FOREWORD
The overall goal of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program is to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers to share roadways, through the development of safer crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies, and the expansion of educational and safety programs.
This report documents an FHWA project that investigated how characteristics of rapid-flashing beacons (e.g., shape, size, and brightness) affect the ability of drivers to detect people or objects along the roadway and the likelihood of drivers yielding to a pedestrian. This report should be of interest to engineers, planners, and other community authorities who share an interest in safeguarding the lives of roadway users, especially pedestrians.
Monique R. Evans
Director, Office of Safety
Research and Development
|
Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. |
Technical Report Documentation Page
| 1. Report No.
FHWA-HRT-15-043 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3 Recipient's Catalog No. | ||
| 4. Title and Subtitle
Investigating Improvements to Pedestrian Crossings With an Emphasis on the Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon |
5. Report Date June 2015 |
|||
| 6. Performing Organization Code | ||||
| 7. Author(s)
Kay Fitzpatrick, Raul Avelar, Ingrid Potts, Marcus Brewer, James Robertson, Chris Fees, Jessica Hutton, Lindsay Lucas, and Karin Bauer |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address University of Maryland-College Park |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-08-D-00032 |
||||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Safety Research and Development |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Technical Report: |
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
||||
15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) was Ann Do, HRDS-30. |
||||
| 16. Abstract
Several methods have been used to emphasize the presence of a pedestrian crossing, including supplementing signing with beacons or embedded light-emitting diodes. A device that has received national attention is the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon, but practitioners have asked whether the shape of the beacon plays a role in the effectiveness of this device. In the first phase of this project, researchers reviewed recent literature and pedestrian crash data to identify trends in pedestrian safety and in the effectiveness of crossing treatments. Researchers also conducted limited field observations at 10 crosswalks in 5 States, as a source of ideas for evaluating crossings in the second phase of the project.
In phase II of the project, the research included a closed-course study and an open-road study to determine what characteristics of rapid-flashing beacons affected drivers’ ability to detect people or objects, as well as drivers’ likelihood of yielding to a pedestrian. The closed-course study included 71 participants who drove the course and viewed 8 beacon study assemblies, 9 distractor signs, and up to 11 roadside objects. The open-road study involved both rectangular beacons and circular beacons that were installed at 12 sites located in 4 cities from 3 States; both staged and nonstaged pedestrian crossings were documented. Although a slight difference was found between the average percent yielding to circular versus rectangular beacons (daytime: 67 to 59 percent; nighttime: 69 to 72 percent), the statistical evaluation determined that the shape of the beacon did not have a significant effect on drivers’ responses. However, a driver is more than three times as likely to yield when a beacon has been activated as when it has not been activated. Other variables that had an impact on driver yielding included beacon intensity (for nighttime) and city (yielding was higher in Flagstaff, AZ, compared with the other cities included in study), but not average daily traffic. |
||||
| 17. Key Words
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon, Circular Rapid-Flashing Beacon, RRFB, CRFB, Pedestrian Crossing, Driver Yielding to Pedestrians |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161. |
|||
19. Security Classification Unclassified |
20. Security Classification Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 266 |
22. Price | |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
table of contents
- PREVIOUS OPEN-ROAD RESEARCH ON RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACONS
- DRIVER DETECTION TO OBJECTS
- PREVIOUS STUDIES ON LEGIBILITY DISTANCE FOR SYMBOL SIGNS
CHAPTER 3. GATHER DATA ON PEDESTRIAN CRASHES
CHAPTER 4. LOCAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS
- OBSERVATIONS OF MIDBLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
