Institute of Transportation Studies
UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center
( University of California, Berkeley)
Year 2007 Paper UCB - TSC - RR - 2007 - 4
Driver/ Pedestrian Understanding and
Behavior at Marked and Unmarked
Crosswalks
David R. Ragland  Meghan Fehlig Mitman†
 UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center
† UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center
This paper is posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California.
http:// repositories. cdlib. org/ its/ tsc/ UCB- TSC- RR- 2007- 4
Copyright  c 2007 by the authors.
Driver/ Pedestrian Understanding and
Behavior at Marked and Unmarked
Crosswalks
Abstract
Pedestrian injuries at crosswalk locations represent a significant problem. In
2002, 22.7 percent of US pedestrians
involved in collisions were in a crosswalk at the time of the collision, and over
96% of these occurred at an intersection.
Almost all crosswalk collisions resulted in pedestrian injury or fatality ( 98.6
percent), and about one- third resulted in
severe or fatal injury ( National Automotive Sampling System ( NASS) and Gen-eral
Estimates System ( GES) 2002).
As the owner of the California State Highway System, Caltrans is responsi-ble
for providing access to safe and
convenient travel for pedestrians as users of a shared roadway network. In-adequate
pedestrian safety in marked
crosswalks at unsignalized intersections continues to challenge transportation
engineers and planners. Results from
thirty years of numerous localized studies have been confirmed by a nation-wide
study which indicate that marked
crosswalks across multi- lane roads with travel volumes exceeding 10,000 av-erage
daily traffic ( ADT) present a higher
accident risk for pedestrians than do unmarked crossings.
Many other agencies around the nation have addressed this by removing marked
crosswalks at unsignalized
intersections. This approach results in unacceptable pedestrian mobility re-strictions
and should not be embraced
as Caltrans’ policy.
The Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) at the University of California, Berkeley, re-cently
completed an extensive study of
pedestrian and driver knowledge of right- of- way laws. This study focused on
identifying potential human factors
explanations for the crosswalk dilemma. Several statistically significant dif-ferences
in marked versus unmarked
crosswalks were identified: ( 1) Pedestrians and drivers lack an accurate knowl-edge
of right- of- way laws related to marked versus
unmarked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. ( 2) Pedestrians and drivers
exhibit different behaviors in marked versus unmarked crosswalks on multi- lane,
higher volume roads.
In this report we will present our research and offer recommendations and anal-yses
of countermeasures to improve
pedestrian crosswalk safety.
Draft Final Report ■ July 1, 2007
DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN
UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR
AT MARKED AND UNMARKED
CROSSWALKS
SUBMITTED BY UC BERKELEY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
DAVID RAGLAND, PH. D, MPH
PROJECT MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL AUTHOR:
MEGHAN FEHLIG MITMAN
University of California Traffic Safety Center ■ Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California ■ Berkeley, California 94730- 7360
Tel: 510/ 642- 0655 ■ Fax: 510/ 643- 9922
BERKELEY MANIFESTO
ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
MAY 11, 2007
BACKGROUND
As the owner of the California State Highway System, Caltrans has the responsibility to provide for safe and
convenient pedestrian travel and to embrace pedestrians as legitimate users of a shared roadway network. However,
transportation engineers and planners have been faced with a significant dilemma regarding pedestrian safety in
marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. A nationwide study in 2001 confirmed and refined what smaller,
localized studies have observed for more than thirty years: marked crosswalks across multi- lane roads ( roads with
3 or more lanes) with travel volumes exceeding 10,000 average daily traffic ( ADT) present a higher crash risk for
pedestrians compared to unmarked crossings. 1
There has long been a need for Caltrans to develop strategic safety guidelines to address this dilemma. As an official
or unofficial policy, many other agencies have elected to remove marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections,
or have tended to resist installing them in the first place. This approach results in unacceptable pedestrian mobility
restrictions and should not be embraced as Caltrans’ policy.
To inform development of strategic safety guidelines for designing pedestrian crossings, the Traffic Safety Center
( TSC) at the University of California, Berkeley, recently completed a study of pedestrian and driver knowledge of
right- of- way laws in a series of focus groups and a survey as well as pedestrian and driver behavior at a sample of
unsignalized high volume, multi- lane intersections in California. This study focused on identifying potential human
factors explanations for the crosswalk dilemma. Several statistically significant differences in marked versus unmarked
crosswalks were identified and shed new light on this debate:
■ Pedestrians and drivers lack an accurate knowledge of right- of- way laws related to marked versus
unmarked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections.
■ Pedestrians and drivers exhibit different behaviors in marked versus unmarked crosswalks on multi- lane,
higher volume roads. These differences include:
■ Drivers yield more frequently to pedestrians in marked crosswalks
■ Pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks are more likely to:
■ Look both ways before crossing,
■ Wait for gaps in traffic, and
■ Hurry across the road.
■ The potential for multiple threat crashes increases in marked crosswalks
These findings may help to explain the observed differences in crash risk in marked versus unmarked crosswalks on
certain multi- lane roadways. Notably:
■ Drivers encountering a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk in fact were less likely to yield. This may
be at least partially a result of a lack of knowledge of the pedestrian’s right- of- way within unmarked
crosswalks.
1 Multiple- threat crashes occur on multi- lane roads when the driver and pedestrian fail to see each other in time to prevent the collision because
their line of sight is blocked by a driver yielding to the pedestrian in an adjacent lane.
■ However, rather than increasing the pedestrian crash risk in the unmarked crossings, less yielding,
coincides with reduced crashes. This paradox can at least partially be explained by differences found
in pedestrian behavior in unmarked crosswalks. That is, pedestrians appear to exhibit greater caution
when crossing in unmarked crosswalks ( looking both ways before crossing, waiting for gaps in traffic,
and hurrying across the road) as compared to marked crosswalks.
■ Pedestrians possibly exhibit greater caution in unmarked crosswalks because either ( 1) they do not
know they have the same legal right- of- way when crossing, or ( 2) experience has taught them that
drivers are not likely to yield.
■ Pedestrians possibly exhibit less caution when crossing in marked crosswalks for similar reasons: ( 1) they
know they have the right- of- way, or ( 2) experience has taught them that drivers are likely to yield.
■ Even for marked crosswalks, some drivers lack knowledge of right- of- way laws ( i. e., they do not
understand their responsibility to stop for pedestrians). Others who know the law still act in violation
and fail to yield. Thus, because driver yielding in marked crosswalks does not always occur, the less
cautious pedestrian may be more vulnerable to crashes.
■ Also paradoxically, the higher rate of yielding in marked crosswalks coincides with an increased
incidence of multiple threat crashes. Again because the yielding rate is not 100%, a driver yielding in
one lane does not assure a driver will yield in an adjacent, same direction travel lane on a multi- lane
road. Because the first driver is more likely to yield at a marked crosswalk, there is a greater risk a
pedestrian crossing in a marked crosswalk will be involved in a dangerous multiple threat scenario. 2
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC SAFETY GUIDELINES
Based on these new human factors explanations, it seems likely that Caltrans’ conventional focus on engineering
solutions may be insufficient or inadequate to address a widespread crosswalk safety challenge at unsignalized
intersections. Thus, to fully provide for the safety of pedestrians, and encourage walking as a legitimate means of
transportation in California, there is a need for a policy re- prioritization. The following guidelines are illustrative
components of a more balanced, “ 3- E” strategy that would mitigate crash risk for marked crosswalks at multi- lane,
high volume locations.
■ ENGINEERING: Obtain a full inventory of “ at risk” marked crosswalks using the Seattle model.
Prioritize the crosswalks for countermeasure installation based on exposure- adjusted crash risk, and
select appropriate countermeasures from the NCHRP/ TCRP guidelines. Allocate additional funding to
engineering countermeasures to enable this process.
■ EDUCATION: Revise the pedestrian section of the Driver’s Handbook to provide enhanced explanations
of right- of- way laws and common risk scenarios. Conduct a pedestrian safety campaign to emphasize
safe crossing practices (“ Stop, Look, and Listen”) regardless of crosswalk markings. For all new
engineering countermeasures deployed at crosswalks, include a warning sign similar to MUTCD sign
R62- E: “ Cross with Caution.”
■ ENFORCEMENT: Strengthen engineering and education countermeasures by increasing enforcement
of right- of- way laws at marked and unmarked crosswalks. Target both drivers and pedestrians with
fines and warnings. Provide additional funding to enable sustained enforcement efforts. Enhance
enforcement to include media coverage and educational messages.
The use of these balanced guidelines offers an opportunity to both actively and passively communicate the
importance of safe and legal behavior for all road users at both marked and unmarked crosswalks.
2 This finding is in line with the 2001 FHWA study ( Zegeer, et al.), which noted, “ The greatest difference in pedestrian crash types between marked
and unmarked crosswalks involved ‘ multiple- threat’ crashes.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Pedestrian injuries at crosswalk locations represent a significant problem. In 2002, 22.7 percent of US pedestrians
involved in collisions were in a crosswalk at the time of the collision, and over 96% of these occurred at an intersection.
Almost all crosswalk collisions resulted in pedestrian injury or fatality ( 98.6 percent), and about one- third resulted in
severe or fatal injury ( National Automotive Sampling System ( NASS) and General Estimates System ( GES) 2002).
As the owner of the California State Highway System, Caltrans is responsibile for providing access to safe and
convenient travel for pedestrians as users of a shared roadway network. Inadequate pedestrian safety in marked
crosswalks at unsignalized intersections continues to challenge transportation engineers and planners. Results from
thirty years of numerous localized studies have been confirmed by a nationwide study which indicate that marked
crosswalks across multi- lane roads with travel volumes exceeding 10,000 average daily traffic ( ADT) present a higher
accident risk for pedestrians than do unmarked crossings.
Many other agencies around the nation have addressed this by removing marked crosswalks at unsignalized
intersectionss. This approach results in unacceptable pedestrian mobility restrictions and should not be embraced
as Caltrans’ policy.
The Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) at the University of California, Berkeley, recently completed an extensive study of
pedestrian and driver knowledge of right- of- way laws. This study focused on identifying potential human factors
explanations for the crosswalk dilemma. Several statistically significant differences in marked versus unmarked
crosswalks were identified:
■ Pedestrians and drivers lack an accurate knowledge of right- of- way laws related to marked versus
unmarked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections.
■ Pedestrians and drivers exhibit different behaviors in marked versus unmarked crosswalks on multi- lane,
higher volume roads.
In this report we will present our research and offer recommendations and analyses of countermeasures to improve
pedestrian crosswalk safety.
SECTION 1
CROSSWALK CONFUSION
WHY PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER KNOWLEDGE OF THE VEHICLE CODE SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED
AUTHORS: Meghan Fehlig Mitman and David R. Ragland, Ph. D., MPH
DATE: April, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Traffic safety researchers have long argued that driver behavior outweighs physical elements as a cause of motor
vehicle collisions. In pedestrian- vehicle collisions behavior is also a fundamental cause— both that of the driver and
of the pedestrian. One determining factor is whether the driver, the pedestrian, or both, understand the motor
vehicle code. Although knowledge does not guarantee compliance, a lack of knowledge could suggest a significant
pedestrian safety concern and opportunities for improvement.
/// DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ///
We expanded on the results of previous studies by considering driver and pedestrian knowledge of laws specifically
related to marked and unmarked crosswalks. The focus on crosswalk markings is warranted by the ongoing debate
regarding whether and why collision risk for pedestrians is higher in marked versus unmarked crosswalks.
In Section 1 we present the results of driver and pedestrian intercept surveys and focus groups conducted in the San
Francisco Bay Area as a component of the overall study considering driver and pedestrian behavior at marked and
unmarked crosswalks. Implications for engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures are discussed and
areas for further research are recommended.
THE VEHICLE CODE
The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances ( NCUTLO), a private, nonprofit group, has
proposed a Uniform Vehicle Code as a set of national traffic laws. Many states have based their traffic regulations on
this standard, though the letter and spirit of pedestrian right- of- way laws can vary widely. In California, where original
data was collected for this study, the vehicle code regarding pedestrian and driver responsibility states that the
driver of a vehicle must yield the right- of- way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection. The law makes it clear that pedestrians and drivers have a shared responsibility, but also
uses ambiguous language which may lead to confusion on the part of both parties.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Previous studies have shown that both drivers and pedestrians have a limited understanding of right- of- way laws.
A key component missing from the previous studies is the examination of pedestrian and driver understanding of
right- of- way specifically at marked versus unmarked crosswalks. The Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) at the University of
California, Berkeley examines for the first time whether drivers and pedestrians exhibit different behavior at marked
versus unmarked crosswalks on multi- lane roads. Understanding the extent of driver and pedestrian comprehension
of the law in these situations may account for observed differences in behavior, and partially explain the marked-unmarked
collision risk phenomenon.
OUR RESEARCH
A component of the TSC crosswalk behavior study included pedestrian and driver intercept surveys and focus groups,
which were conducted between September 2005 and June 2006. These original data collection efforts addressed:
■ Understanding of right- of- way laws
■ Self- reported behavior
■ Perceptions of effectiveness of education, enforcement, and engineering countermeasures
We oversampled the pedestrian population, because we were particularly interested in understanding pedestrian
behavior. We also oversampled for seniors ( people age 65 or older) because of their vulnerability as users of the road.
We believe a focus on improving conditions for seniors will result in improved conditions for all.
Survey Results
Intercept surveys were self- administered and were completed by participants under close supervision by the field
staff. Pedestrian participants were intercepted immediately after crossing unsignalized intersections in one of four
urban pedestrian areas.
The results suggest that most drivers and pedestrians understand the law when the message is clear and simple.
When all crossings are marked the pedestrian’s right- of- way is mostly understood, as is the concept that unmarked
midblock crossing ( jaywalking) is illegal. Surprisingly, over 35 percent of driver respondents did not believe that
pedestrians have the right- of- way even at marked crosswalks. Overall, pedestrians provided vehicle code- correct
responses 63.0 percent of the time and drivers provided correct responses 55.6 percent of the time.
Focus Group Results
We also used focus groups to provide a more interactive discussion of driver and pedestrian knowledge and behavior.
Six focus groups were conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area in four different locations and among two different
age groups. In Section 1 we present the survey results from the focus groups along with the discussion session
comments to provide quantitative and qualitative responses for three different marked and unmarked crosswalk
scenarios.
Given the small sample size and anecdotal nature of much of the data, statistics were not computed for the focus
group responses. Instead, the overall range of responses to the discussion scenarios is presented in Section 1 along
with the percenage of participants providing the correct response for the equivalent survey question. More detail
of the focus group comments is presented in Section 4. Overall, the focus group results corroborate data from the
intercept surveys and previous research and again suggest that knowledge of the law cannot be assumed, especially
in complex situations.
COUNTERMEASURE IMPLICATIONS
There may be a connection between knowledge of pedestrian right- of- way laws and collision risk. Therefore, in
addition to physical countermeasures for enhancing safety in marked crosswalks, behavioral countermeasures may
also be needed.
The appropriate combination of education, engineering, and enforcement countermeasures, often referred to as the
3- Es of Safety, has been a subject of debate for many decades. We recommend a re- balanced 3- E strategy that would
address the demonstrated lack of knowledge of right- of- way laws. Descriptions of these countermeasures and focus
group appraisal of their effectiveness is presented in Section 4.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
An important, possibly more fundamental, consideration in selecting and balancing pedestrian safety countermeasures
is whether the vehicle code itself should first be amended. Perhaps drivers and pedestrians lack knowledge of the
law because the law is inherently confusing or unfair. Authors of various studies have made concrete suggestions
for how vehicle code amendments should be formulated. The suggestions vary widely in their visions of what would
constitute a better driving or walking environment.
We present strategies which offer a proactive approach to pedestrian safety that does not first require the assumption
of driver and pedestrian knowledge of the law. The implementation of these balanced countermeasures offers an
opportunity to both actively and passively communicate the importance of these laws in maintaining safety for
all road users. A change in societal norms may be required before meaningful and sustainable improvements in
pedestrian safety can occur. Diagnosing the extent to which drivers and pedestrians know and understand the vehicle
code is an important step in this endeavor.
/// DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ///
SECTION 2
FIELD OBSERVATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR IN MARKED VERSUS UNMARKED CROSSWALKS
AUTHORS: Meghan Fehlig Mitman
DATE: Fall, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The environmental, social, health, and economic benefits of walkable communities have become increasingly
apparent. At a time when the need for sustainable transportation solutions is critical, a greater focus on pedestrian-oriented
alternatives to auto- dependency is clearly warranted. It is imperative to consider pedestrian safety as we
re- orient transportation and land use planning. Section 2 documents and interprets field observations of drivers and
pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections.
BACKGROUND
One of the central debates about pedestrian behavior in crosswalks is whether pedestrians feel a false sense of
security in marked crosswalks that leads them to be less cautious or more aggressive than in unmarked crosswalks or
non- crosswalk locations. Thirty years of pedestrian safety research has since considered this fundamental question.
Research continues in this field today in two primary areas: clarifying and supplementing recommended engineering
countermeasures from an earlier authoritative study ( Zegeer, C., et al.: Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations), and analyzing the underlying behavioral characteristics that may contribute to
pedestrian collisions and may also better inform the selection of countermeasures. s.
