April 12, 2024
Research and Investigation
Meeting Report

2303A
Feasibility Study of Drivers Yielding
Behavior to the Pedestrians at
Unsignalized Crossing
Professor, Science and Technology Department, Nihon University
Satoru Kobayakawa (Project Leader)Nihon University Graduate School Working Graduate Student
Nobuhiro Yoshimura (Special Researcher)1

Project Members
Members of IATSS:
Satoru Kobayakawa (Nihon University, Science and Engineering Department, Professor)
Taro Sekine (Nihon University, Science and Engineering Department, Professor)
Nobuaki Takubo (Institute for Traffic Research and Data Analysis, Research Department, Deputy Director)
Toshihiro Hiraoka (Japan Automobile Research Institute, Chief Researcher)
Keisuke Matsuhashi (National Institute for Environmental Studies Director, Social Systems Division, Director)
Non-IATSS members:
Kunimichi Takada (IATSS Advisor & Nihon University, Professor Emeritus)
Atsushi Fukuda (IATSS Advisor & Nihon University, Science and Engineering Department, Professor)
Michiko Matsumura (IATSS Advisor & Town Creator)
Akira Otani (Japan Automobile Research Institute, Chief Researcher)
Hiroki Kikuchi (Nihon University, Science and Engineering Department, Assistant Professor)
Eri Aoyama (Nihon University, Science and Engineering Department, Research Assistant)Nobuhiro Yoshimura (Nihon University, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Working Graduate Student)2

Project Background••

Need sustainable traffic signal management
Need to address aging traffic signals andmaintenance problems
May lead to the need of pedestrian crossingsmanagement without use of traffic signals•

Traffic
safetyfacility
measures

People who paused[%]Number of policing

Percentage of stopping at crosswalks
Nationwide average 39.8%(JAF investigation conducted in FY2022)

Source: Compiled by the author based on data from the National Police
Agency and JAF(The number for FY 2022 has not yet been announced.)

Standard
unsignalized
pedestriancrossing(Traffic signs andindications)Traffic safety facilities thatenhances traffic control(overhanging signs,
colored pavement,
caution signs, etc.)

New traffic safety facilities are needed3

Examples of Measures Taken Overseas

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) have been introduced
overseas to alert drivers with flashing lights.

4

Project Objectives• This study will organize the concept of safety improvement
facilities for unsignalized pedestrian crossings and measures toencourage vehicles to make a stop at unsignalized crosswalks inother countries.
• Will analyze vehicle and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized
crosswalks in Japan to examine the potential for flash-type alert
facilities in Japan and suggestions for encouraging vehicles toyield at unsignalized crosswalks.

5Visit to CARMANAH Technologies

6Status of RRFB Installment
Vancouver City
50 installed
RRFBs *1 * 2 * 3*1 RRFBs were confirmed to be installed
mainly from Google Streetview in2022~2023.
* 2 The list of installation locations isprovided by Carmanah Technologies.
* 3 Includes old model RRFBs.

Vancouver City Open Data on RRFBs installment by road levels shows that
secondary road has most installments
Arterial
Road

Secondary
Road

Collector

Residential
Road

Total

14
locations23
locations11
locations

2 locations

50
locations

Arterial Road : Road connecting to a highway
Secondary Road: Road connecting to an arterial road
Collector: Road connecting to secondary road
Residential Road: Local street

7

RRFB Installment Status

8

RRFB Installment Status

9

Status of RRFB implementation

10

Status of RRFB implementation

11

Status of RRFB implementation

12

Investigation Results in North America
Percentage of yield with and without flash
100

譲り率[%]

80

90.7
80.0

Duration of flash

77.7
60.0

60

48.6

48.1

40

・Beach Av. at Thurlow St. 17 sec.
(Crossing distance: approx. 11 m)
・ W Hastings St.
15 sec.
(Crossing distance: approx. 8 m)

20

0

Flash
閃光あり
(n=10)

No
flash
閃光なし
(n=5)

Beach Av. at Thurlow St.

閃光あり
Flash
(n=121)

閃光なし
No
flash

(n=58)(Jan. 9)W Hastings St.(1月9日)

Flash
閃光あり
(n=43)

No
flash
閃光なし
(n=27)The yield rate is higher with flash(Jan. 10)W Hastings St.(1月10日)*Investigated in a situation where a vehicle was approaching a crosswalk.

13

Investigation Results in North America
RRFB utilization rate by pedestrians crossing the street
Crossing using
RRFBを使用して横断
RRFB

Crossing
使用せず横断without

Crossing during
閃光中に横断flash

5.0%

Beach Av. at Thurlow St.
(n=60)

38.3%

W Hastings St.(1月9日)(Jan. 9)(n=245)

53.5%(Jan. 10)W Hastings St.(1月10日)(n=121)

55.4%

0%

20%

*Circumstances in which the vehicle is not approaching acrosswalk are also included in the sample count.