- Crosswalk 1: E. Bidwell Avenue Between Riley Avenue and Coloma Avenue in Folsom, CA
- Crosswalk 2: N. El Dorado Street Between E. Market Street and E. Weber Street in Stockton, CA
- Crosswalk 3: N. El Dorado Street Between E. Market Street and E. Miner Street in Stockton, CA
- Crosswalk 4: W. 80th Street Between Overland Park Drive and Marty Street in Overland Park, KS
- Crosswalk 5: W. 39th Avenue Between Rainbow Blvd and Cambridge Street in Kansas City, KS
- Crosswalk 6: Oak Street Between 51st Street and 52nd Street in Kansas City, MO
- Crosswalk 7: Rockhill Road Between 50th Street and 51st Street in Kansas City, MO
- Crosswalk 8: W. Walnut Street at N. Bullock Drive in Garland, TX
- Crosswalk 9: Barton Springs Road Between South 1st Street and Bouldin Avenue in Austin, TX
- Crosswalk 10: 23rd Street Near Crystal City Mall in Arlington, VA
- ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
CHAPTER 5. CLOSED-COURSE STUDY
- OVERVIEW
- COURSE DEVELOPMENT
- Riverside Campus
- Pedestrian Crossing Assemblies
- Assemblies Selected for Discomfort Glare Study
- Flash Pattern for Assemblies
- Brightness of Beacons/LEDs
- Stop Signs and Distractor Signs Selected for Driving Study
- Objects
- Site Selection for Study Assemblies, Distractor Signs, Stop Signs, and Objects
- Route Preparation
- Practitioner Review
- DATA COLLECTION
- DATA REDUCTION
- RESULTS
CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
- OVERVIEW
- SUMMARY OF PHASE I FINDINGS
- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FROM CLOSED-COURSE STUDY
- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FROM OPEN-ROAD STUDY
- DISCUSSION
- FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
- Appropriate Use of Rapid-Flashing Beacon Assemblies on Only One Side of the Roadway Approach
- When Rapid-Flashing Beacons Should Be Dimmed, and by How Much
- Appropriate Brightness Level of Rapid-Flashing Beacons
- Appropriate Installation of Rapid-Flashing Beacon Assemblies Overhead Rather Than on the Roadside
- Guidance on Selection of Appropriate Pedestrian Crossing Treatment for a Particular Location
- National Education Campaign on the Rapid-Flashing Beacon
- Minimum Number of Pedestrians to Warrant a Pedestrian Treatment
- Number of Pedestrians Induced as a Result of Installation of Selected Pedestrian Treatments
- Drivers’ Search Patterns Near Flashing Beacons
- Pedestrians’ Attitude Toward Using Treatments
- Influence of Traffic Volume on Driver Yielding
- Estimating Pedestrian Exposure
APPENDIX: PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
- ADVANCE STOP OR YIELD LINE AND SIGN
- BARRIER—MEDIAN
- BARRIER—ROADSIDE/SIDEWALK
- BUS STOP LOCATION
- CIRCULAR BEACONS
- CROSSWALK MARKING PATTERNS
- CURB EXTENSIONS
- FLAGS
- ILLUMINATION
- IN-ROADWAY WARNING LIGHTS AT CROSSWALKS
- IN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS
- MARKED CROSSWALKS
- MOTORIST WARNING SIGNS
- OVERPASSES AND UNDERPASSES
- PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (ALSO KNOWN AS HAWK)
- PUFFIN
- RAISED CROSSWALKS
- RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON
- REFUGE ISLANDS
- ROAD DIETS
- SIDEWALKS
- ZIGZAG LINES
- MULTIPLE TREATMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
- Figure 1. Photo. School crosswalk with RRFBs in Garland, TX
- Figure 2. Photo. Study site from TxDOT study showing overhead RRFB installation
- Figure 3. Graph. RRFB: driver yielding to posted speed limit plot from 2014 Texas study
- Figure 4. Graph. RRFB: driver yielding to total crossing distance plot from 2014 Texas study
- Figure 5. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Folsom, CA
- Figure 6. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Folsom, CA, pedestrian view
- Figure 7. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Folsom, CA, pedestrian pushbutton
- Figure 8. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Stockton, CA
- Figure 9. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Stockton, CA, pedestrian view
- Figure 10. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Stockton, CA, pedestrian pushbutton
- Figure 11. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Stockton, CA
- Figure 12. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Overland Park, KS
- Figure 13. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Kansas City, KS
- Figure 14. Photo. Signalized pedestrian crosswalk in Kansas City, MO
- Figure 15. Photo. Another view of signalized pedestrian crosswalk in Kansas City, MO
- Figure 16. Photo. Unsignalized pedestrian crosswalk in Kansas City, MO
- Figure 17. Photo. A different view of the crosswalk in Garland, TX
- Figure 18. Photo. Crosswalk on Barton Springs Road in Austin, TX.