METHODS
instead of repeating studies on 2 and 3- lane roads, our analysis studied mostly roads with 4 or more lanes. Employing
a matched pair approach, we compared marked and unmarked crosswalk pairs at the same intersection because
all exogenous factors are held constant, allowing for a direct comparison between the crosswalks. We selected six
sites for study and considered four different questions regarding pedestrian behavior, including whether pedestrians
were more likely to cross within marked crosswalks, whether drivers yielded more often to pedestrians in marked
crosswalks than in unmarked crosswalks, and whether pedestrians used more or less caution when crossing at marked
crosswalks versus unmarked crosswalks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
After a pilot test evaluation of video versus clipboard- based ( manual) data collection, we selected the clipboard-based
method as superior for the purposes of this study. Data collection occurred during daylight hours on non- rainy
days from May to October, 2006. For the majority of the study sites, marked and unmarked crosswalk observations
were collected concurrently at each site.
We employed a comprehensive quality control process to prepare field data for analysis. The statistical analysis
package SAS was then utilized to compare driver and pedestrian behavior observations in marked versus unmarked
crosswalks at each of the six observation locations. In addition to the observation variables included on the data
collection form, the following derived variables were analyzed for each observation location: average gap acceptance,
average number of immediate yields, average vehicle exposute, and multiple threat opportunity.
RESULTS
For each of the six observation sites, we present a detailed summary of the statistical analysis, including photos
of each intersection and background characteristics. Statistically significant findings are summarized for each
intersection, followed by an overall summary of findings and a discussion of the results.
The following are some of the overall trends we observed in our comparison of pedestrian and driver behavior in
unmarked versus marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections:
■ Pedestrians seem to be more assertive and are more likely to " look both ways" in multi- lane unmarked
crosswalks
■ Pedestrians walk with a faster pace in unmarked crosswalks
■ Pedestrians wait for larger gaps in traffic before crossing in unmarked crosswalks
■ Drivers yield more frequently to pedestrians in marked crosswalks
■ Pedestrians experience somewhat less exposure to vehicles when crossing in multi- lane unmarked
crosswalks
■ The potential for multiple threat collisions is lower in unmarked crosswalks
Unlike previous behavioral studies, our results show statistically significant differences in driver and pedestrian
behavior at marked versus unmarked crosswalks, even for two and three- lane roads. However, these differences
appear more pronounced for multi- lane roads. This finding is consistent with the Zegeer ( 2001) study that illustrated
gradients in collision rate differences related to the number of lanes, with the difference in marked versus unmarked
becoming significant only for multi- lane roads. Also consistent with the Zegeer study is our finding that multiple
threat scenarios arise more commonly in marked crosswalks.
SECTION 3
WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS
A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CROSSWALK SAFETY STUDIES
AUTHORS: Meghan Fehlig Mitman (?)
DATE: June, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Section 3 reviews the literature related to four key aspects of this study: pedestrian and driver knowledge of crosswalk
law, pedestrian crash patterns in crosswalks, pedestrian and driver behavior in marked and unmarked crosswalks, and
countermeasures to increase pedestrian safety in crosswalks.
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER KNOWLEDGE OF CROSSWALK LAW
Overall, there are few studies that analyze pedestrians’ and drivers’ understanding of crosswalk laws. One study
( Tidwell and Doyle, 1995) found that most people understood that pedestrians must cross at signals or crosswalks
and that turning drivers must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at intersections. However, that study and others
confirm that there is confusion on the part of both pedestrians and drivers about the extent of pedestrians’ right of
way at crosswalks.
/// DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ///
PEDESTRIAN CRASH PATTERNS IN CROSSWALKS
There is a long and influential history of research on the safety impacts of marked and unmarked crosswalks. One
of the first and most famous of these is Herms’ 1972 study in San Diego, which found that marked crosswalks had
twice as many crashes as unmarked crosswalks. Several other studies found similar results ( Gibby 1994), but their
methodologies have been criticized ( Campbell 1997) as having flawed methodology and insufficient data.
A more recent study found no difference between crash rates at unmarked and marked crosswalks at uncontrolled
intersections on two- lane roads ( Zegeer 2002), but that on high- volume ( over 12,000 ADT) multi- lane roads,
uncontrolled intersections with a marked crosswalk ( and no other treatments) did have higher crash rates than
unmarked crosswalks. Zegeer suggests that crossings on these road types should have additional treatments, such
as a raised median or pedestrian signal. This debate underscores the importance of controlling for pre- existing
contextual factors such as pedestrian volume, vehicle volume, and road design, as well as the importance of analyzing
pedestrian and driver behavior to understand crash statistics.
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS
One of the central debates about pedestrian behavior in crosswalks is whether pedestrians feel a false sense of
security in marked crosswalks that leads them to be less cautious or more aggressive than in unmarked crosswalks
or non- crosswalk locations. Early studies, most famously Herms’ 1972 analysis, suggested that this leads to a higher
rate of crashes in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. However, Knoblauch ( 2001) and Nitzburg
( 2001) found no difference in pedestrian aggressiveness in marked and unmarked crosswalks, while others ( Hauck
1979) found that pedestrian behavior improves in well- marked crosswalks compared to unmarked or poorly marked
crosswalks.
There have been fewer studies of driver behavior, but it is generally agreed that drivers often fail to yield to
pedestrians at both marked and unmarked crosswalks. Nasar ( 2003) observed that many drivers ignored pedestrians
in crosswalks, or sped up or swerved to pass them.
There appears to be some dissonance between observed and stated behavior. Varhelyi’s ( 1996) study of motorist
behavior at a non- signalized zebra crossing found that in 73 percent of “ critical” cases, the vehicle maintained or
even increased speed, and in only 27 percent of cases did drivers slow down as required. At the same time, a separate
survey found that in 67 percent of the cases, motorists say they “ always” or “ very often” slow down.
While the results of these studies vary, the idea that crosswalks by themselves cause aggressive behavior or lack of
caution is not evident. However, both pedestrians and drivers routinely disobey crosswalk laws, often the result of
a desire for more convenient or faster travel. Additionally, beliefs and behaviors appear to be inconsistent, both for
drivers and pedestrians.
COUNTERMEASURES TO INCREASE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN CROSSWALKS
There are numerous evaluations of engineering and street design countermeasures to improve pedestrian safety in
crosswalks, including signage, lighting, and high- visibility striping. Van Houten and Malenfant ( 1989) found that one
series of countermeasures resulted in large increases in the percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians. Another
study by Van Houten ( 1992) found that adding signs, a stop line, and pedestrian- activated lights increased the
percentage of drivers stopping by up to 50% and substantially reduced the number of conflicts.
New video- based pedestrian detection systems can detect not only pedestrians waiting to cross, but can track
their progress through the crosswalk and adjust the signal based on their walking speed ( NCBW). This not only
accommodates slower pedestrians, reducing the number “ caught” in the crosswalk, but also reduces delay for
vehicles by shortening the pedestrian cycle for faster pedestrians.
Social marketing approaches may also be effective. Educational approaches, while common, are rarely formally
evaluated, and there is little evidence that they are effective ( Zegeer 2004). Similarly, there are few evaluations of
enforcement programs and little evidence of their effectiveness. An evaluation of a public education and enforcement
program in Seattle ( Britt, Bergman and Moffat 1995), suggests that a very high level of enforcement is necessary to
achieve even minor or temporary changes in driver behavior and that environmental and behavioral factors may be
more influential than enforcement.
SECTION 4
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
BERKELEY, OAKLAND, WALNUT CREEK, AND ALBANY
AUTHORS: Cynthia Sue McCormick
DATE: Spring, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Driver/ pedestrian concerns and experiences at crosswalks, understanding of the crosswalk right- of- way laws,
and opinions regarding countermeasure effectiveness were explored in five focus groups conducted in Northern
California between October 2005 and March 2006. The focus groups were held in three different locations and among
two different age groups: adults over the age of 65 ( senior) and adults 65 years of age or younger ( adult). Section 4
describes the general findings from the focus groups. More detailed information from the focus groups is presented
in Appendix D.
PARTICIPANT SURVEY
At the beginning of each focus group a questionnaire was administered that explored the demographic profiles of
focus group participants, their primary mode of travel, and their knowledge of the right- of- way at crosswalks. It should
be noted that that all of the adult participants live in an urban environment, while the seniors live in either a suburban
environment ( Walnut Creek) or an urban environment ( Berkeley). In Section 4 we break down these differences for the
more informative categories ( income, automobile ownership rates, and travel mode).
There were two questions on the survey to assess knowledge of pedestrian right- of- way at both marked and
unmarked crosswalks. The first question asked when pedestrians trying to cross the street have the right- of- way. The
second question asked when it is illegal to cross the street in California.
SYNTHESIS OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Driver/ Pedestrian Behavior: Several concerns came up repeatedly in the focus groups including: aggressive/
speeding drivers; drivers who don’t watch for pedestrians or deliberately ignore the pedestrian ( especially when
turning, drivers who speed up to make the light, and drivers who are distracted ( e. g., music, cell phones). Participants
were also concerned about pedestrians who don’t make drivers aware of their presence, who fail to look right or
left before stepping out into the crosswalk, who assert their right- of- way ( over- assert?), and who don’t recognize the
dangers of their actions.
Physical Attributes: Concerns voiced most often by participants were: signals that don’t allow enough time for
pedestrians to cross the street; potholes/ uneven pavement; crosswalk markings that are faded or difficult to see,
obstructions that block the driver’s view, lack of lights at night, and the inability of drivers to see pedestrians when
there are cars in adjacent lanes. Other concerns included lack of multi- lingual signs, lack of in- pavement lights to alert
drivers to crosswalks, and lack of police enforcement.
/// DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ///
Right- of- Way: While most participants agreed that the pedestrian has the right- of- way in any crosswalk when there
are two marked and two unmarked crosswalks, their answers depended on whether or not there was a stop sign and
whether or not the pedestrian had already stepped into the intersection. One respondent said that the pedestrian
could only cross in an unmarked area when it appeared safe. Approximately one- half of the participants indicated
that drivers would typically yield to them in a crosswalk and they disucssed driver characteristics and situations which
seemed to make drivers more or less likely to yield.
Countermeasures: Section 4 presents detailed responses to the 3E system of countermeasures. Overall, all of
the participants understood that the pedestrian has the right- of- way in a marked crosswalk, while approximately
half of the participants thought the pedestrian has the right- of- way in an unmarked crosswalk or when there are
both marked and unmarked crosswalks in the intersection. At mid- block, 75% of participants felt the pedestrian
has the right- of- way in a marked crosswalk, while only 3% thought pedestrians have the right- of- way when there is
no marked crosswalk mid- block. However, if there is no signal at the intersection, 81% of participants thought the
pedestrian could legally cross the street mid- block without a marked crosswalk. Forty- one percent of participants
thought it was illegal for pedestrians to step out in front of a vehicle. Primary concerns of participants were: driver
behavior ( e. g., aggressive or distracted drivers who don’t give pedestrians the right- of- way), and inadequate signal
timing to cross the street, especially for the disabled and senior population. Participants felt school campaigns
were an effective educational countermeasure, while print ads were thought to be the least effective of those
countermeasures presented. Vivid- striping, in- pavement lighting, and the countdown signal were thought to be the
most effective engineering countermeasures, while raised crosswalks and advanced yield- marking were thought to
be the least effective of those countermeasure presented to participants. Fines were thought to be the most effective
enforcement countermeasure.
METHODOLOGY AND STUDY LIMITATIONS
The focus group research methodology allows for detailed, in- depth exploration of relatively new research areas, but
its small, non- random sample limits generalizations to the larger population.
Due to lessons learned in the two Walnut Creek focus groups and changes in the scope of the project as requested
by the client, there were several changes to both the questionnaire and the protocol for the Berkeley and Oakland
focus groups. Additional comments regarding specific methodology for each focus group are included in the relevant
focus group summaries, which can be found in Appendix D.
SECTION 5
STATED BEHAVIOR AT CROSSWALKS
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER SURVEY RESPONSES
AUTHORS: Meghan Fehlig Mitman
DATE: June, 2007
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
A survey research company conducted the intercept surveys, under contract with the TSC. The surveys were self-administered,
designed to take approximately ten minutes, and were completed by participants under close
supervision by the field staff. Pedestrian participants were intercepted immediately after crossing unsignalized
intersections in one of four urban pedestrian areas and drivers were surveyed while purchasing fuel at gas stations or
while accessing their vehicles in parking lots. Surveyors screened for local drivers ( people who regularly drive locally)
before administering the survey.
The survey was completed by 192 people: 133 pedestrians and 59 drivers. Seventy- five percent of the drivers surveyed
estimated they spend a majority ( 50 percent or more) of their local travel time driving as opposed to using other
modes. In contrast, only 61 percent of pedestrians surveyed indicated that they drive a majority of the time. Section
5 presents the survey questions and the percent of responses for each answer. Both of the surveys are presented
exactly as they appeared to particpants at the end of the section.
RESULTS OF PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
Of note is that participants between the ages of 18- 19 are more likely to agree to the statement that they usually
begin to cross the street regardless of whether the cars are already slowing down. Participants between the ages of
60 and 75 are less likely to report crossing a street outside a marked crosswalk.
RESULTS OF DRIVER SURVEY
One observation is that female participants were more likely than male participants to respond that they often yield
to a pedestrian on the curb waiting to cross the street at a crosswalk. Male participants were more likely than female
participants to report spending more time walking as a form of travel.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the new human factors explanations we identified and detailed in this report, it appears that Caltrans’
conventional focus on engineering solutions may be insufficient in addressing a widespread crosswalk safety challenge
at unsignalized intersections. To adequately provide for the safety of pedestrians, and encourage walking as a viable
means of transportation, there is a need for a policy re- prioritization. A more balanced “ 3- E” ( engineering/ education/
enforcement) strategy would mitigate accident risk in marked crosswalks at multi- lane, high volume locations:
■ ENGINEERING: Obtain a full inventory of “ at risk” marked crosswalks. Prioritize the crosswalks based
on exposure- adjusted crash risk, and select appropriate countermeasures from the NCHRP/ TCRP
guidelines.
■ EDUCATION: Revise the pedestrian section of the Driver’s Handbook with enhanced explanations of
right- of- way laws and common risk scenarios. Conduct a pedestrian safety campaign to emphasize safe
crossing practices in both marked and unmarked crosswalks. For all new engineering countermeasures
deployed at crosswalks, include warning signs reminding pedestrians to “ Cross with Caution.”
■ ENFORCEMENT: Strengthen engineering and education countermeasures through increased
enforcement of right- of- way laws by issuing fines and warnings to both drivers and pedestrians. Provide
additional funding to enable sustained enforcement efforts.
The use of these balanced guidelines offers an opportunity to both actively and passively communicate the
importance of safe and legal behavior for all road users at both marked and unmarked crosswalks.
/// DRIVER/ PEDESTRIAN UNDERSTANDING AND BEHAVIOR AT MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ///
1. CROSSWALK CONFUSION
WHY PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER KNOWLEDGE OF THE VEHICLE CODE SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED
1.1. INTRODUCTION
Traffic safety researchers have long argued that driver behavior outweighs physical elements ( such as road design)
as a causal factor in motor vehicle collisions ( 1, 2). A fundamental causal component of pedestrian- vehicle collisions
is also behavior— that of the driver as well as that of the pedestrian ( 3, 4). One determinant of this behavior may
be whether the driver, the pedestrian, or both understand the motor vehicle code, which demarcates right- of- way
in pedestrian- vehicle interactions. That is, inappropriate or unlawful behavior may occur because the law is not
understood or is misunderstood. While knowledge of the law does not guarantee compliance, a lack of knowledge
could point to a significant pedestrian safety concern and opportunities for improvement.
Previous studies have shown that drivers and pedestrians have a limited knowledge of pedestrian right- of- way laws
( 5, 6, 7, 8). The research presented in this section expands on these studies by considering driver and pedestrian
knowledge of laws specifically related to marked and unstriped, or unmarked, crosswalks. The focus on crosswalk
markings is warranted by the long history of debate regarding whether and why collision risk for pedestrians is
higher in marked versus unmarked crosswalks ( 9). By considering knowledge of right- of- way laws related to crosswalk
markings, the behavioral aspects of this phenomenon may be more fully understood.
In this section we present the results of driver and pedestrian intercept surveys and focus groups conducted in the
San Francisco Bay Area as a component of the overall study considering driver and pedestrian behavior at marked
and unmarked crosswalks. Implications for engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures are discussed
and areas for further research are recommended.
1.2. THE VEHICLE CODE
In the United States, the legal priority of movement in pedestrian- vehicle interactions is dictated by the traffic code
or motor vehicle code of each state. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances ( NCUTLO), a
private, nonprofit advocacy group, has proposed a Uniform Vehicle Code as a set of national traffic laws. While many
states have modeled their traffic regulations on this standard, the letter and spirit of pedestrian right- of- way laws can
vary widely ( 10). In California, where original data collection was conducted for this study, the vehicle code regarding
pedestrian and driver responsibility states ( 11):
A The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right- of- way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked
crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided…
B This… does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian
may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so
close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while
in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
C The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall
exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the
operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
D Subdivision ( B) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety
of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
The law makes it clear that pedestrians and drivers have a shared responsibility, but also uses vague or ambiguous
language such as “ unnecessarily stop,” “ due care,” and “ immediate hazard.”
