Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop crash modification factors for four treatment types: rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), pedestrian refuge island (RI), and advance yield or stop markings and signs (AS). From 14 cities throughout the United States, 975 treatment and comparison sites were selected. Most of the treatment sites were selected at intersections on urban, multilane streets, because these locations present a high risk for pedestrian crashes and are where countermeasures typically are needed most. For each treatment site, relevant data were collected on the treatment characteristics, traffic, geometric, and roadway variables, and the pedestrian crashes and other crash types that occurred at each site. Cross-sectional regression models and before–after empirical Bayesian analysis techniques were used to determine the crash effects of each treatment type. All four of the treatment types were found to be associated with reductions in pedestrian crash risk, compared with the reductions at untreated sites. PHBs were associated with the greatest reduction of pedestrian crash risk (55% reduction), followed by RRFBs (47% reduction), RIs (32% reduction), and AS (25% reduction). The results for RRFBs had their basis in a limited sample and must be used with caution.

Influence of Advanced Placement of the In-Street Sign Gateway on Distance of Yielding from the Crosswalk

“…Driver yielding was measured in relationship to an objective DZ (a location beyond which a driver can easily yield if a pedestrian enters the crosswalk). This distance was calculated using the ITE signal timing formula that takes into account driver reaction time, safe deceleration rate, the posted speed, and the grade of the road ( 10 ). Motorists who had not passed the outer boundary of the DZ when a pedestrian (i.e., a research assistant) entered the crosswalk were scored as yielding or not yielding because they had sufficient time and space to stop safely for the pedestrian.…”

“…Advanced yield pavement markings and sign prompts have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing motorist–pedestrian conflicts (i.e., near collisions), marginally increasing yielding, and increasing yielding distances ( 8 , 9 ). A recent study by Zegeer and colleagues ( 10 ) estimated Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for several pedestrian crossing treatments, including advanced yield or stop markings and signs (AS). The AS treatment produced reductions in total crashes (11%), rear-end and sideswipe crashes (20%), and pedestrian crashes (36%), with an estimated CMF for pedestrian crashes of 0.863 ( 10 ).…”

“…A recent study by Zegeer and colleagues ( 10 ) estimated Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for several pedestrian crossing treatments, including advanced yield or stop markings and signs (AS). The AS treatment produced reductions in total crashes (11%), rear-end and sideswipe crashes (20%), and pedestrian crashes (36%), with an estimated CMF for pedestrian crashes of 0.863 ( 10 ). It is worth noting that the cost of such treatments is comparable to the in-street gateway ( 11 ), however the gateway produces substantially higher levels of motorist yielding ( 3 , 8 , 9 ).…”

Improving Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crosswalk by Using Upstream Detection Strategy

“…Previous studies have demonstrated that PHB has improved the driver compliance rate [3,[12][13][14], reduced pedestrian accidents [15,16], and decreased unnecessary vehicle delay [17]. However, other studies indicate a low pedestrian compliance rate with PHB.…”

Examining generalization of motorist yielding at an adjacent crosswalk with variations of the gateway sign configuration

“…A follow-up study examined the combined and individual effects of each component in the treatment package and found that advanced yield markings alone (1) were more effective than the sign alone, (2) were as effective as the markings plus sign in reducing conflicts between pedestrians and motorists, and (3) increased yielding distance (Huybers et al, 2004). These relatively simple countermeasures were associated with an 11% reduction in the total number of crashes, and a 36% reduction in pedestrian crashes at treated locations (Zegeer et al, 2017).…”