- Figure 19. Photo. Example of pedestrians outside of crosswalk at site on 23rd Street
- Figure 20. Photo. Colored pavement markings used to promote local area
- Figure 21. Diagram. Test route for Riverside study along with signs and objects positions
- Figure 22. Diagram. Layout for the discomfort glare study
- Figure 23. Photo. C-A12, lap A study assembly
- Figure 24. Photo. C-A12, lap B study assembly
- Figure 25. Photo. C-B12, lap A study assembly
- Figure 26. Photo. C-B12, lap B study assembly
- Figure 27. Photo. C-B8, lap A study assembly
- Figure 28. Photo. C-B8, lap B study assembly
- Figure 29. Photo. C-V12, lap A study assembly
- Figure 30. Photo. C-V12, lap B study assembly
- Figure 31. Photo. R-A, lap A study assembly
- Figure 32. Photo. R-A, lap B study assembly
- Figure 33. Photo. R-B, lap A study assembly
- Figure 34. Photo. R-B, lap B study assembly
- Figure 35. Photo. LED, lap A study assembly
- Figure 36. Photo. LED, lap B study assembly
- Figure 37. Photo. WO-B, lap A study assembly
- Figure 38. Photo. WO-B, lap B study assembly
- Figure 39. Photo. Discomfort glare assembly with circular beacons
- Figure 40. Photo. Discomfort glare assembly with embedded LEDs
- Figure 41. Photo. View of discomfort glare course
- Figure 42. Graph. Flash pattern for rapid-flashing beacons
- Figure 43. Graph. LED-embedded sign flash pattern (uses same five-pulse pattern as that used by the right beacon in a rapid flash pattern)
- Figure 44. Photo. LED-embedded sign mounted on goniometer
- Figure 45. Photo. Mounted 12-inch circular beacon
- Figure 46. Graph. Example peak luminous intensity and optical power calculations
- Figure 47. Graph. Optical power measurements for driving study assemblies compared with discomfort glare study controller settings (one setting in driving study)
- Figure 48. Graph. 95th percentile intensity measurements for driving study assemblies compared with discomfort glare study controller settings (one setting in driving study)
- Figure 49. Photo. Small gray box on course
- Figure 50. Photo. Close-up of small gray box
- Figure 51. Photo. Trash can on course
- Figure 52. Photo. Pedestrian on course
- Figure 53. Photo. Base for signs without beacons/LEDs
- Figure 54. Photo. Base for signs with beacons/LEDs
- Figure 55. Photo. Example of sign change
- Figure 56. Photo. Another example of sign change
- Figure 57. Graph. Measured response times by participant
- Figure 58. Graph. Response times by participant after removing outliers
- Figure 59. Diagram. Box plot details
- Figure 60. Graph. Box plots for nighttime legibility distance for assemblies with pedestrian crossing sign for young participants
- Figure 61. Graph. Box plots for nighttime legibility distance for assemblies with pedestrian crossing sign for old participants
- Figure 62. Graph. Box plot of daytime object detection distance by upstream condition
- Figure 63. Graph. Box plot of nighttime object detection distance by upstream condition
- Figure 64. Graph. Percent of response for discomfort glare study—C-B8 at position 1
- Figure 65. Graph. Percent of response for discomfort glare study—C-B8 at position 2
- Figure 66. Graph. Percent of response for discomfort glare study—LED at position 1
- Figure 67. Graph. Percent of response for discomfort glare study—LED at position 2
- Figure 68. Equation. Basic form of the Cumulative Logit model
- Figure 69. Equation. Probability of unbearable brightness
- Figure 70. Equation. Basic form of the odds ratio for events A and B
- Figure 71. Equation. Probability of unbearable discomfort glare based on optical power
- Figure 72. Equation. Probability of unbearable discomfort glare based on intensity
- Figure 73. Graph. Older drivers’ probability of unbearable discomfort glare by optical power and time of day for LED-embedded signs at 250 ft
- Figure 74. Graph. Older drivers’ probability of unbearable discomfort glare by 95th percentile intensity and time of day for LED-embedded signs at 250 ft
- Figure 75. Graph. Typical hourly distribution used to convert 1-h volume into CDT
- Figure 76. Photo. Rectangular beacons used at CS-01
- Figure 77. Photo. Circular beacons used at CS-02
- Figure 78. Photo. Circular beacons used at AU-01
- Figure 79. Photo. Rectangular beacons used at AU-02
- Figure 80. Photo. Circular beacons used at MK-04
- Figure 81. Photo. Circular beacons used at MK-05
- Figure 82. Photo. Circular beacons used at MK-06
- Figure 83. Photo. Rectangular beacons used at MK-07
- Figure 84. Photo. Rectangular beacons used at MK-08
- Figure 85. Photo. Circular beacons used at FG-01
- Figure 86. Photo. Circular beacons used at FG-02
- Figure 87. Photo. Rectangular beacons used at FG-03
- Figure 88. Equation. Yielding rate for a single crossing and average yielding rate for a site
- Figure 89. Equation. Average luminance energy
- Figure 90. Equation. Optical power
- Figure 91. Graph. Example of correctly captured and graphed flash cycle showing five pulses of light (0.0 to 0.4 time) followed by two pulses of light (0.4 to 0.8 time)
- Figure 92. Equation. Average intensity
- Figure 93. Equation. Optical power by approach
- Figure 94. Equation. Average intensity by approach
- Figure 95. Equation. Optical power for a site
- Figure 96. Equation. Average intensity for a site
- Figure 97. Graph. Plot of average optical power by beacon shape and site
