U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Pedestrian & Bicycle / Hispanic Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety

Hispanic Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety

< Previous Table of Content Next >

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive pedestrian safety program proved to be a very challenging undertaking for each of the three field teams involved. There were many lessons learned over the course of the 6-year project, ranging from assembling and maintaining communications with a diverse set of project partners, to countermeasure selection and procurement, to the details associated with the successful application of particular countermeasures.

Considering the wide range of countermeasures installed, the various pedestrian safety problems at hand, the diverse locations and study sites at which the countermeasures were installed, and the somewhat different approaches to data collection and evaluation used by the three field teams, it is not surprising that the findings are fairly mixed and in some cases counterintuitive. These were studies conducted in the field with real-world variables that could not be controlled. Nonetheless, there were many notable and promising findings from the field tests and evaluations.

For the purposes of this summary and cross-cutting analysis report, the 18 countermeasures have been classified according their effectiveness in producing measurable changes in driver and/or pedestrian behaviors, as hypothesized for the evaluations. While it is recognized that other factors can certainly impact overall countermeasure effectiveness, the classification of the countermeasures in this way was done in an attempt to give the reader an idea as to which countermeasures may have the most promise in ultimately impacting pedestrian safety and which others may not. Countermeasures were classified in one of the following four categories: high effectiveness, moderate effectiveness, low effectiveness, or effectiveness depends on application.

HIGH EFFECTIVENESS

Seven of the countermeasures were classified as being highly effective in impacting behaviors related to pedestrian safety. These seven countermeasures cover a range of applications, including signal timing, active and in-street signs, call buttons that provide feedback, and roadway design elements. Each of the countermeasures offers something unique over traditional countermeasures, whether it provides additional information to pedestrians, is highly visible to pedestrians or motorists, or it gives an advantage to pedestrians when crossing. Therefore, it is not surprising that these countermeasures resulted in the most positive impacts. They include:

Leading pedestrian interval. Installed at four sites in San Francisco and two sites in Miami, the findings indicate that this countermeasure was effective at increasing left-turn driver yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, although the magnitude of left-turn yielding was smaller in San Francisco than in Miami (likely because left-turn driver yielding was already very high in San Francisco and therefore there was less opportunity for improvement). This effect does not appear to apply to right-turn driver yielding possibly due to the high frequency of right-turners who do not stop at a red light before turning. The Miami team also measured significant increases in pedestrian call button pushes and the number of pedestrians that started crossing at the beginning of the cycle.

Pedestrian countdown signals. The findings from the Miami sites strongly point to overall increases in safe pedestrian behavior as a result of the pedestrian countdown signals, with significant and consistent positive results for all three critical MOEs: call button pressing, pedestrians in the crosswalk at the end of flashing DON'T WALK, and pedestrian signal violations. The results from the Las Vegas study team, however, were mixed possibly due to signal timing issues at the intersections. The Las Vegas team also found a large increase in the percent of pedestrians that looked before crossing the street, which may have resulted from the animated eyes display on the countdown signal.

In-street pedestrian signs. Installed at nine sites across the three field deployment locations, in-street pedestrian crossings signs appear to be highly effective at increasing driver yielding to pedestrians. The location at the roadway centerline appears to capture drivers' attention more effectively than roadside signs, as evidenced by large increases in driver yielding at all but one of the nine sites. However, all three study teams noted that while these signs were effective in changing behaviors, they had a very short lifespan that ultimately impacted their long-term effectiveness at many of the sites. These issues, however, can be overcome in a number of ways, including:

Activated flashing beacons. There were some clear increases in pedestrian safety in San Francisco. There was a significant increase in drivers yielding, corresponding decreases in pedestrian delay, and decreases in conflicts at both sites. There was an increase in yielding distance at 16th & Capp and a decrease in pedestrians trapped at Mission & Santa Rosa. Driver yielding did not change significantly at the Las Vegas site, but this could have been a result of driver yielding improvements due to the installation of other countermeasures in earlier stages. For those drivers who yielded, yielding distances increased.

Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB). There were also clear safety benefits associated with the introduction of the pedestrian activated RRFB in Miami. After installation of the RRFBs, driver yielding to both staged pedestrians and local resident crossings increased at both deployment sites, the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the middle of the road decreased at one of the sites, and evasive conflicts decreased at both sites. At one of the sites, the number of conflicts decreased each time the RRFB treatment was introduced and increased each time it was removed. At the other site, the decrease in conflicts after the RRFB was introduced was maintained each time it was removed.

Call buttons that confirm the press. Installed in both Miami and Las Vegas at a total of three intersections, this countermeasure showed a fairly strong and consistent impact on an increased use of call buttons and, in turn, a reduction in pedestrian violations and pedestrians trapped in the roadway. Call button presses increased significantly and to above 50 percent at both Miami sites, and pedestrian signal violations decreased at all three sites (however, overall pedestrian signal violations remained above 50 percent at both Miami sites). It could be difficult, however, to see the LED light in bright sunlight, making the auditory feedback more critical to the efficacy of the device.

Danish offset combined with high-visibility crosswalk, advance yield markings, and YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS signs. Installed at two sites in Las Vegas, this combination of countermeasures appears to have led to an increase in safe pedestrian and driver behaviors. The Las Vegas team measured significant increases in driver yielding and diverted pedestrians as well as significant decreases in trapped pedestrians. Pedestrian delay was significantly reduced at the Lake Mead location where a designated crossing area had not previously existed, although pedestrian delay increased at Maryland and Dumont. There was no significant impact on vehicle delay at Lake Mead even though there was an increase in yielding. While driver yielding did increase significantly at the two locations, only 40 percent of drivers on Lake Mead Boulevard (mid-block location) yielded after installation of the countermeasures, while 76 percent of drivers on Maryland Parkway (signalized intersection) yielded after installation of the countermeasures. This could be a result of the location of the Danish offset, the type of Danish offset, and/or whether or not a crosswalk existed in the baseline condition. At the signalized intersection location at Maryland Parkway and Dumont, the Danish offset was made more visible with the use of bright yellow bollards and there was a crosswalk in the baseline condition. At the mid-block location along Lake Mead Boulevard, the Danish offset was perhaps less visible and was located where there was not previously a crosswalk. In addition, vehicle speed could also play a role in the results. Lake Mead Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph, while the posted speed limit on Maryland Parkway is 30 mph. Drivers may be more willing and able to yield on the lower speed roadway. In general, though, this suite of countermeasures appears to have made pedestrian crossings safer.

MEDIUM EFFECTIVENESS

Four of the countermeasures were classified as being of medium effectiveness in impacting behaviors related to pedestrian safety. These countermeasures were the most difficult to classify in that there were positive findings, yet the findings were either mixed, inconsistent, or inconclusive either within or across the field locations. They include:

Electronic No Turn on Red (NTOR) sign. Tested in Miami, and compared with both the static NTOR and the static conditional NTOR, the effectiveness of the electronic NTOR sign was assessed by observing driver violations of the NTOR restriction, right-turn drivers making complete stops, and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Use of the electronic NTOR sign resulted in the fewest turning violations overall (32 percent) of the three signs tested and markedly fewer turning violations when a pedestrian was present at the curb (only 25 percent as compared to over 90 percent with the static signs). Following installation of the electronic sign, there was also a large increase in the percentage of violators who came to a complete stop before violating the turn restriction.

Prohibition of permissive left turns. Installed at one site in Miami, the data indicate that this countermeasure may be an effective way to improve pedestrian safety at intersections by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts; however, the findings also indicate that there was a substantial portion of left-turners that violated the red signal. While this countermeasure has potential for increasing pedestrian safety, the signal configuration should be taken into consideration in order to mitigate left-turners violating the signal.

Portable speed trailers. Installed in all three field locations, the primary MOE for assessing the effectiveness of speed trailers was average vehicles speed and driver yielding. The San Francisco team measured significant reductions in speed at their two test sites, while the Miami team did not. Significant increases in driver yielding at the San Francisco sites translated into decreases in pedestrian delays. There was an increase in driver braking mid-block in Miami, but no significant increase in driver yielding in Las Vegas. Based on these findings, it appears that the speed trailers can impact drivers' speeds and possibly increase their awareness of the presence of pedestrians at these locations, but it is unlikely that these impacts will remain once the signs are removed.

