADT, was also significantly correlated with pedestrians yielding during rule-breaking crossings, r(18) = .478, p = .033.
A significant negative correlation was found between the length of the don’t walk phase and pedestrian yielding when the crossing in the marked intersection began during the walk phase, but ended in the don’t walk phase, r(18) = -.451, p = .046.
Several significant correlations were also found between categorical environmental variables and pedestrian yielding locations. There was a significant correlation between whether the next intersection was light controlled (M = 0.00 percent) or stop sign controlled (M = 0.04 percent) and pedestrian yielding to vehicles while crossing entirely during the don’t walk phase in the marked intersection, rpb(18) = -.459, p = .042.
Bus stop location was also correlated with pedestrians yielding while crossing in the unmarked non-intersection against traffic, rpb(18) = -.452, p = .045. The mean percentages of pedestrian yielding in this scenario were as follows: no bus stop is 12.48 percent, bus stop near the crosswalk is 3.19 percent, and bus stop away from the intersection is 3.00 percent.
Table 53 summarizes the percentage of vehicles that yielded to pedestrians within each crossing area. The overall percentages of crossings that involved a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian were compared across locations. The mean percentage of crossings that involved vehicle yielding was 8.93. Location 7 was an outlier with 38.69 percent of the crossings involving a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian (2.77 standard deviations above the mean). As was discussed in phase 1, there is both high pedestrian traffic and turning vehicle traffic at this intersection. It is this combination that likely led to the high percentage of vehicles yielding to pedestrians.
The mean percentage of vehicles that yielded to pedestrians in the marked intersection was 9.25. Once again, Location 7 was considered to be an outlier, with 39.80 percent of the crossings in the marked intersection including vehicles yielding to pedestrians (2.64 standard deviations above the mean).
Next, the mean percentage of drivers who yielded to pedestrians in unmarked non-intersections was examined. Overall, the mean percentage of yielding was 3.60. Location 17 was considered an outlier with 17.07 percent (2.80 standard deviations above the mean).
Next, rule-following was examined. A mean of 11.00 percent yielded to pedestrians crossing entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersections. As previously mentioned, Location 7 was an outlier at 50.71 percent (2.87 standard deviations above the mean). Overall, a mean percentage of 2.55 vehicles yielded to pedestrians performing a rule-breaking crossing. Both Location 17 at 11.67 percent (2.77 standard deviations above the mean) and Location 12 at 9.23 percent (2.03 standard deviations above the mean) were classified as outliers.
A t-test was performed to determine whether a difference existed in the percentage of vehicle yielding behaviors between the marked intersections (M = 9.25 percent) and the unmarked non-intersections (M = 3.60 percent). A significant difference between the two locations was found, t(19) = 2.16, p =.044. A second t-test examined the percentage of yielding behaviors that occurred entirely during the walk phase (M = 11.00 percent) and the percentage that occurred during rule-breaking (M = 2.55 percent) crossings. Indeed, a difference between the groups was found, t(19) = 2.72, p < .014.
Table 53. Percentage of vehicles yielding to pedestrians in each crossing area at each data collection location.
|
Location |
Marked Intersection |
Unmarked Non-Intersection |
Rule-Breaking |
Grand Percentage |
||||||||
|
Walk |
Don’t Walk |
Overall in Intersection |
With Traffic |
Against Traffic |
Overall in Unmarked Non-Intersection |
|||||||
|
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
|||||
|
1 |
4.08 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.48 |
5.17 |
0.00 |
4.69 |
0.00 |
4.48 |
2.17 |
3.60 |
|
2 |
7.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
6.95 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
6.35 |
|
3 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.61 |
0.00 |
0.43 |
0.10 |
0.35 |
|
4 |
29.88 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.99 |
22.33 |
0.70 |
0.00 |
0.27 |
0.00 |
0.52 |
0.28 |
20.40 |
|
5 |
0.01 |
28.21 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.12 |
0.18 |
6.67 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.33 |
1.86 |
0.13 |
|
6 |
8.74 |
0.74 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.50 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.09 |
0.13 |
7.93 |
|
7 |
50.71 |
16.57 |
0.62 |
0.51 |
39.80 |
2.13 |
0.00 |
4.52 |
0.00 |
3.07 |
1.76 |
38.69 |
|
8 |
0.34 |
20.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.50 |
0.38 |
10.00 |
2.33 |
0.00 |
1.10 |
1.48 |
0.64 |
|
9 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.89 |
0.00 |
1.14 |
0.56 |
0.12 |
|
10 |
32.81 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
32.74 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
11.76 |
0.00 |
4.88 |
4.82 |
28.41 |
|
11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
10.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
9.45 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
22.22 |
0.00 |
10.34 |
9.23 |
9.73 |
|
13 |
13.87 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.33 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.55 |
0.00 |
1.82 |
0.23 |
4.11 |
|
14 |
13.94 |
33.33 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
13.04 |
7.69 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
4.76 |
5.00 |
12.20 |
|
15 |
0.00 |
100.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.56 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
6.45 |
0.00 |
1.30 |
1.86 |
0.83 |
|
16 |
23.71 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
20.99 |
14.29 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
11.11 |
4.17 |
20.36 |
|
17 |
9.70 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.70 |
16.67 |
0.00 |
17.65 |
0.00 |
17.07 |
11.67 |
10.22 |
|
18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
8.16 |
0.00 |
15.38 |
0.00 |
9.60 |
5.66 |
1.53 |
|
19 |
15.07 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
13.58 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
13.10 |
|
20 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
To better understand influences on crossing behaviors, the relationship among crossing location, vehicle yielding, and the aforementioned environmental factors were examined. There were several significant relationships between pedestrian crossing location and environmental factors that included vehicle yielding. First, a significant relationship between the number of trip originators and destinations and pedestrians completing rule-breaking crossings, r(18) = .586, p = .009 was found. In other words, when looking at instances where pedestrians crossed in a manner other than entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersection, there were more instances of vehicles yielding to pedestrians as the number of trip originators increased.