- Figure 98. Graph. Plot of average intensity by beacon shape and site
- Figure 99. Graph. Driver yielding compared with beacon brightness intensity for day
- Figure 100. Graph. Driver yielding compared with beacon brightness intensity for night
- Figure 101. Graph. Predicted percent of driver yielding by 1-min volume counts
- Figure 102. Graph. Example of a graph generated from NCHRP 562/TCRP 112 methodology (function of walking speed, crossing distance, and other variables) that could be used to determine pedestrian treatment
- Figure 103. Diagram. Examples of crosswalk markings (figure proposed to replace existing MUTCD figure 3B-19)
- Figure 104. Photo. Four-lane configuration before road diet
- Figure 105. Photo. Three-lane configuration after road diet
- Figure 106. Diagram. Schematic of zig-zag pavement marking design
LIST OF TABLES
- Table 1. Measures of effectiveness for RRFBs with pedestrian crossing signs, Miami, FL (compiled from reference 4)
- Table 2. RRFB total driver yielding model results
- Table 3. Assessment of screening questions for national and State databases
- Table 4. Summary of FARS pedestrian fatalities data (2005–2009)
- Table 5. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by traffic control device (2005–2009)
- Table 6. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by pedestrian actions (2005–2009)
- Table 7. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by pedestrian age (2005–2009)
- Table 8. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by pedestrian gender (2005–2009)
- Table 9. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by number of lanes crossed (2005–2009)
- Table 10. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by presence and type of median (2005–2009)
- Table 11. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by posted speed limit (2005–2009)
- Table 12. Midblock pedestrian fatalities by weather condition (2005–2009)
- Table 13. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by road surface condition (2005–2009)
- Table 14. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by light condition (2005–2009)
- Table 15. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by hour of day (2005–2009)
- Table 16. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by day of week (2005–2009)
- Table 17. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities by State (2005–2009)
- Table 18. FARS midblock pedestrian fatalities for FHWA pedestrian safety focus States and cities (2005–2009)
- Table 19. Summary of GES pedestrian crash data (2005–2009)
- Table 20. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by injury severity (2005–2008)
- Table 21. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by traffic control device (2005–2009)
- Table 22. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by pedestrian action (2005–2009)
- Table 23. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by pedestrian age (2005–2009)
- Table 24. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by pedestrian gender (2005–2009)
- Table 25. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by number of travel lanes crossed (2005–2009)
- Table 26. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by presence of median (2005–2009)
- Table 27. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by posted speed limit (2005–2009)
- Table 28. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by weather condition (2005–2009)
- Table 29. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by road surface condition (2005–2009)
- Table 30. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by hour of day (2005–2009)
- Table 31. GES midblock pedestrian crashes by light condition (2005–2009)
- Table 32. Summary of pedestrian crash data for California State highways (2006–2008)
- Table 33. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by pedestrian location (2006–2008)
- Table 34. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by injury severity (2006–2008)
- Table 35. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by presence of median (2006–2008)
- Table 36. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by traffic control device operating (2006–2008)
- Table 37. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by collision factor (2006–2008)
- Table 38. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by weather condition (2006–2008)
- Table 39. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by vehicle type at fault (2006–2008)
- Table 40. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by road surface condition (2006–2008)
- Table 41. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by light condition (2006–2008)
- Table 42. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by hour of day (2006‑2008)
- Table 43. Midblock pedestrian crashes on California State highways by day of the week (2006–2008)
- Table 44. Summary of pedestrian crash data for Minnesota State highways (2003–2007)
- Table 45. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by pedestrian location (2003–2007)
- Table 46. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by injury severity (2003–2007)
- Table 47. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by traffic control device operating (2003–2007)
- Table 48. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by weather condition (2003–2007)