1.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES
Previous studies have shown drivers and pedestrians have a limited understanding of right- of- way laws. Tidwell and
Doyle ( 1995) found that most people understood that pedestrians must cross at signals or crosswalks and that turning
drivers must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at intersections. However, there was confusion about the extent of
pedestrians’ right- of- way at crosswalks. While the Uniform Vehicle Code ( UVC) requires motorists to stop or slow only
for pedestrians already in a crosswalk, almost 70 percent of respondents thought motorists were required to stop
or slow for pedestrians waiting on the curb at a marked crosswalk. Respondents also did not understand pedestrian
crossing signals. Tidwell and Doyle concluded that there is a need for pedestrian safety education programs,
explanatory signs on pedestrian signals, and enforcement of pedestrian right- of- way laws ( 5).
A second study ( Sisiopiku and Akin, 2003) asked pedestrians, “ In your opinion, when should vehicles yield to
pedestrians?” Over 60 percent stated that motorists should yield to pedestrians only at designated crosswalks, while
31 percent said pedestrians should always have the right- of- way and 7 percent said motorists should always have
the right- of- way. Because this question asked about respondents’ opinions, it is unclear if it reveals pedestrians’
understanding of right- of- way law or simply their preferences. Additionally, the authors did not ask pedestrians to
define “ designated crosswalks.( 6)”
A survey of drivers in Virginia found that a large majority ( 75 to 92 percent) were aware of laws requiring them to
yield in mid- block crosswalks and to stop before crosswalks at signals ( Martinez and Porter, 2004). However, over
half incorrectly thought that pedestrians have the right- of- way at all times, including when crossing outside of
intersections or crosswalks ( 7).
Finally, in a 2004 study by Sarkar and Andreas in San Diego, California 1,587 adult and teenage traffic violators were
surveyed at a traffic school. Survey results showed that “ many respondents were unaware of California laws related
to the pedestrian’s rights and duties” based on their assessment of six photograph scenarios ( 8). The researchers
also found that the drivers surveyed were insensitive to pedestrian- driver conflict situations, suggesting, “ aggressive
acts toward pedestrians need to be included in the definition of aggressive driving so that drivers are made aware
of the rights of pedestrians ( 8).”
A key component missing from the previous studies is the examination of pedestrian and driver understanding of
right- of- way specifically at marked versus unmarked crosswalks. There is a long and influential history of research on
the safety impacts of marked and unmarked crosswalks. The most recent and comprehensive study of this subject
( Zegeer, 2002) found that on high- volume ( over 12,000 ADT) multi- lane roads, uncontrolled intersections with a
marked crosswalk ( and no other treatments) had higher collision rates than unmarked crosswalks ( 9).
Recent research conducted by the Traffic Safety Center ( TSC) at the University of California, Berkeley ( on behalf of
Caltrans) examines for the first time whether drivers and pedestrians exhibit different behavior at marked versus
unmarked crosswalks on multi- lane roads. Understanding the extent of driver and pedestrian knowledge of the law
in these situations may account for observed differences in behavior, and partially explain the marked- unmarked
collision risk phenomenon.
1.4. ORIGINAL RESEARCH
As a component of the TSC crosswalk behavior study, pedestrian and driver intercept surveys and focus groups were
conducted between September 2005 and June 2006. These original data collection efforts addressed:
■ Understanding of right- of- way laws
■ Self- reported behavior
■ Perceptions of effectiveness of education, enforcement, and engineering countermeasures
The study sample is not representative of the general population in several important ways. First, we oversampled the
pedestrian population, because we were particularly interested in understanding pedestrian behavior. Second, we
also oversampled for seniors ( people age 65 or older). We chose to focus on seniors because of their vulnerability as
road users and their unique challenges when crossing the street. Further, we believe a focus on improving conditions
for seniors will result in improved conditions for all. Third, the study was not conducted randomly; rather, participants
were approached on a convenience basis. Last, not everyone who was approached for the study chose to participate,
and those who did choose to participate may hold very different opinions than those who did not.
Despite the potential atypical characteristics of the survey and focus group participants, their answers were very
informative, and may truly portray the beliefs of a large segment of the California population.
1.4.1 INTERCEPT SURVEYS
A survey research company conducted the intercept surveys, under contract with the TSC. The surveys were self-administered,
designed to take approximately ten minutes, and were completed by participants under close
supervision by the field staff. Pedestrian participants were intercepted immediately after crossing unsignalized
intersections in one of four urban pedestrian areas. Two of the areas were highly frequented by elderly residents, and
the other two areas were associated with high alternative mode- share. The census tracts targeted were:
■ Elderly Urban: Census tract 4030 ( Alameda County) and census tract 114 ( San Francisco)
■ Urban High Alternative ( Non- auto) Mode- share: Census tracts 115 and 176 ( San Francisco)
Drivers were surveyed while purchasing fuel at gas stations or while accessing their vehicles in parking lots in
Census Tract 4088 ( Alameda County). Surveyors screened for local drivers ( people who regularly drive locally) before
administering the survey.
The survey was completed by 192 people, comprising 133 pedestrians and 59 drivers. Seventy- five percent of the
drivers surveyed estimated they spend a majority ( 50 percent or more) of their local travel time driving as opposed
to using other modes. In contrast, only 61 percent of pedestrians surveyed drive a majority of the time. The median
driver and pedestrian age range was 30 to 39. Driver respondents were 64 percent male and pedestrian respondents
were 54 percent male.
The scenarios related to right- of- way at marked and unmarked crosswalks were presented as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
RIGHT- OF- WAY LAWS CROSSWALK SURVEY SCENARIOS
􀀋 􀀖 􀀞 􀀙 􀀎 􀀚 􀀁 􀀎 􀀚 􀀑 􀀁 􀀌 􀀎 􀀔 􀀘 􀀎 􀀚 􀀑 􀀄 􀀉
􀀎 􀀕 􀀒 􀀙 􀀁 􀀑 􀀚 􀀁 􀀛 􀀒 􀀑 􀀒 􀀝 􀀞 􀀜 􀀖 􀀏 􀀙 􀀝 􀀁 􀀞 􀀜 􀀢 􀀖 􀀙 􀀔 􀀁 􀀞 􀀚 􀀁 􀀐 􀀜 􀀚 􀀝 􀀝 􀀁 􀀞 􀀕 􀀒 􀀁 􀀝 􀀞 􀀜 􀀒 􀀒 􀀞 􀀁 􀀕 􀀏 􀀠 􀀒 􀀁 􀀞 􀀕 􀀒 􀀁 􀀜 􀀖 􀀔 􀀕 􀀞 􀀂 􀀚 􀀓 􀀂 􀀡 􀀏 􀀢 􀀄
􀀍 􀀐 􀀒 􀀚 􀀎 􀀜 􀀖 􀀛 􀀄 􀀃
􀀊 􀀞 􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗 􀀝 􀀎 􀀞
􀀖 􀀚 􀀞 􀀒 􀀜 􀀝 􀀒 􀀐 􀀞 􀀖 􀀛 􀀚 􀀝
􀀍 􀀐 􀀒 􀀚 􀀎 􀀜 􀀖 􀀛 􀀅 􀀃
􀀊 􀀞 􀀖 􀀚 􀀞 􀀒 􀀜 􀀝 􀀒 􀀐 􀀞 􀀖 􀀛 􀀚 􀀝
􀀠 􀀖 􀀞 􀀕 􀀛 􀀟 􀀞 􀀎 􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗
􀀍 􀀐 􀀒 􀀚 􀀎 􀀜 􀀖 􀀛 􀀆 􀀃
􀀊 􀀞 􀀎 􀀚 􀀖 􀀚 􀀞 􀀒 􀀜 􀀝 􀀒 􀀐 􀀞 􀀖 􀀛 􀀚
􀀠 􀀖 􀀞 􀀕 􀀎 􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗 􀀛 􀀚 􀀛 􀀚 􀀒 􀀝 􀀖 􀀑 􀀒
􀀛 􀀓 􀀞 􀀕 􀀒 􀀝 􀀞 􀀜 􀀒 􀀒 􀀞 􀀂 􀀛 􀀚 􀀘 􀀡 􀀖 􀀚
􀀞 􀀕 􀀒 􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑 􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗
􀀍 􀀐 􀀒 􀀚 􀀎 􀀜 􀀖 􀀛 􀀇 􀀃
􀀊 􀀞 􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗 􀀝
􀀙 􀀖 􀀑 􀀏 􀀘 􀀛 􀀐 􀀗
􀀍 􀀐 􀀒 􀀚 􀀎 􀀜 􀀖 􀀛 􀀈 􀀃
􀀋 􀀖 􀀑 􀀏 􀀘 􀀛 􀀐 􀀗
􀀠 􀀖 􀀞 􀀕 􀀛 􀀟 􀀞 􀀎
􀀙 􀀎 􀀜 􀀗 􀀒 􀀑
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀝 􀀝 􀀠 􀀎 􀀘 􀀗
􀀇 􀀉 􀀈 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀃 􀀁 􀀋 􀀖 􀀔 􀀕 􀀞 􀀂 􀀚 􀀓 􀀂 􀀎 􀀏 􀀢 􀀁 􀀊 􀀏 􀀡 􀀝 􀀅 􀀜 􀀚 􀀝 􀀝 􀀡 􀀏 􀀘 􀀗 􀀁 􀀌 􀀟 􀀜 􀀠 􀀒 􀀢 􀀁 􀀌 􀀐 􀀒 􀀙 􀀏 􀀜 􀀖 􀀚 􀀝
Based on the California Vehicle Code, in Scenarios 1, 2, and 4 of Figure 1 the pedestrian has the right- of- way as
stated. In Scenario 5, the pedestrian does not have the right- of- way. For the case of the marked and unmarked
crossings ( Scenario 3), the pedestrian has the right- of- way at all four crossings ( making the statement here false).
SURVEY RESULTS
Survey responses were designated as correct or incorrect based on whether the response agreed or disagreed with
the California Vehicle Code. Figure 2 presents a comparison of the percent of correct responses for each scenario for
the driver and pedestrian surveys. The results suggest that most drivers and pedestrians understand the law when
the message is clear and simple. That is, when all crossings are marked ( Scenario 1), the pedestrian’s right- of- way is
mostly understood. Likewise, for unmarked midblock crossings, most respondents knew that “ jaywalking” is illegal,
and thus the pedestrian does not have the right- of- way at these locations ( Scenario 5). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy
that over 35 percent of driver respondents did not believe that pedestrians have the right- of- way even at marked
crosswalks ( Scenario 1).
For scenarios of increasing complexity, both pedestrians and drivers exhibited a lower level of understanding of the
vehicle code, as illustrated by the clear gradient in Figure 2. Marked differences can be seen between driver and
pedestrian responses to individual scenarios. For the two cases where the 95 percent confidence intervals do not
overlap ( Scenarios 1 and 4), pedestrians demonstrate better knowledge than drivers. Overall, pedestrians provided
correct responses 63.0 percent of the time and drivers provided correct responses 55.6 percent of the time.
Figure 2
SURVEY RESULTS IN ORDER OF SCENARIOS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY
􀀄 􀀉 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀌 􀀁 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀁 􀀅 􀀆 􀀈 􀀊 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀂 􀀃
􀀉 􀀐 􀀍 􀀒 􀀅 􀀓 􀀇 􀀍 􀀌 􀀍 􀀖 􀀗 􀀕 􀀑 􀀊 􀀒 􀀖 􀀆 􀀊 􀀘 􀀍 􀀗 􀀐 􀀍 􀀈 􀀑 􀀏 􀀐 􀀗 􀀓 􀀎 􀀉 􀀊 􀀙 􀀃
􀀋 􀀇 􀀆 􀀎 􀀂
􀀌 􀀉 􀀆 􀀌 􀀂
􀀋 􀀋 􀀆 􀀈 􀀂
􀀎 􀀍 􀀆 􀀊 􀀂
􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀋 􀀂
􀀋 􀀉 􀀆 􀀐 􀀂
􀀊 􀀌 􀀆 􀀊 􀀂
􀀎 􀀋 􀀆 􀀋 􀀂
􀀎 􀀉 􀀆 􀀉 􀀂
􀀐 􀀇 􀀆 􀀉 􀀂
􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀈 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀉 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀊 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀋 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀌 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀍 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀎 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀏 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀐 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀈 􀀇 􀀇 􀀆 􀀇 􀀂
􀀃 􀀈 􀀄 􀀑 􀀬 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠
􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀯 􀀝 􀀦 􀀥 􀀫 􀀝 􀀬
􀀤 􀀨 􀀬 􀀡 􀀪 􀀫 􀀡 􀀟 􀀬 􀀤 􀀩 􀀨 􀀫 􀀃 􀀚 􀀘 􀀛 􀀓 􀀄
􀀃 􀀌 􀀄 􀀖 􀀤 􀀠 􀀞 􀀦 􀀩 􀀟 􀀥 􀀯 􀀤 􀀬 􀀣 􀀩 􀀭 􀀬 􀀝
􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠 􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀯 􀀝 􀀦 􀀥
􀀃 􀀔 􀀑 􀀕 􀀙 􀀓 􀀄
􀀃 􀀋 􀀄 􀀑 􀀬 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠
􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀯 􀀝 􀀦 􀀥 􀀫 􀀧 􀀤 􀀠 􀀞 􀀦 􀀩 􀀟 􀀥
􀀃 􀀚 􀀘 􀀛 􀀓 􀀄
􀀃 􀀊 􀀄 􀀜 􀀤 􀀬 􀀣 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠 􀀝 􀀨 􀀠
􀀭 􀀨 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠 􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀤 􀀨 􀀢 􀀫 􀀅
􀀩 􀀨 􀀦 􀀰 􀀤 􀀨 􀀬 􀀣 􀀡 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠
􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀯 􀀝 􀀦 􀀥 􀀃 􀀔 􀀑 􀀕 􀀙 􀀓 􀀄
􀀃 􀀉 􀀄 􀀑 􀀬 􀀤 􀀨 􀀬 􀀡 􀀪 􀀫 􀀡 􀀟 􀀬 􀀤 􀀩 􀀨 􀀫
􀀯 􀀤 􀀬 􀀣 􀀩 􀀭 􀀬 􀀝 􀀧 􀀝 􀀪 􀀥 􀀡 􀀠
􀀟 􀀪 􀀩 􀀫 􀀫 􀀯 􀀝 􀀦 􀀥 􀀃 􀀚 􀀘 􀀛 􀀓 􀀄
􀀂 􀀁 􀀄 􀀓 􀀕 􀀕 􀀍 􀀋 􀀗 􀀁 􀀈 􀀍 􀀖 􀀔 􀀓 􀀒 􀀖 􀀍 􀀖
􀀒 􀀪 􀀤 􀀮 􀀡 􀀪
􀀗 􀀡 􀀠 􀀡 􀀫 􀀬 􀀪 􀀤 􀀝 􀀨
􀀅 􀀇 􀀆 􀀋 􀀉 􀀄 􀀂 􀀁 􀀊 􀀛 􀀘 􀀜 􀀏 􀀞 􀀁 􀀉 􀀏 􀀙 􀀛 􀀓 􀀚 􀀙 􀀒 􀀕 􀀁 􀀈 􀀘 􀀎 􀀏 􀀘 􀀁 􀀖 􀀐 􀀁 􀀊 􀀍 􀀏 􀀕 􀀌 􀀘 􀀒 􀀖 􀀙 􀀁 􀀖 􀀐 􀀁 􀀇 􀀕 􀀍 􀀘 􀀏 􀀌 􀀙 􀀒 􀀕 􀀑 􀀁 􀀃 􀀖 􀀔 􀀗 􀀓 􀀏 􀀝 􀀒 􀀚 􀀞
Figure 3
FOCUS GROUP SLIDES FOR PEDESTRIAN RIGHT- OF- WAY LAWS DISCUSSION
􀀏 􀀝 􀀦 􀀠 􀀖 􀀡 􀀁 􀀖 􀀡 􀀘 􀀁 􀀒 􀀖 􀀛 􀀟 􀀖 􀀡 􀀘 􀀆 􀀈
􀀉 􀀋 􀀊 􀀐 􀀎 􀀈 􀀃 􀀁 􀀉 􀀜 􀀓 􀀡 􀀟 􀀁 􀀊 􀀞 􀀜 􀀡 􀀝 􀀁 􀀏 􀀚 􀀙 􀀔 􀀕 􀀟 􀀁 􀀖 􀀜 􀀞 􀀁 􀀍 􀀕 􀀔 􀀕 􀀟 􀀠 􀀞 􀀙 􀀒 􀀛 􀀁 􀀎 􀀙 􀀗 􀀘 􀀠 􀀂 􀀜 􀀖 􀀂 􀀑 􀀒 􀀣 􀀁 􀀌 􀀒 􀀢 􀀟 􀀁 􀀇 􀀙 􀀟 􀀓 􀀡 􀀟 􀀟 􀀙 􀀜 􀀛
􀀏 􀀓 􀀕 􀀛 􀀒 􀀞 􀀙 􀀜 􀀆 􀀅 􀀓 􀀜 􀀙 􀀑 􀀙 􀀘 􀀙 􀀥 􀀦 􀀤 􀀝 􀀖 􀀡 􀀎 􀀖 􀀥 􀀦 􀀜 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀛 􀀜 􀀦 􀀄 􀀢 􀀚 􀀄 􀀨 􀀖 􀀪 􀀝 􀀡 􀀦 􀀜 􀀙 􀀏 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀙 􀀘 􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀐 􀀡 􀀟 􀀪
􀀂 􀀌 􀀢 􀀤 􀀤 􀀙 􀀗 􀀦 􀀤 􀀙 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀥 􀀙 􀀉 􀀍 􀀖 􀀟 􀀥 􀀙 􀀊 􀀓 􀀜 􀀙 􀀑 􀀙 􀀘 􀀙 􀀥 􀀦 􀀤 􀀝 􀀖 􀀡 􀀜 􀀖 􀀥 􀀦 􀀜 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀛 􀀜 􀀦 􀀄 􀀢 􀀚 􀀄 􀀕 􀀖 􀀪 􀀖 􀀦 􀀋 􀀟 􀀟 􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥 􀀃
􀀏 􀀝 􀀩 􀀙 􀀘 􀀁 􀀠 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀙 􀀘 􀀖 􀀡 􀀘
􀀧 􀀡 􀀠 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀙 􀀘
􀀗 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥
􀀏 􀀓 􀀕 􀀛 􀀒 􀀞 􀀙 􀀜 􀀅 􀀅 􀀓 􀀜 􀀙 􀀑 􀀙 􀀘 􀀙 􀀥 􀀦 􀀤 􀀝 􀀖 􀀡 􀀎 􀀖 􀀥 􀀦 􀀜 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀛 􀀜 􀀦 􀀄 􀀢 􀀚 􀀄 􀀨 􀀖 􀀪 􀀝 􀀡 􀀋 􀀟 􀀟 􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥 􀀂 􀀌 􀀢 􀀤 􀀤 􀀙 􀀗 􀀦 􀀤 􀀙 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀥 􀀙 􀀉 􀀓 􀀤 􀀧 􀀙 􀀃
􀀇 􀀁 􀀔 􀀡 􀀠 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀙 􀀘
􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥
􀀏 􀀓 􀀕 􀀛 􀀒 􀀞 􀀙 􀀜 􀀄 􀀅 􀀓 􀀜 􀀙 􀀑 􀀙 􀀘 􀀙 􀀥 􀀦 􀀤 􀀝 􀀖 􀀡 􀀎 􀀖 􀀥 􀀦 􀀜 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀛 􀀜 􀀦 􀀄 􀀢 􀀚 􀀄 􀀨 􀀖 􀀪 􀀝 􀀡 􀀋 􀀟 􀀟 􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥 􀀂 􀀌 􀀢 􀀤 􀀤 􀀙 􀀗 􀀦 􀀤 􀀙 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀥 􀀙 􀀉 􀀓 􀀤 􀀧 􀀙 􀀃
􀀇 􀀁 􀀏 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀙 􀀘
􀀌 􀀤 􀀢 􀀥 􀀥 􀀝 􀀡 􀀛 􀀥
1.4.2. FOCUS GROUPS
The TSC study also used focus groups to provide a more interactive discussion of driver and pedestrian knowledge
and behavior. Six focus groups, each comprising 10 to 12 participants, were conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area
in four different locations and among two different age groups. The six groups were:
■ Senior pedestrians ( with walking as their primary mode of transport) in the suburban community of
Walnut Creek, CA
■ Senior drivers ( with driving as their primary mode of transport) in Walnut Creek
■ Non- seniors in urban Oakland, CA ( mixed drivers and pedestrians)
■ Seniors in urban Berkeley, CA ( mixed drivers and pedestrians)
■ Non- seniors in Berkeley ( mixed drivers and pedestrians)
■ Seniors in suburban Albany, CA ( mixed drivers and pedestrians)
In total, 65 people participated in the six groups. Sixty- four percent of the participants were seniors ( over age 65).