The length of the walk phase was significantly correlated with the percentage of vehicles yielding to pedestrians crossing in unmarked non-intersections, r(18) = .475, p = .034. A significant negative relationship was also found between the length of the don’t walk light phase and the percentage of vehicles yielding to pedestrians making crossings in the marked intersection that began during the don’t walk light phase, but completed during the walk light phase, r(18) = -.454., p = .044.
Interestingly, a significant negative correlation was found between the required pedestrian travel pace and yielding to pedestrians crossing in the unmarked non-intersection area with traffic, r(18), = -.456, p = .043. This suggests that the faster pedestrians were required to travel (i.e., less time), the more likely they were to experience a vehicle yielding to them while crossing.
Only a single correlation with a categorical environmental variable was found here. A significant relationship was found between vehicles yielding to pedestrians crossing entirely during the don’t walk phase and whether the next intersection was light controlled (M = 0.00 percent) or stop sign controlled (M = 0.15 percent), rpb(18) = -459, p = .042.
It is important to understand overall yielding behavior. Here pedestrian and vehicle yielding are compared. First, yielding behaviors within the marked intersection were compared. A significantly greater percentage of crossings involved vehicle yielding (M = 9.25 percent) than pedestrian yielding (M = 0.41 percent), t(19) = -3.41, p = .003. Next, yielding behaviors in unmarked non-intersections were examined. No significant difference between vehicle (M = 3.60 percent) and pedestrian (M = 3.77 percent) yielding was found, t(19) = .145, p > .05.
Next, rule following was examined. When pedestrians crossed in the marked intersection entirely during the walk phase, significantly more vehicles yielded to pedestrians (M = 11.00 percent) than pedestrians yielded to vehicles (M = .43 percent), t(19) = -3.41, p = .003. When pedestrians made a rule-breaking crossing, there was no significant difference in the percentage of vehicles that yielded to pedestrians (M = 2.57 percent) and pedestrians that yielded to vehicles (M = 2.55 percent), t(19) = 0.03, p > .05.
Table 54 summarizes the percentage of pedestrian evasive actions within each crossing area at each of the data collection locations. The three types of evasive actions (running/accelerated walking, abrupt stopping, and directional change) were combined to obtain a better overall perspective on pedestrian evasive actions.
The overall percentage of crossings that involved a pedestrian evasive action was compared across locations. The mean percentage of crossings that involved a pedestrian evasive action was 3.06. Both Location 1 (8.92 percent; 2.23 standard deviations above the mean) and Location 8 (8.89 percent; 2.22 standard deviations above the mean) were considered to be outliers.
The mean percentage of pedestrians who took evasive actions in the marked intersection was 2.16. Once again, Location 1 was considered an outlier at 6.67 percent (2.29 standard deviations above the mean). Next, the mean percentage of pedestrians who took evasive actions in unmarked non-intersections was examined. Overall, the mean percentage was 7.47. Once again, Location 1 was considered an outlier at 24.63 percent (2.40 standard deviations above the mean).
Next, rule-following was examined. A mean of 1.02 percent of pedestrians took evasive actions while crossing entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersections. Location 2 was an outlier at 4.96 percent (2.66 standard deviations above the mean). Overall, a mean percentage of 8.91 pedestrians took evasive actions while making a rule-breaking crossing. Location 16 was an outlier at 25.00 percent (2.01 standard deviations above the mean).