- Table 49. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by road surface condition (2003–2007)
- Table 50. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by light condition (2003–2007)
- Table 51. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by hour of day (2003–2007)
- Table 52. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Minnesota State highways by day of the week (2003–2007)
- Table 53. Summary of pedestrian crash data for North Carolina State highways (2005–2008)
- Table 54. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by pedestrian location (2005–2008)
- Table 55. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by injury severity (2005–2008)
- Table 56. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by pedestrian action (2005–2008)
- Table 57. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by contributing factor (2005–2008)
- Table 58. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by weather condition (2005–2008)
- Table 59. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by road surface condition (2005–2008)
- Table 60. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by light condition (2005–2008)
- Table 61. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by day of the week (2005–2008)
- Table 62. Midblock pedestrian crashes on North Carolina State highways by hour of day (2005–2008)
- Table 63. Summary of pedestrian crash data for Ohio State highways (2005–2009)
- Table 64. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by pedestrian location (2005–2009)
- Table 65. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by injury severity (2005–2009)
- Table 66. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by traffic control device (2005–2009)
- Table 67. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by pedestrian action (2005–2009)
- Table 68. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by number of lanes crossed (2005–2009)
- Table 69. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by presence of median (2005–2009)
- Table 70. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by weather condition (2005–2009)
- Table 71. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by road surface condition (2005–2009)
- Table 72. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by light condition (2005–2009)
- Table 73. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by day of the week (2005–2009)
- Table 74. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Ohio State highways by hour of the day (2005–2009)
- Table 75. Summary of pedestrian crash data for Texas roadways (2003–2009)
- Table 76. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by pedestrian location (2003–2009)
- Table 77. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by injury severity (2003–2009)
- Table 78. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by traffic control device (2003–2009)
- Table 79. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by weather condition (2003–2009)
- Table 80. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by road surface condition (2003–2009)
- Table 81. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by light condition (2003–2009)
- Table 82. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadways by hour of day (2003–2009)
- Table 83. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Texas roadway by day of week (2003–2009)
- Table 84. Summary of pedestrian crash data for Washington State highways (2005–2008)
- Table 85. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by pedestrian location (2005–2008)
- Table 86. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by injury severity (2005–2008)
- Table 87. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by contributing factor (2005–2008)
- Table 88. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by presence of median (2005–2008)
- Table 89. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by road surface condition (2005–2008)
- Table 90. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by light condition (2005–2008)
- Table 91. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by day of the week (2005–2008)
- Table 92. Midblock pedestrian crashes on Washington State highways by hour of the day (2005–2008)
- Table 93. Study assemblies used in closed-course Riverside track study
- Table 94. Rapid flash pattern
- Table 95. LED-embedded sign flash pattern
- Table 96. Distractors and stop signs used in closed-course study
- Table 97. Object location on course
- Table 98. Study device and sign face by object position (view distance in ft) used with pedestrians
- Table 99. Order of device presentation on closed course
- Table 100. Participant time in study
- Table 101. Distribution of participants
- Table 102. Demographic information for 71 participants
- Table 103. Response time by experimenter
- Table 104. Sign detection distance by sign type without attempts to control for external elements such as viewing distance that could affect results
- Table 105. Legibility distance by assembly type and sign face
- Table 106. Linear mixed-effects model results using all assemblies for daytime legibility distance
- Table 107. ANOVA results using all assemblies for daytime legibility distance
- Table 108. Daytime legibility distance multiple comparison using all assemblies data