Forty- three of the participants were women and 22 were men. Seventy- eight percent of participants had a college
education ( associate’s degree or higher). The median household income of participants was between $ 20,000 and
$ 49,999. Finally, 33 percent of participants were married, 36 percent were single, 14 percent were widowed, and 17
percent were divorced.
RIGHT- OF- WAY QUESTIONS
At the beginning of each focus group session, participants were asked to complete a background and demographics
survey, which included the right- of- way question from the intercept survey ( as presented in Figure 1). A subsample
of three of the survey scenarios, as illustrated in Figure 3, was then presented to focus group participants for an
interactive discussion. In the focus group results, the survey results have been combined with the discussion session
comments to provide quantitative and qualitative responses for the three scenarios.
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
Given the small sample size and anecdotal nature of much of the data, statistics were not computed for the focus
group responses. Instead, the range of responses to the discussion scenarios is presented along with the percent of
participants proving the correct response for the equivalent survey question. Because of time constraints during the
session, only the survey portion of the right- of- way questions was included in the Oakland focus groups; thus, no
discussion comments are provided from that session.
FOUR MARKED CROSSWALKS ( SCENARIO A)
Based on the survey results, all focus group participants correctly responded that the pedestrian has the right- of- way
at all crossings in this scenario. Comments during the discussion session, some of which qualify the survey responses,
included:
Berkeley Non- Seniors:
■ “ The driver would have the right- of- way if completing a left turn.”
Albany Seniors:
■ “ Marked crosswalks give the indication that a driver has to stop.”
■ “ Pedestrians have the right- of- way but they can’t always trust drivers to stop.”
FOUR UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ( SCENARIO B)
Figure 4 presents the surveys results for Scenario B. In a considerable change from Scenario A, on average only 50
percent of participants provided the correct response that the pedestrian has the right- of- way at all crossings. The
number and range of discussion session comments are illustrative of the participants’ relative lack of knowledge
regarding pedestrian right- of- way in this situation. These comments included:
Walnut Creek Pedestrians:
■ “ Pedestrians have the right- of- way no matter what.”
■ “ Drivers should have the courtesy to stop.”
■ “ Pedestrians have to initiate the action.”
■ “ Pedestrians should make eye contact with the driver.”
■ “ A person is not considered a pedestrian unless he makes a move to cross.”
Berkeley Seniors:
■ “ If the pedestrian is in the street or within view of the vehicle then the pedestrian has the right- of- way.”
■ “ If it is obvious the pedestrian wants to cross, then the driver must yield.”
■ “ The pedestrian has to make a signal that he wants to cross, such as stepping into the street or making
eye contact with the driver.”
Figure 4
SCENARIO B: PERCENT OF CORRECT REPONSES BY FOCUS GROUP
􀀄 􀀉 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀌 􀀁 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀁 􀀅 􀀆 􀀈 􀀊 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀃 􀀂
􀀛 􀀡 􀀣 􀀪 􀀟 􀀬 􀀧 􀀫 􀀑 􀀏 􀀜 􀀦 􀀣 􀀙 􀀣 􀀢 􀀣 􀀭 􀀮 􀀬 􀀧 􀀟 􀀪 􀀕 􀀟 􀀭 􀀮 􀀦 􀀣 􀀚 􀀧 􀀥 􀀦 􀀮 􀀫 􀀤 􀀞 􀀟 􀀲 􀀞 􀀧 􀀮 􀀦 􀀗 􀀫 􀀖 􀀟 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀢 􀀒 􀀬 􀀫 􀀭 􀀭 􀀱 􀀟 􀀩 􀀨 􀀭 􀀃 􀀜 􀀚 􀀝 􀀔 􀀄
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀇 􀀂
􀀍 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀆 􀀂
􀀉 􀀊 􀀂
􀀇 􀀌 􀀂
􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀂
􀀇 􀀅 􀀂
􀀈 􀀅 􀀂
􀀉 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀋 􀀅 􀀂
􀀌 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀅 􀀂
􀀎 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀞 􀀟 􀀩 􀀪 􀀯 􀀮 􀀒 􀀬 􀀣 􀀣 􀀨 􀀙 􀀣 􀀢 􀀭
􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀞 􀀟 􀀩 􀀪 􀀯 􀀮 􀀒 􀀬 􀀣 􀀣 􀀨 􀀓 􀀬 􀀧 􀀰 􀀣 􀀬 􀀭
􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀑 􀀣 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀩 􀀣 􀀲 􀀛 􀀣 􀀪 􀀧 􀀫 􀀬 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀑 􀀣 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀩 􀀣 􀀲 􀀐 􀀢 􀀯 􀀩 􀀮 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀘 􀀟 􀀨 􀀩 􀀟 􀀪 􀀢 􀀐 􀀢 􀀯 􀀩 􀀮 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀐 􀀩 􀀠 􀀟 􀀪 􀀲 􀀛 􀀣 􀀪 􀀧 􀀫 􀀬 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀂 􀀍 􀀆 􀀒 􀀐 􀀃 􀀏 􀀍 􀀒 􀀎 􀀄 􀀈 􀀏 􀀆 􀀈 􀀌 􀀑 􀀍 􀀉 􀀎 􀀅 􀀏 􀀑 􀀋 􀀆 􀀋 􀀎 􀀅 􀀌 􀀑 􀀐 􀀎 􀀏 􀀍 􀀓 􀀋 􀀇 􀀋 􀀌 􀀊 􀀆 􀀍 􀀏 􀀏 􀀈 􀀆 􀀑 􀀏 􀀈 􀀐 􀀎 􀀍 􀀌 􀀐 􀀈
􀀇 􀀉 􀀈 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀂 􀀁 􀀌 􀀐 􀀑 􀀔 􀀎 􀀗 􀀓 􀀕 􀀁 􀀄 􀀃 􀀁 􀀊 􀀑 􀀗 􀀐 􀀑 􀀔 􀀙 􀀁 􀀕 􀀒 􀀁 􀀅 􀀕 􀀗 􀀗 􀀑 􀀐 􀀙 􀀁 􀀋 􀀑 􀀖 􀀕 􀀔 􀀘 􀀑 􀀘 􀀁 􀀏 􀀛 􀀁 􀀇 􀀕 􀀐 􀀚 􀀘 􀀁 􀀈 􀀗 􀀕 􀀚 􀀖
Berkeley Non- Seniors:
Although pedestrian right- of- way is not contingent on the presence of stop signs, participants in this group requested
information regarding stop signs at the intersection in this scenario. When participants were told there were stop
signs at all four approaches, all 11 participants said the pedestrian would have the right- of- way in the unmarked
crossings. However, only eight participants thought the pedestrian would have the right- of- way if there were no stop
signs at this type of intersection.
Albany Seniors:
■ “ Whether there is a crosswalk marking or not, the pedestrian should always have the right- of- way.”
■ “ Pedestrians should go to the next block or marked crosswalk for safety.”
■ “ It is illegal for drivers not to stop for pedestrians even if there’s no marking.”
MARKED AND UNMARKED CROSSWALKS ( SCENARIO C)
Figure 5 illustrates the percent of correct survey responses for this scenario in each focus group. As with Scenario
B, a lack of driver and pedestrian knowledge in both age groups is evident. Overall, only 45 percent of focus group
participants provided the correct response for Scenario C.
Figure 5
SCENARIO C: PERCENT OF CORRECT RESPONSES BY FOCUS GROUP
􀀄 􀀉 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀌 􀀁 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀁 􀀅 􀀆 􀀈 􀀊 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀃 􀀂
􀀜 􀀡 􀀣 􀀪 􀀟 􀀬 􀀧 􀀫 􀀒 􀀏 􀀝 􀀦 􀀣 􀀚 􀀣 􀀢 􀀣 􀀭 􀀮 􀀬 􀀧 􀀟 􀀪 􀀖 􀀟 􀀭 􀀮 􀀦 􀀣 􀀛 􀀧 􀀥 􀀦 􀀮 􀀫 􀀤 􀀞 􀀟 􀀲 􀀧 􀀪 􀀘 􀀟 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀢 􀀒 􀀬 􀀫 􀀭 􀀭 􀀱 􀀟 􀀩 􀀨 􀀭 􀀙 􀀪 􀀩 􀀲 􀀃 􀀕 􀀐 􀀗 􀀜 􀀔 􀀄
􀀊 􀀊 􀀂
􀀋 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀊 􀀂
􀀆 􀀍 􀀂
􀀆 􀀆 􀀂
􀀋 􀀌 􀀂
􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀂
􀀇 􀀅 􀀂
􀀈 􀀅 􀀂
􀀉 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀋 􀀅 􀀂
􀀌 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀅 􀀂
􀀎 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀞 􀀟 􀀩 􀀪 􀀯 􀀮 􀀒 􀀬 􀀣 􀀣 􀀨 􀀚 􀀣 􀀢 􀀭
􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀞 􀀟 􀀩 􀀪 􀀯 􀀮 􀀒 􀀬 􀀣 􀀣 􀀨 􀀓 􀀬 􀀧 􀀰 􀀣 􀀬 􀀭
􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀑 􀀣 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀩 􀀣 􀀲 􀀜 􀀣 􀀪 􀀧 􀀫 􀀬 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀑 􀀣 􀀬 􀀨 􀀣 􀀩 􀀣 􀀲 􀀐 􀀢 􀀯 􀀩 􀀮 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀙 􀀟 􀀨 􀀩 􀀟 􀀪 􀀢 􀀐 􀀢 􀀯 􀀩 􀀮 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀐 􀀩 􀀠 􀀟 􀀪 􀀲 􀀜 􀀣 􀀪 􀀧 􀀫 􀀬 􀀭 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄
􀀂 􀀍 􀀆 􀀒 􀀐 􀀃 􀀏 􀀍 􀀒 􀀎
􀀄 􀀈 􀀏 􀀆 􀀈 􀀌 􀀑 􀀍 􀀉 􀀎 􀀅 􀀏 􀀑 􀀋 􀀆 􀀋 􀀎 􀀅 􀀌 􀀑 􀀐 􀀎 􀀏 􀀍 􀀓 􀀋 􀀇 􀀋 􀀌 􀀊 􀀆 􀀍 􀀏 􀀏 􀀈 􀀆 􀀑 􀀏 􀀈 􀀐 􀀎 􀀍 􀀌 􀀐 􀀈
􀀆 􀀈 􀀇 􀀌 􀀊 􀀅 􀀂 􀀁 􀀋 􀀏 􀀐 􀀓 􀀍 􀀖 􀀒 􀀔 􀀁 􀀄 􀀃 􀀁 􀀉 􀀐 􀀖 􀀏 􀀐 􀀓 􀀘 􀀁 􀀔 􀀑 􀀁 􀀄 􀀔 􀀖 􀀖 􀀐 􀀏 􀀘 􀀁 􀀊 􀀐 􀀗 􀀕 􀀔 􀀓 􀀗 􀀐 􀀗 􀀁 􀀎 􀀚 􀀁 􀀆 􀀔 􀀏 􀀙 􀀗 􀀁 􀀇 􀀖 􀀔 􀀙 􀀕
Again, the comments provide insight into the confusion associated with this complex situation:
Walnut Creek Pedestrians:
■ “ Pedestrians should not cross anywhere other than the marked section of the intersection.”
Walnut Creek Senior Drivers:
If the pedestrian had already stepped into the intersection, all the participants felt the pedestrian had the right- of-way.
However, if the pedestrian had not yet stepped off the sidewalk, only three participants felt the pedestrian had
the right- of- way within this type of intersection.
Berkeley Seniors:
■ “ The unmarked crosswalk indicates that pedestrian crossings are not allowed.”
■ “ The DMV booklet states that the motorist has to yield to a pedestrian whether there is or is not a
crosswalk.”
■ “ The pedestrian must take responsibility in this situation.”
■ “ I would only cross in a marked crosswalk.”
Participants in this focus group were also asked a follow- up question to explore stated behavior in this type of
situation. When given a hypothetical origin and destination that would have the unmarked crosswalk in the direct
path, four persons said they would go out of their way to cross in the marked crosswalk and six said they would cross
in the unmarked crosswalk.
Berkeley Non- Seniors:
■ “ The pedestrian only has the right- of- way if there is a stop sign.”
■ “ The pedestrian can’t step out in front of a car, but can cross in an unmarked area when it is safe.”
SUMMARY
The results of the focus group surveys and discussion sessions demonstrate that road users tend to understand the
pedestrian right- of- way laws when the message is clear and simple ( as in Scenario A). In the six focus groups, all
participants felt the pedestrian has the right- of- way in the intersection with four marked crosswalks ( although some
qualified this answer during the discussion session). However, for the other scenarios of increasing complexity, both
pedestrians and drivers, young and old, urban and suburban, exhibited a lower level of understanding of the vehicle
code.
Figure 6 presents a comparison of correct focus group survey responses between seniors and non- seniors. For both
Scenarios B and C, seniors displayed a greater knowledge of right- of- way laws.
Figure 7 presents a comparison of correct focus group survey responses between senior pedestrians and drivers in
Walnut Creek. Overall, senior drivers had a slightly better knowledge of the laws.
In a comparison of correct focus group survey responses among urban ( Berkeley and Oakland) and suburban ( Walnut
Creek and Albany) participants, suburban residents ( all of whom were seniors) had a slightly greater knowledge of the
law in Scenario C only ( and an equal level of knowledge) as urban residents in the other scenarios.
There are a number of possible reasons for these differences, including level of education or socio- economic status,
personal walking experience, generational or neighborhood walkability differences, how the law is advertised in each
city, or— quite possibly— chance.