Automated pedestrian detection (to activate or extend pedestrian crossing phase). Installed in both San Francisco and Miami, the only significant finding was a 9 percent reduction in the percentage of pedestrians trapped in the roadway at the Miami site (where the automated pedestrian detection was used to initiate the pedestrian crossing phase). While these results suggest that pedestrians may have been making safer crossings, there were no measurable impacts of the pedestrian detection systems on pedestrian clearance (those clearing before the end of the WALK or clearance phases) or conflicts with motor vehicles (which were generally low to begin with). In San Francisco, where the automated pedestrian detection was used to extend the pedestrian crossing phase, the team noted promise for the technology, but recommends further testing and refinement.

LOW EFFECTIVENESS

Five of the countermeasures were classified as having low effectiveness in impacting behaviors related to pedestrian safety. Three of these countermeasures were pavement markings and two were static signs. These five countermeasures are relatively static and it is not surprising that they did not produce more significant results. The low effectiveness countermeasures include:

High visibility crosswalks. Tested at three locations in Las Vegas, there were no significant increases in driver yielding at any of the sites, and yielding distance results were inconsistent across the sites. There were significant reductions in drivers blocking the crosswalk at one of the sites. The results showed that high visibility crosswalks do not appear to be effective in changing driver behaviors in the vicinity of the crosswalks. This result could be due in part to the fact that the crosswalk markings deteriorated in a matter of weeks as a result of the heat causing a release of oils in the pavement.

Advance yield markings. Installed at two locations in San Francisco, there were no significant changes in driver yielding, vehicle stop position, or pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at either site after installation of the advance stop lines. Based on these results, it appears that advance stop lines had no impacts on driver behavior or pedestrian safety.

LOOK pavement stencils. Installed at four sites in San Francisco, there were few impacts on pedestrian looking behaviors and no impact on pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Although the LOOK stencil markings are one of the least expensive countermeasures tested, the results indicate that this is not an effective countermeasure. Additionally, the San Francisco team noted that they were highly susceptible to fading and blemishes (similar to the high visibility crosswalk treatments in Las Vegas).

TURNING TRAFFIC YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs. Installed at eight sites across the three field test locations, driver yielding behavior was the primary MOE for assessing the effectiveness of these signs. While there were a few significant changes found across the eight sites, there were inconsistencies in what changes were found and at which sites. These findings limit the conclusions that can be made regarding the effectiveness of these signs.

Pedestrian zone signs. Installed at one site in Miami, the results indicate that the countermeasure was not effective in reducing speed or increasing driver yielding / braking in the presence of pedestrians. The researchers have suggested that this ineffectiveness may be related to the low speeds observed prior to deployment, and therefore there was not much margin for improvement.

EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS ON APPLICATION

The effectiveness of two of the countermeasures seemed to depend mostly on the application, with positive impacts in one application and less positive impacts in another application. These countermeasures include:

Median refuge island. Based on the results, it appears that the installation of a median refuge island at a mid-block location was effective in increasing driver yielding to pedestrians and reducing pedestrian delay, while the median refuge islands at the signalized intersections in San Francisco appear to be less effective at altering driver and pedestrian behaviors.

Dynamic lighting. The findings from the Las Vegas team that tested the impacts of dynamic lighting at a high-visibility crosswalk location suggest that dynamic lighting used with automatic pedestrian detection increases safe driver and pedestrian behaviors. Driver yielding and pedestrian diversion increased significantly while the percent of trapped pedestrians significantly decreased. While driver yielding increased, its prevalence was still low at 35 percent. In Miami, the addition of dynamic lighting to a crosswalk that had a RRFB did not appear to further improve driver yielding or pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Miami researchers suggested that this may have occurred because the dynamic lighting is not very noticeable in the presence of highly intense flashing beacons.

 

< Previous Table of Content Next >
Page last modified on February 1, 2013
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000