A t-test was performed to determine whether a difference existed in the percentage of pedestrian evasive actions between the marked intersections (M = 2.16 percent) and the unmarked non-intersections (M = 7.47 percent). A significant difference between the two locations was found, t(19) = -3.82 , p =.001. A second t-test examined the percentage of evasive actions that occurred entirely during the walk phase (M = 1.02 percent) and the percentage that occurred during rule-breaking (M = 8.91 percent) crossings. Indeed a difference between the groups was found, t(19) = -4.50, p < .001.
Table 54. Percentage of pedestrian evasive actions in each crossing area at each data collection location.
|
Location |
Marked Intersection |
Unmarked Non-Intersection |
Rule-Breaking |
Grand Percentage |
||||||||
|
Walk |
Don’t Walk |
Overall in Intersection |
With Traffic |
Against Traffic |
Overall in Unmarked Non-Intersection |
|||||||
|
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
|||||
|
1 |
3.72 |
12.50 |
28.72 |
17.50 |
6.76 |
18.97 |
0.00 |
31.25 |
28.57 |
24.63 |
24.64 |
8.92 |
|
2 |
4.96 |
25.00 |
19.75 |
16.67 |
5.56 |
4.84 |
0.00 |
21.62 |
26.92 |
9.18 |
12.50 |
5.87 |
|
3 |
0.22 |
20.00 |
7.05 |
0.00 |
1.13 |
3.85 |
0.00 |
9.15 |
12.50 |
7.76 |
0.94 |
2.19 |
|
4 |
1.59 |
12.77 |
4.57 |
1.49 |
2.26 |
1.41 |
0.00 |
1.92 |
0.00 |
1.46 |
3.45 |
2.19 |
|
5 |
1.70 |
74.36 |
36.54 |
40.00 |
2.18 |
2.17 |
20.00 |
14.29 |
0.00 |
3.32 |
10.01 |
2.25 |
|
6 |
1.83 |
28.15 |
25.83 |
7.48 |
2.36 |
3.00 |
24.44 |
11.48 |
5.41 |
5.52 |
9.68 |
2.57 |
|
7 |
0.24 |
14.79 |
8.42 |
0.51 |
2.01 |
4.68 |
0.00 |
14.84 |
0.00 |
8.70 |
8.30 |
2.21 |
|
8 |
3.42 |
80.00 |
42.86 |
70.00 |
5.29 |
13.79 |
40.00 |
40.70 |
12.50 |
20.82 |
24.63 |
8.89 |
|
9 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
9.09 |
2.56 |
0.56 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.66 |
0.00 |
3.41 |
3.89 |
0.87 |
|
10 |
0.45 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.45 |
2.17 |
0.00 |
23.53 |
0.00 |
10.98 |
10.84 |
2.08 |
|
11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
1.67 |
0.00 |
33.33 |
0.00 |
3.15 |
0.00 |
50.00 |
22.22 |
0.00 |
12.07 |
13.85 |
5.95 |
|
13 |
0.58 |
3.03 |
4.56 |
3.33 |
3.07 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
13.64 |
0.00 |
5.45 |
4.36 |
3.28 |
|
14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
20.00 |
0.00 |
1.09 |
15.38 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
9.52 |
10.00 |
1.95 |
|
15 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.26 |
11.11 |
0.75 |
0.84 |
0.00 |
19.35 |
0.00 |
4.56 |
4.79 |
2.14 |
|
16 |
0.00 |
50.00 |
37.50 |
16.67 |
4.58 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
25.00 |
4.29 |
|
17 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
7.69 |
0.00 |
0.54 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.67 |
0.44 |
|
18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3.06 |
0.00 |
3.85 |
0.00 |
3.20 |
1.89 |
0.51 |
|
19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
5.00 |
0.00 |
1.37 |
33.33 |
0.00 |
18.18 |
0.00 |
18.75 |
7.84 |
4.49 |
To better understand influences on crossing behaviors, the relationship among crossing location, pedestrian evasive actions, and the aforementioned environmental factors were examined. A significant negative relationship between the length of the walk light phase and evasive actions made by pedestrians crossing in unmarked non-intersections was found, r(18) = -4.94, p = .027. In other words, the shorter the amount of time that pedestrians had to cross the roadway during the walk phase, the more likely they were to make an evasive maneuver while crossing outside the marked intersection.
A relationship between bus stop location and the percentage of pedestrians taking evasive actions while making a rule-breaking crossing was found, rpb(18) = -.509, p =.022. The mean percentages of pedestrian evasive actions in this scenario were: no bus stop = 12.22 percent, bus stop near the crosswalk = 12.23 percent, and bus stop away from the intersection = 2.73 percent.