Figure 6
COMPARISON OF SENIOR AND NON- SENIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW
􀀃 􀀈 􀀌 􀀊 􀀅 􀀋 􀀁 􀀅 􀀋 􀀆 􀀁 􀀄 􀀅 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀋 􀀆 􀀂 􀀂
􀀇 􀀌 􀀒 􀀋 􀀌 􀀏 􀀔 􀀐 􀀍 􀀅 􀀐 􀀒 􀀒 􀀌 􀀋 􀀔 􀀈 􀀌 􀀓 􀀑 􀀐 􀀏 􀀓 􀀌 􀀓 􀀄 􀀉 􀀌 􀀏 􀀎 􀀐 􀀒 􀀓 􀀕 􀀃 􀀆 􀀐 􀀏 􀀂 􀀉 􀀌 􀀏 􀀎 􀀐 􀀒 􀀓
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀌 􀀂
􀀈 􀀋 􀀂 􀀈 􀀋 􀀂
􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀂
􀀇 􀀅 􀀂
􀀈 􀀅 􀀂
􀀉 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀋 􀀅 􀀂
􀀌 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀅 􀀂
􀀎 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀣 􀀐 􀀏 􀀐 􀀠 􀀠 􀀛 􀀣 􀀧 􀀤 􀀘 􀀤 􀀣 􀀥 􀀥 􀀨 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀥 􀀖 􀀤 􀀚
􀀡 􀀖 􀀤 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀃 􀀦 􀀤 􀀧 􀀚 􀀄
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀣 􀀑 􀀏 􀀔 􀀣 􀀡 􀀖 􀀤 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀘 􀀤 􀀣 􀀥 􀀥 􀀨 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀥 􀀖 􀀦
􀀖 􀀢 􀀞 􀀢 􀀦 􀀚 􀀤 􀀥 􀀚 􀀘 􀀦 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀃 􀀦 􀀤 􀀧 􀀚 􀀄
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀤 􀀞 􀀣 􀀒 􀀏 􀀓 􀀢 􀀦 􀀝 􀀚 􀀡 􀀖 􀀤 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀘 􀀤 􀀣 􀀥 􀀥 􀀨 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀥
􀀃 􀀣 􀀢 􀀠 􀀩 􀀄 􀀨 􀀞 􀀦 􀀝 􀀗 􀀣 􀀦 􀀝 􀀡 􀀖 􀀤 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀖 􀀢 􀀙 􀀧 􀀢 􀀡 􀀖 􀀤 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙
􀀘 􀀤 􀀣 􀀥 􀀥 􀀞 􀀢 􀀜 􀀥 􀀖 􀀦 􀀖 􀀢 􀀞 􀀢 􀀦 􀀚 􀀤 􀀥 􀀚 􀀘 􀀦 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀃 􀀛 􀀖 􀀠 􀀥 􀀚 􀀄
􀀉 􀀋 􀀌 􀀏 􀀊 􀀒 􀀎 􀀐
􀀇 􀀌 􀀒 􀀋 􀀌 􀀏 􀀔 􀀁 􀀐 􀀍 􀀁 􀀅 􀀐 􀀒 􀀒 􀀌 􀀋 􀀔 􀀁 􀀈 􀀌 􀀓 􀀑 􀀐 􀀏 􀀓 􀀌 􀀓
􀀕 􀀚 􀀢 􀀞 􀀣 􀀤 􀀥
􀀔 􀀣 􀀢 􀀕 􀀚 􀀢 􀀞 􀀣 􀀤 􀀥
􀀆 􀀈 􀀇 􀀎 􀀌 􀀅 􀀃 􀀁 􀀄 􀀙 􀀗 􀀚 􀀏 􀀛 􀀕 􀀜 􀀙 􀀘 􀀁 􀀙 􀀒 􀀁 􀀍 􀀑 􀀘 􀀕 􀀙 􀀛 􀀁 􀀏 􀀘 􀀐 􀀋 􀀙 􀀘 􀀂 􀀍 􀀑 􀀘 􀀕 􀀙 􀀛 􀀁 􀀉 􀀘 􀀙 􀀞 􀀖 􀀑 􀀐 􀀓 􀀑 􀀁 􀀙 􀀒 􀀁 􀀝 􀀔 􀀑 􀀁 􀀊 􀀏 􀀞
Figure 7
COMPARISON OF WALNUT CREEK SENIOR DRIVER AND
PEDESTRIAN KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW
􀀄 􀀉 􀀍 􀀋 􀀆 􀀌 􀀁 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀁 􀀅 􀀆 􀀈 􀀊 􀀆 􀀌 􀀇 􀀂 􀀃
􀀆 􀀌 􀀒 􀀊 􀀌 􀀏 􀀔 􀀐 􀀍 􀀄 􀀐 􀀒 􀀒 􀀌 􀀊 􀀔 􀀇 􀀌 􀀑 􀀐 􀀏 􀀓 􀀌 􀀓 􀀃 􀀈 􀀌 􀀏 􀀎 􀀐 􀀒 􀀅 􀀒 􀀎 􀀕 􀀌 􀀒 􀀓 􀀕 􀀂 􀀈 􀀌 􀀏 􀀎 􀀐 􀀒 􀀆 􀀌 􀀋 􀀌 􀀓 􀀔 􀀒 􀀎 􀀉 􀀏 􀀓
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀇 􀀂
􀀊 􀀊 􀀂
􀀋 􀀌 􀀂
􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀂
􀀇 􀀅 􀀂
􀀈 􀀅 􀀂
􀀉 􀀅 􀀂
􀀊 􀀅 􀀂
􀀋 􀀅 􀀂
􀀌 􀀅 􀀂
􀀍 􀀅 􀀂
􀀎 􀀅 􀀂
􀀆 􀀅 􀀅 􀀂
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀥 􀀞 􀀣 􀀐 􀀏 􀀐 􀀠 􀀠 􀀛 􀀣 􀀨 􀀥 􀀘 􀀥 􀀣 􀀦 􀀦 􀀪 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀦 􀀖 􀀥 􀀚
􀀡 􀀖 􀀥 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀃 􀀧 􀀥 􀀨 􀀚 􀀄
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀥 􀀞 􀀣 􀀑 􀀏 􀀔 􀀣 􀀡 􀀖 􀀥 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀘 􀀥 􀀣 􀀦 􀀦 􀀪 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀦 􀀖 􀀧
􀀖 􀀢 􀀞 􀀢 􀀧 􀀚 􀀥 􀀦 􀀚 􀀘 􀀧 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀃 􀀧 􀀥 􀀨 􀀚 􀀄
􀀕 􀀘 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀥 􀀞 􀀣 􀀒 􀀏 􀀓 􀀢 􀀧 􀀝 􀀚 􀀡 􀀖 􀀥 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙
􀀘 􀀥 􀀣 􀀦 􀀦 􀀪 􀀖 􀀠 􀀟 􀀦 􀀃 􀀣 􀀢 􀀠 􀀫 􀀄 􀀪 􀀞 􀀧 􀀝 􀀗 􀀣 􀀧 􀀝 􀀡 􀀖 􀀥 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙
􀀖 􀀢 􀀙 􀀨 􀀢 􀀡 􀀖 􀀥 􀀟 􀀚 􀀙 􀀘 􀀥 􀀣 􀀦 􀀦 􀀞 􀀢 􀀜 􀀦 􀀖 􀀧 􀀖 􀀢
􀀞 􀀢 􀀧 􀀚 􀀥 􀀦 􀀚 􀀘 􀀧 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀃 􀀛 􀀖 􀀠 􀀦 􀀚 􀀄
􀀈 􀀊 􀀌 􀀏 􀀉 􀀒 􀀎 􀀐
􀀆 􀀌 􀀒 􀀊 􀀌 􀀏 􀀔 􀀁 􀀐 􀀍 􀀁 􀀄 􀀐 􀀒 􀀒 􀀌 􀀊 􀀔 􀀁 􀀇 􀀌 􀀓 􀀑 􀀐 􀀏 􀀓 􀀌 􀀓
􀀦 􀀚 􀀢 􀀞 􀀣 􀀥 􀀤 􀀚 􀀙 􀀚 􀀦 􀀧 􀀥 􀀞 􀀖 􀀢 􀀦
􀀦 􀀚 􀀢 􀀞 􀀣 􀀥 􀀙 􀀥 􀀞 􀀩 􀀚 􀀥 􀀦
􀀆 􀀈 􀀇 􀀎 􀀌 􀀅 􀀂 􀀁 􀀃 􀀛 􀀙 􀀜 􀀐 􀀝 􀀖 􀀞 􀀛 􀀚 􀀁 􀀛 􀀓 􀀁 􀀏 􀀐 􀀘 􀀚 􀀠 􀀟 􀀃 􀀝 􀀒 􀀒 􀀗 􀀁 􀀍 􀀒 􀀚 􀀖 􀀛 􀀝 􀀁 􀀄 􀀝 􀀖 􀀡 􀀒 􀀝 􀀁 􀀐 􀀚 􀀑
􀀋 􀀒 􀀑 􀀒 􀀞 􀀟 􀀝 􀀖 􀀐 􀀚 􀀁 􀀉 􀀚 􀀛 􀀢 􀀘 􀀒 􀀑 􀀔 􀀒 􀀁 􀀛 􀀓 􀀁 􀀟 􀀕 􀀒 􀀁 􀀊 􀀐 􀀢
Overall, the focus group results corroborate data from the intercept surveys and previous research and again suggest
that knowledge of the law cannot be assumed, especially in complex situations.
1.5. COUNTERMEASURE IMPLICATIONS
There may be a connection between knowledge of pedestrian right- of- way laws and collision risk. While knowledge
of the law does not necessarily result in compliance, a lack of knowledge is unlikely to result in improved yielding
behavior— especially in the case of multi- lane roads. This connection is an appropriate subject for further study. If the
widespread lack of accurate knowledge regarding right- of- way laws is indeed found to be a significant contributing
factor in pedestrian- vehicle collisions, a re- prioritizing of pedestrian safety countermeasures may be required. Thus,
in addition to the physical countermeasures for enhancing safety in marked crosswalks suggested by Zegeer ( 9),
behavioral countermeasures may be needed.
The appropriate combination of education, engineering, and enforcement countermeasures, often referred to as the
3- Es of Safety, has been a subject of debate for many decades ( 12, 13). The following countermeasures are illustrative
components of a re- balanced 3- E strategy that would address the demonstrated lack of knowledge of right- of- way
laws.
ENGINEERING
Using context sensitive design ( CSD) options, pedestrian facilities can actively communicate the right- of- way to
drivers and pedestrians, whether or not they know their legal responsibilities. As defined by the Federal Highway
Administration ( FHWA), CSD “ is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation
improvement project will exist ( 14).” The CSD philosophy, in “ thinking beyond the pavement,” embraces the
appropriate use of traffic calming devices such as bulbouts, raised intersections, pedestrian refuge islands, and raised
crosswalks, among others, that communicate expected behavior to road users.
In a before- and- after study of traffic- calming devices in several US cities, Huang and Cynecki ( 2001) found that
motorist and pedestrian compliance with the vehicle code increased, suggesting that these devices “ have the
potential for improving the pedestrian environment.” The researchers also emphasize, however, that “ these devices
by themselves do not guarantee that motorists will slow down or yield to pedestrians ( 15).”
In cases where traffic calming may be inappropriate or infeasible, Zegeer ( 2002) notes that traffic and pedestrian
signals and other more substantive countermeasures, such as pedestrian overpasses, should be considered ( 9). These
engineering measures, although costly, would also preclude the need for accurate knowledge of the law.
EDUCATION
The impact of education and mass media imaging changes on smoking cessation in the US, for example, offers
evidence that public health concerns can be significantly addressed through educational campaigns ( 1). However,
pedestrian safety education efforts are currently less prevalent than engineering countermeasures.
Knowledge of the right- of- way laws in a state’s vehicle code is typically transmitted as a component of driver
education. Drivers are expected to demonstrate knowledge of the laws when passing a driver’s license exam.
Notably, such exams do not require perfect scores for licensure and are typically administered only when a driver first
receives his license.
Sarkar, Van Houten, and Moffatt ( 1999) reviewed drivers’ manuals from 32 states based on the premise that “ along
with enforcement and engineering, quality education can be very important in improving driver behavior and
providing a better understanding of the vulnerability of pedestrians ( 16).” The researchers concluded that while state
driver licensing manuals can play a key role in education, manuals need significant improvements. They note that
better manuals, with “ well- written, well- illustrated information on pedestrian conflicts associated with different traffic
regulations” are increasingly important with the gradual phasing out of driver education in schools ( 16).
There is no analogous licensing exam or manual for non- driver pedestrians. Parents, teachers and the media
are expected to convey pedestrian right- of- way laws to non- drivers. Some efforts, such as Safe Routes to School
programs, have demonstrated considerable success with pedestrian safety education of children. Holtz et al. ( 2004)
evaluated the effectiveness of a Safe Routes to School program, the WalkSafe program, for elementary school
children in Miami, Florida. The study concluded, “ The WalkSafe program implemented in a single high- risk district
was shown to improve the pedestrian safety knowledge of elementary school children. The observational data
demonstrated improved crossing behaviors from pre- test to post- testing conditions ( 17).”
However, similar programs for seniors, immigrants, and other groups of non- driver pedestrians are not as prevalent.
Additional opportunities to educate non- driver pedestrians should be explored, as well as refresher programs or
educational campaigns for licensed drivers.
ENFORCEMENT
Innovative enforcement strategies that focus on enhancing pedestrian and driver knowledge of and compliance
with the laws include enforcement “ stings”, educational warnings in lieu of or in addition to fines, and community
enforcement programs. In a study of an enforcement sting in Miami Beach, Florida, Van Houten and Malenfant
( 2004) found that “ the percentage of drivers yielding to pedestrians increased following the introduction of the
enforcement operation in each corridor ( 18).” They note, “ these increases were sustained for a period of a year with
minimal additional enforcement, and that the effects generalized to untreated crosswalks in both corridors as well as
crosswalks with traffic signals ( 18).”
Sustained enforcement efforts, targeted at both drivers and pedestrians, can also serve as valuable educational
campaigns by incorporating warnings, informational pamphlets, media coverage, and community involvement
activities. In this way, road users may learn the right- of- way laws through enforcement of these laws.
1.6. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
An important, possibly more fundamental, consideration in selecting and balancing pedestrian safety countermeasures
is whether the vehicle code itself should first be amended. Perhaps drivers and pedestrians lack knowledge of the
law because the law is inherently confusing or unfair. It may be that a significant number of right- of- way violations
occur because laws are counterintuitive, or because they are perceived as inappropriate for the local driving culture.
Further, there are some scenarios in which it is legally ambiguous or unclear who has the right- of- way.
Several authors have made concrete suggestions for how vehicle code amendments should be formulated. The
suggestions vary widely in their visions of what would constitute a better driving or walking environment.
Evans ( 2004) suggests that laws should be strengthened such that the default responsibility for a pedestrian- vehicle
collision would be placed only on the driver because the driver has the potential to cause greater harm ( 1). In contrast,
proponents of the Shared Space or “ Naked Streets” philosophy ( Hans Moderman and others) argue that “ artificial”
traffic regulations should be removed and replaced instead by “ natural human interaction,” as can be encouraged
by traffic calming street designs ( 19).
As suggested by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances ( NCUTLO), any such revisions to
the current law should also include efforts to create more uniform laws on pedestrian right- of- way across agency and
state boundaries so that the laws are not only intuitive, but also consistent ( 10).
Another important concern many pedestrian safety experts raise is that unless 100 percent compliance with the
law is achieved, increasing driver- yielding behavior could actually be detrimental to pedestrian safety if it leads to
a pedestrian expectation that all drivers will yield, and thus a lower level of vigilance when crossing. In this event,
the consequence of even one driver failing to yield may be much greater than the consequence of many drivers
not yielding under current conditions. Again, this point further emphasizes the need to develop a three- pronged
program of not only engineering but also education and enforcement to address the responsibilities of both the
pedestrian and driver as users of the shared roadway.
The strategies presented here offer a proactive approach to pedestrian safety that does not first require the
assumption of driver and pedestrian knowledge of the law. The use of these balanced countermeasures offers an
opportunity to both actively and passively communicate the importance of these laws in maintaining safety for all
road users.
Analogous to the successful Mothers Against Drunk Driving ( MADD) campaign to reduce driving under the influence
( DUI), a change in societal norms may be required before meaningful and sustainable improvements in pedestrian
safety can occur. Diagnosing the extent to which drivers and pedestrians know and understand the vehicle code is
an important step in this endeavor.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), especially
Maggie O’Mara, Richard Haggstrom, and Jeffrey Spencer, for envisioning and funding the research
presented in this paper as a component of a broader study of pedestrian and driver behavior at
crosswalks in California. Ms. Mitman also acknowledges funding from the Dwight D. Eisenhower
Graduate Transportation Fellowship. Other current and previous staff members at the Traffic Safety
Center providing important input to this study include Jill Cooper, Andrew Duszak, and Christopher
Congleton. Additionally, researchers at California PATH should be acknowledged for their
contribution to the focus groups discussed in this paper, including Susan Shaheen, Caroline Rodier,
Linda Novick, and especially Cynthia McCormick, who facilitated most of the sessions. Lastly, thanks
to the peer review committee and to Marla Orenstein for helpful editing comments.
2. FIELD OBSERVATION
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR IN MARKED VERSUS UNMARKED CROSSWALKS
2.1. INTRODUCTION
The environmental, social, health, and economic benefits of walkable communities have become increasingly
apparent. Especially at a time when the need for sustainable transportation solutions is critical, a greater focus on
pedestrian- oriented alternatives to auto- dependency is clearly warranted. The pedestrian advocacy community has
long argued for such a focus, emphasizing the legitimacy of pedestrians as shared users of the public roadways.