- Table 109. Linear mixed-effects model results using all assemblies for nighttime legibility distance
- Table 110. ANOVA results using all assemblies for nighttime legibility distance
- Table 111. Nighttime legibility distance multiple comparisons using simultaneous tests for general linear hypostheses
- Table 112. Linear mixed-effects model results for assemblies with pedestrian crossing sign for nighttime legibility distance
- Table 113. Object detection distance for the pedestrian by upstream device and sign face
- Table 114. Object detection distance for the trash can by upstream device and sign face
- Table 115. Object detection distance for the box by upstream device and sign face
- Table 116. Model for daytime object detection distance considering upstream condition
- Table 117. ANOVA results using upstream conditions daytime object detection distance
- Table 118. Model for daytime object detection distance focusing on upstream assembly
- Table 119. ANOVAresults for daytime detection distance focusing on upstream assembly
- Table 120. Daytime object detection distance, multiple comparisons by object type and age group
- Table 121. Daytime object detection distance, multiple comparisons by sign family
- Table 122. Daytime object detection distance, multiple comparisons to reference assembly by assembly type
- Table 123. Daytime object detection distance, other multiple comparisons by assembly type
- Table 124. Daytime object detection distance for beacon placement
- Table 125. Model for nighttime object detection distance considering upstream condition
- Table 126. ANOVA results for nighttime object detection distance considering upstream. condition
- Table 127. Model for nighttime object detection distance considering upstream assembly
- Table 128. ANOVA results using for nighttime object detection distance considering upstream assembly
- Table 129. Nighttime object detection distance, multiple comparisons by age group
- Table 130. Nighttime object detection distance, multiple comparisons by object type
- Table 131. Nighttime object detection distance, multiple comparisons by sign family
- Table 132. Nighttime object detection distance, multiple comparisons to reference assembly by assembly type
- Table 133. Nighttime object detection distance, other multiple comparisons by assembly type
- Table 134. Nighttime object detection distance for beacon placement
- Table 135. Object percent missed by previous device group, object type, and light condition
- Table 136. Object percent missed by age group, object type, and light condition
- Table 137. Model for daytime object detection accuracy considering upstream condition
- Table 138. Model for daytime object detection accuracy considering upstream assembly
- Table 139. Daytime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by object type
- Table 140. Daytime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by age group
- Table 141. Daytime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by sign family
- Table 142. Daytime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons to reference assembly by assembly type
- Table 143. Daytime object detection accuracy, other multiple comparisons by assembly type
- Table 144. Daytime object detection accuracy for beacon placement
- Table 145. Model for nighttime object detection accuracy considering upstream condition
- Table 146. Model for nighttime object detection accuracy considering upstream assembly
- Table 147. Nighttime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by object type
- Table 148. Nighttime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by age group
- Table 149. Nighttime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons by sign family
- Table 150. Nighttime object detection accuracy, multiple comparisons to reference assembly by assembly type
- Table 151. Nighttime object detection accuracy, other multiple comparisons by assembly type
- Table 152. Nighttime object detection accuracy for beacon placement
- Table 153. Average speed of vehicle when object was detected or missed
- Table 154. Discomfort glare variable names and descriptions
- Table 155. Model specification and selection using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
- Table 156. Cumulative logit model with C_Level as a measure of brightness
- Table 157. Cumulative logit model with OP_One as a measure of brightness
- Table 158. Cumulative logit model with INT_One as a measure of brightness
- Table 159. Unbearable discomfort glare for 10th, 15th, and 50th percentiles for LED-embedded signs at 250 ft
- Table 160. Unbearable discomfort glare percentiles at SAE minimum and three times the SAE minimum for LED-embedded signs at 250 ft
- Table 161. Study site characteristics
- Table 162. Installation dates and dates of data collection
- Table 163. Photometric terminology
- Table 164. Equipment list and purpose
- Table 165. Data collection dates by site and city
- Table 166. Daytime driver yielding rate by site and assembly
- Table 167. Nighttime driver yielding rate by site and assembly
- Table 168. Average optical power and intensity by crossing
- Table 169. Device brightness at each site
- Table 170. GLMM results comparing CRFB to RRFB
- Table 171. GLMM results comparing CRFB to RRFB when beacon brightness data are available