Table 55 summarizes the percentage of vehicle evasive actions within each crossing area at each of the data collection locations. Each of the four types of evasive actions (abrupt braking—first vehicle, abrupt braking—second vehicle, directional change—first vehicle, and directional change—second vehicle) were combined to obtain a better overall perspective on vehicle evasive actions.
The overall percentage of crossings that involved a vehicle evasive action was compared across locations. The mean percentage of crossings that involved a vehicle evasive action was 0.10. Location 12 had 1.08 percent of the crossings involve a vehicle evasive action, which was an outlier (3.82 standard deviations above the mean).
The mean percentage of pedestrians who took evasive actions in the marked intersection was 0.04. Location 17 was considered an outlier at 0.54 percent (3.83 standard deviations above the mean). Next, the mean percentage of vehicles that took evasive actions in unmarked non-intersections was examined. Overall, the mean percentage was 0.21. Once again, Location 12 was considered an outlier at 3.45 percent (4.15 standard deviations above the mean).
Next, rule-following was examined. A mean of 0.04 percent of vehicles took evasive actions while pedestrians were crossing entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersections. Location 17 was an outlier at .61 percent (3.93 standard deviations above the mean). Overall, a mean percentage of 0.19 vehicles took evasive actions while a pedestrian completed a rule-breaking crossing. Location 12 was an outlier at 3.08 percent (4.13 standard deviations above the mean).
A t-test was performed to determine whether a difference existed in the percentage of vehicle evasive actions between the marked intersections (M = 0.04 percent) and the unmarked non-intersections (M = 0.21 percent). No significant difference between the two locations was found, t(19) = -.929, p > .05. A second t-test examined the percentage of evasive actions that occurred entirely during the walk phase (M = 0.04 percent) and the percentage that occurred during “rule breaking” (M = 0.19 percent) crossings. No significant difference between the two locations was found, t(19) = -.906, p > .05.
Table 55. Percentage of vehicle evasive actions in each crossing area at each data collection location.
|
Location |
Marked Intersection |
Unmarked Non-Intersection |
Rule-Breaking |
Grand Percentage |
||||||||
|
Walk |
Don’t Walk |
Overall in Intersection |
With Traffic |
Against Traffic |
Overall in Unmarked Non-Intersection |
|||||||
|
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
Without traffic flow change |
+traffic flow change |
|||||
|
1 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
1.06 |
0.00 |
0.10 |
1.72 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.75 |
0.72 |
0.18 |
|
2 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.24 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.22 |
|
3 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
5 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
7 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
8 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
9 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
11 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
7.41 |
0.00 |
3.45 |
3.08 |
1.08 |
|
13 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
0.61 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.54 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.44 |
|
18 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
19 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
To better understand influences on crossing behaviors, the relationship among crossing location, vehicle evasive actions, and the aforementioned environmental factors were examined. A significant correlation was found between the length of the walk phase and vehicle evasive actions taken while pedestrians crossed entirely during the walk phase in the marked intersection, r(18) = .478, p = .033.
Significant relationships between physical barriers and the percentage of evasive vehicle actions were also found in two types of pedestrian crossings. First, a significant relationship was found between physical barriers and the percent of vehicle evasive actions to pedestrians crossing only during the don’t walk phase in the marked intersection, rs(18) = .513, p = .021. A significant relationship was found between physical barriers and vehicle evasive actions while pedestrians crossed in the unmarked non-intersection with traffic, rs(18) = .513, p = .021.
Several significant relationships were found between categorical environmental factors and the percentage of vehicle evasive actions in each crossing type. A significant relationship was found between vehicle evasive actions and locations with a dedicated right turn only lane both while pedestrians crossed entirely in the walk phase in the marked intersection, rpb(18) = .527, p = .017, and while pedestrians crossed in the marked intersection overall, rpb(18) = .508, p = .022.
It is important to understand overall evasive action behavior. Here, pedestrian and vehicle evasive actions are compared. First, evasive actions behaviors within the marked intersection were compared. A significantly greater percentage of crossings involved pedestrian evasive actions (M = 2.16 percent) than vehicle evasive actions (M = 0.04 percent), t(19) = -4.70, p < .001. Next, evasive actions in unmarked non-intersections were examined. A significantly greater percentage of crossings involved pedestrian evasive actions (M = 7.47 percent) than vehicle evasive actions (M = 0.21 percent), t(19) = 4.65, p < .001.
Next, rule-following was examined. When pedestrians crossed in the marked intersection entirely during the walk phase, significantly more pedestrians took evasive actions (M = 1.02 percent) than did vehicles (M = 0.04 percent), t(19) = 2.96, p = .008. When pedestrians made a rule-breaking crossing, there was a significant difference in the percentage of vehicles that took evasive actions (M = 0.19 percent) and pedestrians that took evasive actions (M = 8.91 percent), t(19) = 4.97, p < .001.