Considering pedestrian safety as we re- orient transportation and land use planning to the pedestrian is imperative.
As Zegeer, et al. ( 2001) and others have argued, “ Pedestrians have a right to cross roads safely and, therefore,
planners and engineers have a professional responsibility to plan, design, and install safe crossing facilities ( 1).”
This section addresses pedestrian safety with regard to crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. In California, the
study area for the original data collection presented in this report, from 2000 to 2004 approximately 8 percent of
statewide pedestrian collisions ( 5,680 of 73,310) occurred at unsignalized intersections. Ninety- five percent of these
collisions ( 5,388) resulted in a pedestrian injury or fatality ( yielding an average of almost 1,100 injuries or fatalities
annually at unsignalized intersections in California) ( 2).
This section documents and interprets field observations of drivers and pedestrians in marked and unmarked
crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. Other sections of the report present findings from surveys, focus groups,
and literature reviews to address driver and pedestrian knowledge of right- of- way laws ( 3) and stated behavior, also
in the context of marked versus unmarked crosswalks.
2.2. BACKGROUND
Crosswalks at unsignalized intersections have been the subject of numerous studies over the past 30 years. Specifically,
the differences in collision risk at marked ( striped) versus unmarked crosswalks1 have been well documented. However,
most of these studies have leapt from identifying collision patterns to recommending engineering solutions without
addressing the underlying causal factors of collisions. As illustrated by the classic Haddon Matrix for injury prevention
and analysis ( Table 1), many factors must be considered to fully deconstruct collision risk and select appropriate and
effective countermeasures.
Table 1
THE HADDON MATRIX 􀀔 􀀇 􀀈 􀀏 􀀊 􀀆 􀀄 􀀔 􀀝 􀀚 􀀍 􀀗 􀀙 􀀙 􀀣 􀀢 􀀐 􀀗 􀀧 􀀥 􀀞 􀀫
􀀑 􀀝 􀀗 􀀦 􀀚 􀀦 􀀅
􀀋 􀀗 􀀘 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀦
􀀍 􀀨 􀀡 􀀗 􀀢 􀀋 􀀗 􀀘 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀦 􀀇 􀀜 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀖 􀀚 􀀝 􀀞 􀀘 􀀠 􀀚
􀀑 􀀝 􀀬 􀀦 􀀞 􀀘 􀀗 􀀠
􀀊 􀀢 􀀩 􀀞 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧
􀀓 􀀣 􀀘 􀀞 􀀣 􀀃 􀀘 􀀨 􀀠 􀀧 􀀨 􀀥 􀀗 􀀠
􀀊 􀀢 􀀩 􀀞 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧
􀀑 􀀥 􀀚 􀀃 􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
This study’s
focus
Conventional
focus
This study’s
focus
􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
This study’s
focus
Conventional
focus
This study’s
focus
􀀑 􀀣 􀀦 􀀧 􀀃 􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
1 According to the California Vehicle Code, a legal crosswalk is defined as the extension of the sidewalk across a road, regardless of painting/
striping designation.
Traffic safety researchers have long argued that driver behavior is a key causal factor in roadway collisions ( 4, 5). Thus,
to strategically improve pedestrian safety, we fundamentally need to understand driver and pedestrian behavior,
which may be more closely associated with the human factors or socio- cultural environment cells of the Haddon
Matrix, and thus not completely addressed through conventional engineering practice focusing on the physical
environment.
One of the central debates about pedestrian behavior in crosswalks is whether pedestrians feel a sense of security
in marked crosswalks that leads them to be less cautious or more aggressive than in unmarked crosswalks or non-crosswalk
locations. Early studies, most famously Herms’ 1972 analysis, suggested that this “ lack of caution” may have
led to the observed higher rate of collisiones in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks ( 6).
Thirty years of pedestrian safety research has since considered this fundamental question. More recently, Knoblauch,
et al. ( 2001) measured the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized intersections
on two and three- lane roads ( 7). Knoblauch ( 2001) and Nitzburg ( 2001) found no difference in pedestrian assertiveness
in marked and unmarked crosswalks, while pedestrian searching behavior actually improved at crossings after they
were marked ( 7, 8). Others, for example, Hauck, 1979, have found that pedestrian behavior improves in well- marked
crosswalks compared to unmarked or poorly marked crosswalks ( 9).
There have been fewer studies of driver behavior, but it is generally agreed that drivers often fail to yield to
pedestrians at both marked and unmarked crosswalks. The effects on driver behavior of marking a crosswalk have
remained unclear.
Figure 1
VOLUME, LANE, AND SPEED LIMIT- BASED GUIDELINES FOR CROSSWALK INSTALLATION
􀀔 􀀇 􀀈 􀀏 􀀊 􀀆 􀀄 􀀔 􀀝 􀀚 􀀍 􀀗 􀀙 􀀙 􀀣 􀀢 􀀐 􀀗 􀀧 􀀥 􀀞 􀀫
􀀑 􀀝 􀀗 􀀦 􀀚 􀀦 􀀅
􀀋 􀀗 􀀘 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀦
􀀍 􀀨 􀀡 􀀗 􀀢 􀀋 􀀗 􀀘 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀦 􀀇 􀀜 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧 􀀣 􀀥 􀀖 􀀚 􀀝 􀀞 􀀘 􀀠 􀀚
􀀑 􀀝 􀀬 􀀦 􀀞 􀀘 􀀗 􀀠
􀀊 􀀢 􀀩 􀀞 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧
􀀓 􀀣 􀀘 􀀞 􀀣 􀀃 􀀘 􀀨 􀀠 􀀧 􀀨 􀀥 􀀗 􀀠
􀀊 􀀢 􀀩 􀀞 􀀥 􀀣 􀀢 􀀡 􀀚 􀀢 􀀧
􀀑 􀀥 􀀚 􀀃 􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
This study’s
focus
Conventional
focus
This study’s
focus
􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
This study’s
focus
Conventional
focus
This study’s
focus
􀀑 􀀣 􀀦 􀀧 􀀃 􀀉 􀀥 􀀗 􀀦 􀀝
􀀋 􀀎 􀀌 􀀕 􀀒 􀀊 􀀆 􀀄 􀀖 􀀣 􀀠 􀀨 􀀡 􀀚 􀀂 􀀏 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚 􀀂 􀀗 􀀢 􀀙 􀀓 􀀤 􀀚 􀀚 􀀙 􀀏 􀀞 􀀡 􀀞 􀀧 􀀃 􀀈 􀀗 􀀦 􀀚 􀀙 􀀌 􀀨 􀀞 􀀙 􀀚 􀀠 􀀞 􀀢 􀀚 􀀦 􀀛 􀀣 􀀥 􀀉 􀀥 􀀣 􀀦 􀀦 􀀪 􀀗 􀀠 􀀟 􀀎 􀀢 􀀦 􀀧 􀀗 􀀠 􀀠 􀀗 􀀧 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀗
Source: Zegeer, 2001.
In a before and after study, Knoblauch ( 2001) found that marking a crosswalk had no effect on driver yielding.
However, he found a slight reduction in speed by drivers approaching a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk compared
to one that is unmarked.
Nitzburg ( 2001) found strong differences between day and nighttime driver behavior. During the day, over 40% of
drivers yielded to pedestrians in the high- visibility crosswalks, 20% yielded to pedestrians in a marked mid- block
crosswalk, and less than 3% yielded to pedestrians in an unmarked crosswalk. At night, these percentages fell to 25%
in the high- visibility crosswalk and 17% in the marked mid- block crosswalk. Nitzburg’s study also found differences
in both driver and pedestrian behavior when the pedestrian was in the second half of the crosswalk compared to
the first half. At unmarked crosswalks, no drivers yielded to pedestrians in the first half, but over 11% yielded to
pedestrians in the second half. Similarly, at a marked midblock crosswalk, 6% of drivers yielded to pedestrians in the
first half while 54% yielded to pedestrians in the second half. Pedestrians using the mid- block crosswalk became more
assertive in the second half of the crossing, forcing the right of way over 15% of the time, compared to about 8% of
the time in the first half of the crossing ( 7, 8).
Importantly, these previous studies of driver and pedestrian behavior share a common focus on crosswalks across
only two and three- lane, low volume roads. This may explain why no clear behavioral differences between marked
and unmarked crosswalks have been observed. The now accepted authority on the unmarked/ marked crosswalk
collision phenomenon, a 2001 study by Zegeer, et al., suggests no meaningful collision risk differences occur on two-lane
roads or on low- volume multi- lane roads ( 1). According to Zegeer, crosswalks across multi- lane roads ( roads
with 3 or more lanes) with travel volumes exceeding 12,000 average daily traffic ( ADT) are the only scenarios in which
the increased collision risk of installing a marked crosswalk at an uncontrolled intersection is statistically significant.
This conclusion was based on an analysis of 5 years of pedestrian collisiones at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000
matched unmarked comparison sites in 30 U. S. cities.
Zegeer’s key study results included:
■ The presence of a marked crosswalk alone was associated with no difference in pedestrian collision rate
on two- lane roads and low- volume multi- lane roads.
■ On multi- lane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked
crosswalk alone ( e. g., without raised median or other substantial treatment) was associated with a
higher pedestrian collision rate.
■ On multi- lane roads, having raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian collision rates,
compared to having no raised median.
■ Older pedestrians had high relative collisiones for their crossing exposure ( 1).
Figure 1 summarizes Zegeer’s safety enhancement recommendations for crosswalk facilities based on variables
including number of lanes, traffic volume ( vehicle ADT), speed limit, and presence of median.
Research continues in this field today in two primary areas: clarifying and supplementing the recommended
engineering countermeasures from the Zegeer study, and analyzing the underlying behavioral characteristics that
may contribute to pedestrian collisiones and better inform the selection of countermeasures.
2 Effectiveness was defined as motorist compliance ( yielding). An important concern many pedestrian safety experts raise is that unless 100
percent compliance with the law is achieved, increasing driver- yielding behavior could actually be detrimental to pedestrian safety if it leads to
a pedestrian expectation that all drivers will yield, and thus a lower level of vigilance when crossing. In this event, the consequence of even one
driver failing to yield may be much greater than the consequence of many drivers not yielding under current conditions.
In the first area, a recent research effort jointly sponsored by TCRP and NCHRP and conducted by the
Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI) focused on determining the effectiveness2 of pedestrian safety engineering
countermeasures for unsignalized crossings. As a result of this study, specific guidelines for selecting effective
pedestrian crossing treatments for unsignalized intersections and midblock locations are now available based on
key input variables ( such as pedestrian volume, street crossing width, and traffic volume). The study also suggested
modifications to the pedestrian traffic signal warrant in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways ( MUTCD) ( 10).
Falling within the
second area of
current research, this
section summarizes
results from field
observations of
driver and pedestrian
behavior at marked
and unmarked cross-walks.
Following
sections present the
results of intercept
surveys and focus
groups conducted to assess driver and pedestrian knowledge of right- of- way laws related to marked and unmarked
crosswalks. Results from the surveys and focus groups demonstrate that a substantial level of confusion exists with respect
to pedestrian right- of- way laws. This confusion was exacerbated by intersections which had unmarked crosswalks ( 3).
Figure 2
MARKED / UNMARKED CROSSWALKS PAIR
􀀐 􀀛 􀀜 􀀝 􀀗 􀀢 􀀁 􀀎 􀀛 􀀝 􀀠 􀀞 􀀜 􀀁 􀀐 􀀞 􀀧 􀀡 􀀗 􀀢 􀀂 􀀁 􀀅 􀀉 􀀄 􀀅 􀀆 􀀄 􀀅 􀀊 􀀆
􀀃 􀀅 􀀍 􀀈 􀀇 􀀆 􀀂 􀀍 􀀌 􀀎 􀀎 􀀏 􀀅 􀀉 􀀈
􀀄 􀀋 􀀊 􀀅 􀀍 􀀈 􀀇 􀀆 􀀂 􀀍 􀀌 􀀎 􀀎 􀀏 􀀅 􀀉 􀀈
FIGURE 2. Marked – Unmarked Crosswalks Pair
TABLE 2. Field Observation Sites
2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes
􀀑 􀀣 􀀐 􀀛 􀀚 􀀞 􀀗 􀀢 􀀐 􀀛 􀀚 􀀞 􀀗 􀀢
􀀏 􀀢 􀀧 􀀛 􀀥 􀀢 􀀗 􀀧 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀗 􀀠 􀀌 􀀠 􀀩 􀀚 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀇 􀀊 􀀧 􀀝 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀂
􀀒 􀀗 􀀟 􀀠 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀕 􀀢 􀀞 􀀩 􀀛 􀀥 􀀦 􀀞 􀀧 􀀪 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀖 􀀗 􀀠 􀀢 􀀨 􀀧 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂 􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
􀀍 􀀛 􀀚 􀀗 􀀥 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀖 􀀗 􀀠 􀀢 􀀨 􀀧 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
􀀆 􀀉 􀀧 􀀝 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚 􀀍 􀀗 􀀤 􀀤
􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀓 􀀗 􀀢 􀀎 􀀥 􀀗 􀀢 􀀙 􀀞 􀀦 􀀙 􀀣
􀀔 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀜 􀀥 􀀗 􀀤 􀀝 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀈 􀀆 􀀦 􀀧 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀥 􀀚 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀒 􀀗 􀀟 􀀠 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚 􀀘
􀀓 􀀗 􀀙 􀀥 􀀗 􀀡 􀀛 􀀢 􀀧 􀀣 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀌 􀀠 􀀗 􀀟 􀀛 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
* Field observations occurred at both Telegraph Ave. and 41st St. and Telegraph Ave. and 63rd St. in this category.
Table 2
FIELD OBSERVATION SITES
􀀐 􀀛 􀀜 􀀝 􀀗 􀀢 􀀁 􀀎 􀀛 􀀝 􀀠 􀀞 􀀜 􀀁 􀀐 􀀞 􀀧 􀀡 􀀗 􀀢 􀀂 􀀁 􀀅 􀀉 􀀄 􀀅 􀀆 􀀄 􀀅 􀀊 􀀆
􀀃 􀀅 􀀍 􀀈 􀀇 􀀆 􀀂 􀀍 􀀌 􀀎 􀀎 􀀏 􀀅 􀀉 􀀈
􀀄 􀀋 􀀊 􀀅 􀀍 􀀈 􀀇 􀀆 􀀂 􀀍 􀀌 􀀎 􀀎 􀀏 􀀅 􀀉 􀀈
FIGURE 2. Marked – Unmarked Crosswalks Pair
TABLE 2. Field Observation Sites
2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes
􀀑 􀀣 􀀐 􀀛 􀀚 􀀞 􀀗 􀀢 􀀐 􀀛 􀀚 􀀞 􀀗 􀀢
􀀏 􀀢 􀀧 􀀛 􀀥 􀀢 􀀗 􀀧 􀀞 􀀣 􀀢 􀀗 􀀠 􀀌 􀀠 􀀩 􀀚 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀇 􀀊 􀀧 􀀝 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀂
􀀒 􀀗 􀀟 􀀠 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀕 􀀢 􀀞 􀀩 􀀛 􀀥 􀀦 􀀞 􀀧 􀀪 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀖 􀀗 􀀠 􀀢 􀀨 􀀧 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂 􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
􀀍 􀀛 􀀚 􀀗 􀀥 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀖 􀀗 􀀠 􀀢 􀀨 􀀧 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
􀀆 􀀉 􀀧 􀀝 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚 􀀍 􀀗 􀀤 􀀤
􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀓 􀀗 􀀢 􀀎 􀀥 􀀗 􀀢 􀀙 􀀞 􀀦 􀀙 􀀣
􀀔 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀜 􀀥 􀀗 􀀤 􀀝 􀀋 􀀩 􀀛 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀈 􀀆 􀀦 􀀧 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀥 􀀚 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀒 􀀗 􀀟 􀀠 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚 􀀘
􀀓 􀀗 􀀙 􀀥 􀀗 􀀡 􀀛 􀀢 􀀧 􀀣 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀗 􀀢 􀀚
􀀌 􀀠 􀀗 􀀟 􀀛 􀀓 􀀧 􀀃 􀀂
􀀌 􀀛 􀀥 􀀟 􀀛 􀀠 􀀛 􀀪
*
In the conclusion to this report, we present recommendations which combine results from both areas of current
research.
2.4. METHODS
Directly responding to Zegeer’s call for further research on driver and pedestrian behavior, the field data collection
effort for this study focused on the “ N and P” cells in Figure 1. A better understanding of any behavioral differences
exhibited in these scenarios was sought in an effort to inform best practices in pedestrian safety countermeasures.
Building on the Knoblauch ( 2001) study, we followed a similar research methodology, except that instead of
repeating studies on 2 and 3- lane roads, this analysis studied mostly roads with 4 or more lanes. Utilizing a matched
pair approach, we compared marked and unmarked crosswalk pairs at the same intersection, as illustrated in
the aerial photograph in FIGURE 2. Intersections with matched pairs of marked and unmarked crosswalks were
considered desirable because all exogenous factors are held constant, allowing for a direct comparison between the
crosswalks.