- Table 172. Daytime effect of intensity on driver yielding for a theoretical site and for the raw data averages
- Table 173. Nighttime effect of intensity on driver yielding for a theoretical site and for the raw data averages
- Table 174. Multiple comparisons for natural light effect on driver yielding by intensity
- Table 175. Number of activated and non-activated crossings by city and site
- Table 176. Stepwise elimination procedure results
- Table 177. GLMM results comparing driver yielding rates between activated and non‑activated beacons
- Table 178. Predicted driver yielding rates by city and site
- Table 179. Odds ratio results for beacon activation
- Table 180. One-min volume count statistics at crossings with RRFBs
- Table 181. Overview of driver yielding results from several RRFB studies
- Table 182. Findings for 2013 Santa Monica, CA study
- Table 183. Pedestrian treatments for unsignalized locations
- Table 184. Speed changes due to bulbouts
- Table 185. Percentage of motorists yielding to pedestrians at bulbout crosswalks
- Table 186. Percentage of motorists stopping for staged pedestrians at bulbout crosswalks
- Table 187. Crash effects of providing sodium floodlights at pedestrian crossings in Perth, Australia
- Table 188. Effects of crosswalk illumination on nighttime pedestrian crashes in Israel
- Table 189. Results for “smart lighting” pedestrian safety MOEs
- Table 190. Results for “smart lighting” motorist safety MOEs
- Table 191. Driver yielding at in-street installations
- Table 192. Evaluation results on in-street pedestrian crossing signs
- Table 193. Effectiveness of pedestrian treatments at unsignalized locations
- Table 194. Comparison of crashes before and after installation of pedestrian overpasses in Tokyo
- Table 195. Comparison of vehicle speeds at raised crosswalks
- Table 196. Pedestrians at raised crosswalks for whom motorists stopped
- Table 197. Pedestrians at refuge islands for whom motorists yielded
- Table 198. Drivers yielding to pedestrians at median refuge islands
- Table 199. Trapped pedestrians at offset median openings
- Table 200. Drivers yielding to pedestrians at offset median openings
- Table 201. Results of EB analysis on four-lane to three-lane road diets
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
| ADT | Average Daily Traffic (vehicles/day) | |
| AIC | Akaike’s Information Criterion | |
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance | |
| ASCII | American Standard Code for Information Interchange | |
| C-A12 | For the closed-course study, two circular 12-inch beacons located above the sign | |
| C-B12 | For the closed-course study, two circular 12-inch beacons located below the sign | |
| C-B8 | For the closed-course study, two circular 8-inch beacons located below the sign | |
| CDT | Calculated Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) (determined using 1-hour count and national hourly traffic distribution data for non-freeway roads with no, low, and moderate congestion) | |
| CMF | Crash Modification Factor | |
| CRFB | Circular Rapid-Flashing Beacon | |
| C-V12 | For the closed-course study, one circular 12-inch beacon located above the sign and one circular 12-inch beacon located below the sign | |
| DF | Degrees of Freedom | |
| FARS | Fatality Analysis Reporting System | |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration | |
| GES | General Estimates System | |
| GLMM | Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model | |
| GPS | Global Positioning System | |
| HSIS | Highway Safety Information System | |
| IQR | Interquartile Range | |
| IRWL | In-Road Warning Light | |
| ITS | Intelligent Transportation System | |
| LED | Light-Emitting Diode (also used to indicate the sign used in the closed-course study where the LEDs were embedded into the border) | |
| LMM | Linear Mixed Effects Model | |
| MCOP | Marketing, Communication, and Outreach Plan | |
| MOE | Measure of Effectiveness | |
| MUTCD | Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices | |
| NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program | |
| NCUTCD | National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices | |
| NHTSA | National Highway Transportation Safety Administration | |
| NMVCSS | National Motor Vehicle Crash Sampling Survey | |
| Ped X-ing | Pedestrian Crossing (sign) | |
| PHB | Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon | |
| Puffin | Pedestrian User-Friendly Intelligent (crossing) | |
| R-A | For the closed-course study, two rectangular beacons located above the sign | |
| R-B | For the closed-course study, two rectangular beacons located below the sign (format currently being used for the RRFB device) | |
| REML | Restricted Maximum Likelihood. | |
| RRFB | Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon | |
| SAE | Society of Automotive Engineers | |
| Std. error | Standard Error of Value | |
| TAP | Technical Advisory Panel | |
| TCRP | Transit Cooperative Research Program | |
| TFHRC | Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | |
| TTI | Texas A&M Transportation Institute | |
| TWLTL | Two-Way Left-Turn Lane | |
| TxDOT | Texas Department of Transportation | |
| UMKC | University of Missouri—Kansas City | |
| WO-B | For the closed-course study, diamond-shaped sign with no beacons or LEDs | |
| YTPCD | Yield-to-Pedestrian Channelizing Device | |