Six sites were selected for the purposes of this study. The locations were chosen with the following guidelines:
■ One matched pair of crosswalks at an intersection on a two- lane major road
■ One matched pair of crosswalks at an intersection on a three- lane major road
■ Four matched pairs of crosswalks at intersections on four to five lane major roads. Of these sites we
selected:
■ Two locations with medians
■ Two locations without medians
Figure 3
FIELD OBSERVATION LOCATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
􀀊 􀀌 􀀍 􀀎 􀀋 􀀒 􀀁 􀀉 􀀌 􀀎 􀀐 􀀏 􀀍 􀀁 􀀊 􀀏 􀀓 􀀑 􀀋 􀀒 􀀂 􀀁 􀀄 􀀇 􀀃 􀀄 􀀅 􀀃 􀀄 􀀈 􀀆
􀀈 􀀊 􀀉 􀀏 􀀍 􀀇 􀀄 􀀃 􀀈 􀀕 􀀔 􀀖 􀀓 􀀌 􀀑 􀀚 􀀔 􀀙 􀀜 􀀐 􀀛 􀀕 􀀘 􀀗 􀀋 􀀘 􀀒 􀀐 􀀛 􀀕 􀀘 􀀗 􀀚 􀀂 􀀎 􀀐 􀀗 􀀈 􀀙 􀀐 􀀗 􀀒 􀀕 􀀚 􀀒 􀀘 􀀆 􀀐 􀀝 􀀅 􀀙 􀀔 􀀐
One 2- lane intersection was selected to allow for comparison with previous studies and then to compare with multi-lane
crossings. TABLE 2 presents these sites, all of which are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. FIGURE 3 displays
the relative geographic locations of the sites.
At each of our matched pair locations, we considered the following study questions:
■ Whether pedestrians use more, less, or the same amount of caution when crossing at a marked
crosswalk, as compared to an unmarked crosswalk— by recording the pedestrian’s “ looking behavior”
and level of assertiveness when using a marked versus unmarked crosswalk.
■ Whether the age or gender of the pedestrian are correlated with his or her behavior— by recording
the gender and approximate age of the pedestrian observed. 3
■ Whether drivers yield more often to pedestrians in marked crosswalks than unmarked crosswalks—
by recording whether or not the driver yielded when encountering a pedestrian in the crosswalk. 4
■ Whether pedestrians are more likely to cross a street within a marked crosswalk— by recording
“ crosswalk capture,” or a circuitous crossing in favor of the marked crosswalk.
3 Socioeconomic standing is also likely correlated with behavior. However, the observational ( anonymous) study design did not permit the collection
of this type of data.
4 Previous studies have noted that driver yielding is related to vehicle speeds. All six observations locations had speed limits of 25 to 30 MPH in an
effort to reduce potential yielding behavior discrepancies based on speed.
Figure 4
FIELD DATA COLLECTION FORM
2.5. DATA COLLECTION
For this study, a pilot evaluation of video and clipboard- based data collection methods was conducted to determine
the best data collection methodology. The evaluation considered accuracy, reliability, validity, and cost. Results from
this evaluation are presented in Appendix A. Clipboard- based ( manual) data collection was selected as the best
method for the purposes of this study.
Data collection occurred during daylight hours on non- rainy days from May to October, 2006. Marked and unmarked
crosswalk observations were collected concurrently at each site, except for International and 37th, where they were
collected in series. Observers included professional field data collectors from Population Research Systems ( PRS),
selected based on inter- rater reliability tests from the pilot evaluation, as well as undergraduate work- study students
from UC Berkeley who completed a one- hour training course tailored to this project.
FIGURE 4 presents the field data collection form developed for this project. Data entry fields were rearranged and
additional observation categories were added to enhance the usability and efficiency of the form based on the
debriefing comments and results of the pilot test.
For the 16th and Capp 3- lane intersection in San Francisco, video footage available from another Traffic Safety Center
project was utilized in lieu of in- person observations. Trained field observers completed the video observations in the
office using QuickTime ® video- playback software. When collecting data from the video, observers used the same
data collection form as was used for the field observations.
2.6. DATA ANALYSIS
A comprehensive quality control process was employed to prepare field data for data analysis. The field observers
entered data from their clipboard forms into an Excel spreadsheet. This data was then cross- checked by another
field observer and signed and dated. Finally, all data received a quality review by the project manager before being
formatted as an analysis input file.
The statistical analysis package SAS was then utilized to compare driver and pedestrian behavior observations in
marked versus unmarked crosswalks at each of the six observation locations. This comparison was accomplished via a
Chi- Squared test, a non- parametric test of statistical significance appropriate for bivariate tables. 5 The determination
of statistical significance was based on a p- value of less than or equal to 0.05. Summary tables from this analysis are
included in the subsequent sections of this report. Detailed output from the analysis is provided in Appendix B.
In addition to the observation variables included on the data collection form, the following derived variables were
analyzed for each observation location:
■ AVERAGE GAP ACCEPTANCE ( LANES): This variable measures the number of times that no vehicle
was present in a lane encountered during a pedestrian’s crossing. The maximum number of gaps is
equal to the number of lanes across which the crosswalk extends. The average number of gaps for
pedestrians in marked versus unmarked crosswalks was compared in the statistical analysis for each
site.
■ AVERAGE NUMBER OF IMMEDIATE YIELDS ( DRIVERS): This variable is the sum of the number of times
the first driver encountered by a pedestrian in each lane yielded ( as opposed to not yielding and trapping
the pedestrian on the curb or within the street). The average number of immediate yields for pedestrians
in marked versus unmarked crosswalks was compared in the statistical analysis for each site.
5 In some instances, as noted in the Appendix output tables, cells had expected counts less than 5 and the Chi- Square may not be a valid test. In
these cases, the Fisher’s Exact Test was used.
■ AVERAGE VEHICLE EXPOSURE ( PEDESTRIANS): This variable is the sum of the total number of
vehicles encountered by a pedestrian during a crossing. The average exposure for pedestrians in
marked versus unmarked crosswalks was compared in the statistical analysis for each site.
■ MULTIPLE THREAT OPPORTUNITY: This variable measures for each pedestrian the number of times
in which a driver yielded in one lane ( the first encountered in the crossing direction) while a driver in
the adjacent lane of the same direction of travel ( the next encountered) did not yield. The incidence
of multiple threat opportunities was applicable only for the crosswalks across the 3, 4, and 5- lane
intersections ( i. e., not Cedar and Walnut). For the 4 and 5- lane intersections, two pairs of multiple threat
opportunities were considered, the first set of same direction lanes encountered in a crossing and the
second set. 6 The incidence of multiple threat opportunities for pedestrian crossings in marked versus
unmarked crosswalks was compared in the statistical analysis for each site.
Multiple threat scenarios
were specifically addressed
in our analysis because
the Zegeer study noted,
“ The greatest difference
in pedestrian collision
types between marked
and unmarked crosswalks
involved ‘ multiple- threat’
collisiones” ( 1). Multiple-threat
collisiones occur
on multi- lane roads when
the driver and pedestrian
fail to see each other in
time to prevent a collision
because their line of sight
is blocked by a driver
yielding to the pedestrian
in an adjacent lane ( as
illustrated in FIGURE 5).
2.7. RESULTS
On the following pages we present a summary of the statistical analysis for the six observation sites. Photos of each
intersection and background characteristics are also provided as context.
Statistically significant findings are summarized for each intersection, followed by an overall summary of findings and
a discussion of the results.
􀀌 􀀒 􀀔 􀀕 􀀏 􀀚 􀀁 􀀋 􀀒 􀀕 􀀘 􀀖 􀀔 􀀁 􀀌 􀀖 􀀟 􀀙 􀀏 􀀚 􀀂 􀀁 􀀅 􀀈 􀀄 􀀅 􀀆 􀀄 􀀅 􀀉 􀀇
􀀁
􀀋 􀀍 􀀌 􀀒 􀀏 􀀊 􀀆 􀀄 􀀎 􀀡 􀀛 􀀠 􀀙 􀀝 􀀛 􀀗 􀀃 􀀑 􀀘 􀀞 􀀗 􀀔 􀀠 􀀉 􀀞 􀀔 􀀟 􀀘 􀀑 􀀢 􀀝 􀀗 􀀕
􀀐 􀀙 􀀠 􀀗 􀀁 􀀅 􀀇 􀀁 􀀉 􀀗 􀀖 􀀔 􀀞 􀀁 􀀐 􀀠 􀀄 􀀁 􀀔 􀀜 􀀖 􀀁 􀀓 􀀔 􀀛 􀀜 􀀡 􀀠 􀀁 􀀐 􀀠 􀀄 􀀂 􀀁 􀀈 􀀗 􀀞 􀀚 􀀗 􀀛 􀀗 􀀢
Figure 5
MULTIPLE- THREAT COLLISION TYPE
Source: http:// www. walkinginfo. org/ pedsafe/ images/ collisiontype_ c710m. gif
6 These pairs were analyzed separately because we believe driver behavior may be affected by the amount of time the pedestrian has been in the
crossing ( and thus the amount of lead time for a reaction from the driver).
2.7.1. SITE 1: CEDAR AND WALNUT
BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS:
■ Peak Pedestrian Volume:
19 pedestrians/ hour ( marked),
4 pedestrians/ hour ( unmarked)
■ Surrounding Land Uses:
Mostly residential and churches
with restaurants, a grocery store,
and a pharmacy within 1 block
■ Speed Limit Main Road:
( Cedar) 25 MPH
■ Distance from Nearest Traffic
Signal: 1 block ( 320 feet)
on Main Road
■ Important Note for This
Intersection:
Cedar is on a slight grade,
sloping downhill from east to
west. This topography may affect
driver and pedestrian behavior.
SUMMARY OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS, CEDAR AND WALNUT:
■ Female pedestrians are more likely to use the marked crosswalk.
■ Pedestrians in the unmarked crosswalk are more likely to run when crossing.
■ Pedestrians in the unmarked crosswalk are more likely to wait for larger gaps in traffic before crossing.
■ Drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians in the marked crosswalk.
􀀊 􀀌 􀀍 􀀎 􀀋 􀀒 􀀁 􀀉 􀀌 􀀎 􀀐 􀀏 􀀍 􀀁 􀀊 􀀏 􀀓 􀀑 􀀋 􀀒 􀀂 􀀁 􀀄 􀀇 􀀃 􀀄 􀀅 􀀃 􀀄 􀀈 􀀆
􀀄
􀀅
􀀂
􀀃
􀀅
􀀆
􀀇 􀀄
􀀈 􀀆 􀀂
􀀌 􀀆 􀀂
􀀇 􀀈 􀀋 􀀌 􀀏 􀀎 􀀆 􀀎 􀀂
􀀃 􀀊 􀀉 􀀈 􀀍 􀀆 􀀎 􀀂
􀀊 􀀒
􀀉 􀀏 􀀍 􀀕 􀀕 􀀖 􀀎 􀀐
􀀊 􀀒 􀀋 􀀇 􀀆
􀀇 􀀍 􀀑 􀀓 􀀖 􀀔
􀀈 􀀊 􀀉 􀀍 􀀌 􀀇 􀀃 􀀂 􀀅 􀀑 􀀐 􀀏 􀀚 􀀏 􀀗 􀀐 􀀎 􀀏 􀀕 􀀗 􀀜 􀀛 􀀆 􀀔 􀀏 􀀒 􀀚 􀀏 􀀖 􀀏 􀀗 􀀐 􀀄 􀀑 􀀚 􀀔 􀀏 􀀕 􀀋 􀀓 􀀘 􀀛 􀀘 􀀒 􀀚 􀀏 􀀙 􀀓
Figure 6
SITE 1: CEDAR AND WALNUT
DIAGRAM AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
Figure 7
SITE 1 PHOTOGRAPHS: CEDAR AND WALNUT
􀀉 􀀋 􀀌 􀀍 􀀊 􀀑 􀀁 􀀈 􀀋 􀀍 􀀏 􀀎 􀀌 􀀁 􀀉 􀀎 􀀒 􀀐 􀀊 􀀑 􀀂 􀀁 􀀄 􀀆 􀀃 􀀄 􀀅 􀀃 􀀄 􀀇 􀀆
􀀆 􀀈 􀀇 􀀌 􀀊 􀀅 􀀃 􀀂 􀀄 􀀐 􀀏 􀀎 􀀘 􀀎 􀀕 􀀏 􀀍 􀀎 􀀔 􀀕 􀀛 􀀚 􀀋 􀀓 􀀚 􀀐 􀀉 􀀒 􀀖 􀀚 􀀖 􀀑 􀀘 􀀎 􀀗 􀀒 􀀙
Table 3
SITE 1: CEDAR AND WALNUT
PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS BY CROSSWALK TYPE
􀀚 􀀦 􀀨 􀀩 􀀢 􀀮 􀀁 􀀘 􀀦 􀀩 􀀬 􀀪 􀀨 􀀁 􀀚 􀀪 􀀳 􀀭 􀀢 􀀮 􀀆 􀀁 􀀉 􀀏 􀀈 􀀉 􀀊 􀀈 􀀉 􀀐 􀀐
􀀖 􀀦 􀀲 􀀤 􀀱 􀀪 􀀰 􀀳 􀀪 􀀵 􀀦 􀀁 􀀞 􀀳 􀀢 􀀳 􀀪 􀀲 􀀳 􀀪 􀀤 􀀲 􀀓
􀀏 􀀇 􀀈 􀀌 􀀋 􀀅 􀀄 􀀎 􀀖 􀀕 􀀖 􀀠 􀀡 􀀟 􀀘 􀀒 􀀜 􀀉 􀀗 􀀒 􀀟 􀀒 􀀔 􀀡 􀀖 􀀟 􀀘 􀀠 􀀡 􀀘 􀀔 􀀠 􀀓 􀀥 􀀉 􀀟 􀀝 􀀠 􀀠 􀀤 􀀒 􀀚 􀀙 􀀏 􀀥 􀀞 􀀖 􀀂 􀀉 􀀖 􀀕 􀀒 􀀟 􀀒 􀀜 􀀕 􀀑 􀀒 􀀚 􀀜 􀀢 􀀡
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀒 􀀟 􀀙 􀀖 􀀕
􀀮 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅
􀀍 􀀒 􀀟 􀀙 􀀖 􀀕
􀀮 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅
􀀏 􀀝 􀀡 􀀒 􀀚
􀀛 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅 􀀁 􀀃 􀀣 􀀒 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖 􀀕
􀀎 􀀖 􀀕 􀀖 􀀠 􀀡 􀀟 􀀘 􀀒 􀀜 􀀠 􀀋 􀀉 􀀏 􀀏 􀀌 􀀒 􀀑 􀀍 􀀎
􀀔 􀀨 􀀦 􀀉 􀀇 􀀒 􀀉 􀀒 􀀍
􀀕 􀀩 􀀪 􀀬 􀀥 􀀉 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀊 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅 􀀊 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅
􀀟 􀀦 􀀦 􀀮 􀀊 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀏 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀒 􀀅 􀀐 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀑 􀀅
􀀡 􀀯 􀀴 􀀮 􀀨 􀀢 􀀥 􀀴 􀀬 􀀳 􀀑 􀀒 􀀄 􀀍 􀀌 􀀇 􀀏 􀀅 􀀋 􀀒 􀀊 􀀄 􀀍 􀀎 􀀇 􀀐 􀀅 􀀌 􀀑 􀀉 􀀄 􀀍 􀀎 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅
􀀜 􀀬 􀀥 􀀦 􀀱 􀀢 􀀥 􀀴 􀀬 􀀳 􀀒 􀀐 􀀄 􀀍 􀀐 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀋 􀀒 􀀋 􀀄 􀀍 􀀎 􀀇 􀀑 􀀅 􀀌 􀀑 􀀒 􀀄 􀀍 􀀏 􀀇 􀀌 􀀅
􀀗 􀀬 􀀥 􀀦 􀀱 􀀬 􀀸 􀀊 􀀐 􀀄 􀀑 􀀇 􀀌 􀀅 􀀍 􀀐 􀀄 􀀐 􀀇 􀀍 􀀅 􀀏 􀀍 􀀄 􀀐 􀀇 􀀏 􀀅
􀀞 􀀦 􀀷 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀍 􀀎 􀀊
􀀚 􀀢 􀀬 􀀦 􀀊 􀀉 􀀒 􀀄 􀀎 􀀋 􀀇 􀀒 􀀅 􀀋 􀀑 􀀏 􀀄 􀀍 􀀍 􀀇 􀀒 􀀅 􀀌 􀀒 􀀎 􀀄 􀀍 􀀏 􀀇 􀀒 􀀅
􀀘 􀀦 􀀭 􀀢 􀀬 􀀦 􀀒 􀀐 􀀄 􀀍 􀀐 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅 􀀌 􀀎 􀀊 􀀄 􀀎 􀀎 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅 􀀍 􀀍 􀀑 􀀄 􀀎 􀀌 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅
􀀔 􀀮 􀀢 􀀬 􀀸 􀀲 􀀪 􀀲 􀀁 􀀝 􀀦 􀀲 􀀴 􀀬 􀀳 􀀲 􀀓
􀀏 􀀇 􀀈 􀀌 􀀋 􀀆 􀀄 􀀎 􀀖 􀀕 􀀖 􀀠 􀀡 􀀟 􀀘 􀀒 􀀜 􀀒 􀀜 􀀕 􀀊 􀀟 􀀘 􀀣 􀀖 􀀟 􀀈 􀀖 􀀗 􀀒 􀀣 􀀘 􀀝 􀀟 􀀓 􀀥 􀀉 􀀟 􀀝 􀀠 􀀠 􀀤 􀀒 􀀚 􀀙 􀀏 􀀥 􀀞 􀀖 􀀂 􀀉 􀀖 􀀕 􀀒 􀀟 􀀒 􀀜 􀀕 􀀑 􀀒 􀀚 􀀜 􀀢 􀀡
􀀐 􀀜 􀀛 􀀒 􀀟 􀀙 􀀖 􀀕
􀀮 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅
􀀍 􀀒 􀀟 􀀙 􀀖 􀀕
􀀮 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅
􀀏 􀀝 􀀡 􀀒 􀀚
􀀛 􀀄 􀀤 􀀯 􀀬 􀀴 􀀭 􀀮 􀀂 􀀅 􀀁 􀀃 􀀣 􀀒 􀀚 􀀢 􀀖
ANALYSIS RESULTS:
Table 4
SITE 1: CEDAR AND WALNUT
PEDESTRIAN AND DRIVER BEHAVIOR BY CROSSWALK TYPE
􀀚 􀀤 􀀦 􀀧 􀀠 􀀬 􀀁 􀀘 􀀤 􀀧 􀀪 􀀨 􀀦 􀀁 􀀚 􀀨 􀀱 􀀫 􀀠 􀀬 􀀆 􀀁 􀀉 􀀏 􀀈 􀀉 􀀊 􀀈 􀀉 􀀐 􀀐
􀀕 􀀬 􀀠 􀀪 􀀶 􀀰 􀀨 􀀰 􀀁 􀀝 􀀤 􀀰 􀀲 􀀪 􀀱 􀀰 􀀓
􀀏 􀀇 􀀈 􀀌 􀀋 􀀆 􀀄 􀀎 􀀖 􀀕 􀀖 􀀡 􀀢 􀀠 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀒 􀀝 􀀕 􀀊 􀀠 􀀙 􀀤 􀀖 􀀠 􀀈 􀀖 􀀘 􀀒 􀀤 􀀙 􀀞 􀀠 􀀓 􀀦 􀀉 􀀠 􀀞 􀀡 􀀡 􀀥 􀀒 􀀛 􀀚 􀀏 􀀦 􀀟 􀀖 􀀂 􀀉 􀀖 􀀕 􀀒 􀀠 􀀒 􀀝 􀀕 􀀑 􀀒 􀀛 􀀝 􀀣 􀀢
􀀐 􀀝 􀀜 􀀒 􀀠 􀀚 􀀖 􀀕
􀀬 􀀄 􀀢 􀀭 􀀪 􀀲 􀀫 􀀬 􀀂 􀀅
􀀍 􀀒 􀀠 􀀚 􀀖 􀀕
􀀬 􀀄 􀀢 􀀭 􀀪 􀀲 􀀫 􀀬 􀀂 􀀅
􀀏 􀀞 􀀢 􀀒 􀀛
􀀛 􀀄 􀀢 􀀭 􀀪 􀀲 􀀫 􀀬 􀀂 􀀅 􀀁 􀀃 􀀤 􀀒 􀀛 􀀣 􀀖
􀀎 􀀖 􀀕 􀀖 􀀡 􀀢 􀀠 􀀙 􀀒 􀀝 􀀈 􀀖 􀀘 􀀒 􀀤 􀀙 􀀞 􀀠
􀀕 􀀰 􀀰 􀀤 􀀯 􀀱 􀀨 􀀳 􀀤 􀀬 􀀤 􀀰 􀀰 􀀉 􀀇 􀀊 􀀒 􀀐 􀀐
􀀟 􀀠 􀀨 􀀱 􀀤 􀀣 􀀭 􀀬 􀀢 􀀲 􀀯 􀀡 􀀐 􀀐 􀀄 􀀌 􀀐 􀀇 􀀐 􀀅 􀀋 􀀉 􀀒 􀀄 􀀌 􀀌 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀋 􀀑 􀀏 􀀄 􀀌 􀀍 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅
􀀟 􀀠 􀀨 􀀱 􀀤 􀀣 􀀭 􀀬 􀀰 􀀱 􀀯 􀀤 􀀤 􀀱 􀀎 􀀏 􀀄 􀀋 􀀐 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀋 􀀋 􀀋 􀀄 􀀌 􀀎 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀋 􀀐 􀀑 􀀄 􀀌 􀀌 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅
􀀗 􀀨 􀀣 􀀬 􀀭 􀀱 􀀴 􀀠 􀀨 􀀱 􀀐 􀀊 􀀄 􀀌 􀀍 􀀇 􀀑 􀀅 􀀋 􀀉 􀀊 􀀄 􀀌 􀀊 􀀇 􀀐 􀀅 􀀋 􀀐 􀀋 􀀄 􀀌 􀀋 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅
􀀘 􀀭 􀀯 􀀢 􀀤 􀀣 􀀣 􀀯 􀀨 􀀳 􀀤 􀀯 􀀱 􀀭 􀀶 􀀨 􀀤 􀀪 􀀣 􀀉 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀋 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀌 􀀅 􀀋 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅
􀀙 􀀭 􀀭 􀀩 􀀨 􀀬 􀀦 􀀉 􀀇 􀀌 􀀊 􀀏 􀀏
􀀗 􀀨 􀀣 􀀬 􀀃 􀀱 􀀪 􀀭 􀀭 􀀩 􀀍 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀊 􀀌 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅 􀀊 􀀐 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅
􀀙 􀀭 􀀭 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀭 􀀬 􀀤 􀀴 􀀠 􀀶 􀀌 􀀍 􀀄 􀀊 􀀐 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀊 􀀋 􀀏 􀀄 􀀋 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀊 􀀏 􀀉 􀀄 􀀊 􀀒 􀀇 􀀌 􀀅
􀀙 􀀭 􀀭 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀡 􀀭 􀀱 􀀧 􀀴 􀀠 􀀶 􀀰 􀀊 􀀋 􀀐 􀀄 􀀏 􀀌 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀍 􀀊 􀀌 􀀄 􀀏 􀀎 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀎 􀀍 􀀉 􀀄 􀀏 􀀎 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅
􀀙 􀀭 􀀭 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀫 􀀭 􀀯 􀀤 􀀱 􀀧 􀀠 􀀬 􀀋 􀀱 􀀨 􀀫 􀀤 􀀰 􀀌 􀀎 􀀄 􀀊 􀀐 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀐 􀀒 􀀄 􀀊 􀀋 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀊 􀀊 􀀍 􀀄 􀀊 􀀌 􀀇 􀀐 􀀅
􀀜 􀀠 􀀢 􀀤 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀉 􀀉 􀀌
􀀞 􀀪 􀀭 􀀴 􀀊 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅 􀀊 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅 􀀋 􀀄 􀀉 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅
􀀛 􀀭 􀀯 􀀫 􀀠 􀀪 􀀊 􀀐 􀀐 􀀄 􀀑 􀀎 􀀇 􀀒 􀀅 􀀎 􀀑 􀀏 􀀄 􀀒 􀀋 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀐 􀀏 􀀌 􀀄 􀀒 􀀉 􀀇 􀀎 􀀅
􀀘 􀀠 􀀰 􀀱 􀀎 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀍 􀀅 􀀊 􀀌 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀉 􀀅 􀀊 􀀑 􀀄 􀀋 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅
􀀝 􀀠 􀀬 􀀋 􀀌 􀀄 􀀊 􀀊 􀀇 􀀋 􀀅 􀀌 􀀐 􀀄 􀀎 􀀇 􀀑 􀀅 􀀏 􀀉 􀀄 􀀐 􀀇 􀀊 􀀅
􀀊 􀀠 􀀙 􀀤 􀀖 􀀠 􀀈 􀀖 􀀘 􀀒 􀀤 􀀙 􀀞 􀀠 􀀅 􀀏 􀀠 􀀒 􀀗 􀀗 􀀙 􀀔 􀀐 􀀝 􀀜 􀀒 􀀠 􀀚 􀀖 􀀕 􀀍 􀀒 􀀠 􀀚 􀀖 􀀕 􀀏 􀀞 􀀢 􀀒 􀀛 􀀁 􀀃 􀀤 􀀒 􀀛 􀀣 􀀖
􀀕 􀀳 􀀤 􀀯 􀀠 􀀦 􀀤 􀀦 􀀠 􀀮 􀀠 􀀢 􀀢 􀀤 􀀮 􀀱 􀀠 􀀬 􀀢 􀀤 􀀄 􀀪 􀀠 􀀬 􀀤 􀀰 􀀅 􀀊 􀀇 􀀊 􀀉 􀀇 􀀒 􀀊 􀀇 􀀉 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀉 􀀉 􀀎
􀀕 􀀳 􀀤 􀀯 􀀠 􀀦 􀀤 􀀬 􀀲 􀀫 􀀡 􀀤 􀀯 􀀭 􀀥 􀀨 􀀫 􀀫 􀀤 􀀣 􀀨 􀀠 􀀱 􀀤 􀀶 􀀨 􀀤 􀀪 􀀣 􀀰 􀀄 􀀣 􀀯 􀀨 􀀳 􀀤 􀀯 􀀰 􀀅 􀀉 􀀇 􀀍 􀀉 􀀇 􀀐 􀀉 􀀇 􀀏 􀀔 􀀉 􀀇 􀀉 􀀉 􀀉 􀀊
􀀕 􀀳 􀀤 􀀯 􀀠 􀀦 􀀤 􀀳 􀀤 􀀧 􀀨 􀀢 􀀪 􀀤 􀀤 􀀵 􀀮 􀀭 􀀰 􀀲 􀀯 􀀤 􀀄 􀀮 􀀤 􀀣 􀀤 􀀰 􀀱 􀀯 􀀨 􀀠 􀀬 􀀰 􀀅 􀀊 􀀇 􀀍 􀀊 􀀇 􀀍 􀀊 􀀇 􀀍 􀀉 􀀇 􀀎 􀀌 􀀑 􀀊
􀀞 􀀲 􀀫 􀀫 􀀠 􀀯 􀀶 􀀁 􀀭 􀀥 􀀁 􀀞 􀀱 􀀠 􀀱 􀀨 􀀰 􀀱 􀀨 􀀢 􀀠 􀀪 􀀪 􀀶 􀀁 􀀞 􀀨 􀀦 􀀬 􀀨 􀀥 􀀨 􀀢 􀀠 􀀬 􀀱 􀀘 􀀨 􀀬 􀀣 􀀨 􀀬 􀀦 􀀰 􀀆 􀀁 􀀖 􀀤 􀀣 􀀠 􀀯 􀀁 􀀠 􀀬 􀀣 􀀁 􀀟 􀀠 􀀪 􀀬 􀀲 􀀱 􀀓
􀀁 􀀘 􀀤 􀀫 􀀠 􀀪 􀀤 􀀁 􀀮 􀀤 􀀣 􀀤 􀀰 􀀱 􀀯 􀀨 􀀠 􀀬 􀀰 􀀁 􀀠 􀀯 􀀤 􀀫 􀀭 􀀯 􀀤 􀀁 􀀪 􀀨 􀀩 􀀤 􀀪 􀀶 􀀱 􀀭 􀀁 􀀲 􀀰 􀀤 􀀱 􀀧 􀀤 􀀁 􀀫 􀀠 􀀯 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀁 􀀢 􀀯 􀀭 􀀰 􀀰 􀀴 􀀠 􀀪 􀀩 􀀇
􀀁 􀀜 􀀤 􀀣 􀀤 􀀰 􀀱 􀀯 􀀨 􀀠 􀀬 􀀰 􀀁 􀀨 􀀬 􀀁 􀀱 􀀧 􀀤 􀀁 􀀲 􀀬 􀀫 􀀠 􀀯 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀁 􀀢 􀀯 􀀭 􀀰 􀀰 􀀴 􀀠 􀀪 􀀩 􀀁 􀀠 􀀯 􀀤 􀀁 􀀫 􀀭 􀀯 􀀤 􀀁 􀀪 􀀨 􀀩 􀀤 􀀪 􀀶 􀀁 􀀱 􀀭 􀀁 􀀯 􀀲 􀀬 􀀁 􀀴 􀀧 􀀤 􀀬 􀀢 􀀯 􀀭 􀀰 􀀰 􀀨 􀀬 􀀦 􀀇
􀀁 􀀜 􀀤 􀀣 􀀤 􀀰 􀀱 􀀯 􀀨 􀀠 􀀬 􀀰 􀀁 􀀨 􀀬 􀀁 􀀱 􀀧 􀀤 􀀁 􀀲 􀀬 􀀫 􀀠 􀀯 􀀩 􀀤 􀀣 􀀁 􀀢 􀀯 􀀭 􀀰 􀀰 􀀴 􀀠 􀀪 􀀩 􀀁 􀀠 􀀯 􀀤 􀀁 􀀫 􀀭 􀀯 􀀤 􀀪 􀀨 􀀩 􀀤 􀀪 􀀶 􀀁 􀀱 􀀭 􀀁 􀀴 􀀠 􀀨 􀀱 􀀁 􀀥 􀀭 􀀯 􀀁 􀀪 􀀠 􀀯 􀀦 􀀤 􀀯 􀀁 􀀦 􀀠 􀀮 􀀰 􀀁 􀀨 􀀬
􀀱 􀀯 􀀠 􀀥 􀀥 􀀨 􀀢 􀀁 􀀡 􀀤 􀀥 􀀭 􀀯 􀀤 􀀢 􀀯 􀀭 􀀰 􀀰 􀀨 􀀬 􀀦 􀀇
2.7.2. SITE 2: 16TH ST. AND CAPP ST., SAN FRANCISCO
BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS:
■ 2- Way Traffic Volume Main
Road: ( 16th Street) 8,700/ day
■ Peak Pedestrian Volume:
71 pedestrians/ hour ( marked
and unmarked crosswalks)
■ Surrounding Land Uses:
Restaurants, Bars, Food Markets,
Apartments
■ Speed Limit Main Road:
( 16th Street) 25 MPH
■ Distance from Nearest Traffic
Signal: Signal: 1 Block ( 280 feet)
on Main Road
■ Important Note for This
Intersection:
The Capp St. approaches to the
intersection are offset, which may
affect pedestrian and driver
behavior.
SUMMARY OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS, 16TH AND CAPP:
■ Pedestrians in the unmarked crosswalk are more likely to look both ways before crossing.
■ Pedestrians in the unmarked crosswalk are more likely to wait for larger gaps in traffic before crossing.
■ Drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians in the marked crosswalk.
■ Pedestrians in the marked crosswalk likely have a higher exposure to vehicles when crossing.
􀀊 􀀌 􀀍 􀀎 􀀋 􀀒 􀀁 􀀉 􀀌 􀀎 􀀐 􀀏 􀀍 􀀁 􀀊 􀀏 􀀓 􀀑 􀀋 􀀒 􀀂 􀀁 􀀄 􀀆 􀀃 􀀄 􀀅 􀀃 􀀄 􀀇 􀀈
􀀒 􀀚 􀀢 􀀗 􀀁 􀀅 􀀈 􀀁 􀀄 􀀆 􀀢 􀀙 􀀁 􀀒 􀀢 􀀃 􀀁 􀀔 􀀝 􀀖 􀀁 􀀊 􀀔 􀀟 􀀟 􀀒 􀀢 􀀃 􀀂 􀀁 􀀒 􀀔 􀀝 􀀁 􀀍 􀀠 􀀔 􀀝 􀀕 􀀚 􀀡 􀀕 􀀞
􀀍 􀀏 􀀎 􀀓 􀀑 􀀌 􀀇 􀀃 􀀄 􀀆 􀀢 􀀙 􀀔 􀀝 􀀖 􀀊 􀀔 􀀟 􀀟 􀀋 􀀚 􀀔 􀀘 􀀠 􀀔 􀀜 􀀔 􀀝 􀀖 􀀉 􀀗 􀀠 􀀚 􀀔 􀀛 􀀐 􀀙 􀀞 􀀢 􀀞 􀀘 􀀠 􀀔 􀀟 􀀙
Figure 8
SITE 2: 16TH AND CAPP
DIAGRAM AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
Figure 9
SITE 2 PHOTOGRAPHS: 16TH AND CAPP
􀀁 􀀜 􀀯 􀀥 􀀥 􀀤 􀀁 􀀗 􀀩 􀀬 􀀩 􀀲 􀀁 􀀘 􀀡 􀀩 􀀭 􀀁 􀀛 􀀮 􀀡 􀀤 􀀁 􀀂 􀀉 􀀌 􀀲 􀀨 􀀁 􀀜 􀀲 􀀰 􀀥 􀀥 􀀲 􀀃 􀀏 􀀁 􀀊 􀀋 􀀁 􀀘 􀀚 􀀕
􀀁 􀀓 􀀩 􀀱 􀀲 􀀡 􀀭 􀀣 􀀥 􀀁 􀀦 􀀰 􀀮 􀀬 􀀁 􀀙 􀀥 􀀡 􀀰 􀀥 􀀱 􀀲 􀀝 􀀰 􀀡 􀀦 􀀦 􀀩 􀀣 􀀁 􀀜 􀀩 􀀧 􀀭 􀀡 􀀫 􀀏 􀀁 􀀉 􀀁 􀀑 􀀫 􀀮 􀀣 􀀪 􀀁 􀀂 􀀊 􀀎 􀀈 􀀁 􀀦 􀀥 􀀥 􀀲 􀀃 􀀁 􀀮 􀀭 􀀁 􀀘 􀀡 􀀩 􀀭 􀀁 􀀛 􀀮 􀀡 􀀤
􀀁 􀀖 􀀬 􀀯 􀀮 􀀰 􀀲