56.7%

Duration of flash

24.9%

21.6%

27.3%

40%

60%

・Beach Av. at Thurlow St. 17 sec.
(Crossing distance: approx. 11 m)
・ W Hastings St.
15 sec.
(Crossing distance: approx. 8 m)

17.4%

80%

100%

RRFB utilization ishigh
14Hearing on RRFB
• RRFBs were developed around 2006, and the 2007 Florida
experiment reported significant improvements in yielding rates, which
led to RRFB introduction in many locations.
• It was initially a temporary measure and was not officially recognizedin the MUTCD until 2023.
• There are three potential areas to introduce RRFB: Downtown,
Suburban, and Rural. Introducing RRFB in the Suburban area isthought to be most appropriate.
• The deciding factor will be the vehicle and pedestrian traffic amount.
• Vehicle and pedestrian speed are also important factors but are
difficult to measure in practice, so traffic amount is being considered.
15

16

17

18

Traffic Investigation of Unsignalized Pedestrian
Crossings in Japan
Investigation Point: Pedestrian crossing in front of JR Tsudanuma Station (2 locations)
Ground plan
Tsudanuma crossroads
intersection

On-site viewpoint

Point B

Investigation
Location

Investigation
Date

Inbound
Point B
Point A
JR

Ts
ud
an
um

OutboundSurvey`Point A
Summary

Investigation
MethodPoint A: Crossing at 2-18 Maehara-nishi, Funabashi City,
Chiba Prefecture
Point B: Crossing at 2-21 Maehara-nishi, Funabashi City,
Chiba Prefecture
Investigation Date: September 11, 2023 (Mon) Wednesday, September 13, 2023
Survey hours: 12:00 to 22:00 (10 consecutive hours perday)
Observation survey by high altitude video camera (viewpole)
Number of cameras placed: 2 at point A, 1 at point B

Number of accidents
a

St
at
io
n

Number of traffic accidents (people vs. vehicles)
Cumulative total for FY 2021 and 2022
*Taken from the pedestrian deck of
JR Tsudanuma Station

Point A

Point B

2 cases/2 years

5 cases/2 years*Accident data provided by Chiba Prefectural Police.

■ Unsignalized pedestrian crossing installed on a four-lane round-trip road■ Distance from adjacent traffic signals makes it difficult to install traffic signals
19

Observation Method

津⽥沼⼗字路Tsudanuma
交差点
crossroads
intersection

津⽥沼⼗字路Tsudanuma
交差点
crossroads
intersection

Point Bcamera 1
旧パルコ
Former
PARCO(Now Viit)(現Viit)Point B Camea 1

JR Tsudanuma Station

Point A Camera 2

JR津⽥沼駅
JR Tsudanuma Station

Former PARCO(now Viit)

Point A Camea 1

Tsudanuma Station*Created by processing Geographical Survey Institute maps

Point A Camera 2

Point A Camera 1

20

Determination of yielding behavior basedon pedestrian crossing patterns
Standing on the sidewalkStanding in the roadway

Crossing

Moving through sidewalk
STOP

21

Observation results： Vehicle type and pedestrian (Point A)
Sample size

Sample size

Vehicle type (n)[%] (n)[%] (n)[%] (n)Automobile

Cab

Bus

Freightcar

Smallfreightcar

1749[69.1]

255[10.1]

166
[6.5]

94
[3.7]

95
[3.8]

Gender (n)[%].
Two-wheeledvehicle

Total

Male

Female

Unkno
wn

Total

171
[6.8]

2530
[100]

571
[49.4]

583[50.3]

3
[0.3]

1157
[100]

Composition by time
Automobile
普通自動車

Taxi
タクシー

Bus
バス

Freight
普通貨物車

Small freight
小型貨物車
car

Two-wheeled vehicle
二輪車

Male
男性

n=253012 P.M
12時台

12時台
12 P.M

1 P.M
13時台

1 P.M
13時台

2 P.M
14時台

14時台
2 P.M

3 P.M
15時台

15時台
3 P.M
時間帯

4 P.M
16時台

Time

Time
時間帯

Car

Composition by time

5 P.M
17時台

17時台
5 P.M

18時台
6 P.M

7 P.M
19時台

19時台
7 P.M

8 P.M
20時台

20時台
8 P.M

9 P.M
21時台

21時台
9 P.M

20%

40%

60%

80%

*If multiple vehicles pass by one pedestrian, all passing
vehicles are counted.

100%

n=1157

16時台
4 P.M

6 P.M
18時台

0%

女性
Female

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*Even if multiple vehicles pass through per 1 pedestrian at the crossing, it iscounted as one in terms of the number of pedestrians per event.

22

Observations Yield Rate (Actual Situation of Pedestrian Priority)
Yield rate at 2 pedestrian crossings in front of JR Tsudanuma Station (3-day total)
Location A (n=2530) 40.9% Location B (n=1829) 40.9 %薄暮:17:00〜19:00
Evening:17:00~19:00

昼間:12:00〜17:00
Day:12:00~17:00

100

100
n=2530n=1829

80

80

60
42.6

39.7

38.8

40
20

Noon
昼間

Evening
薄暮

Night
夜間

(n=1271)(n=604)(n=655)

Yield譲り率[%]
Rate [％]

譲り率[%]
Yield
Rate [％]

夜間:19:00〜22:00
Night:19:00~22:00

Yield Rate at Point B throughout the day

Yield Rate at Point A throughout the day

0*The term "yield" is defined in thisinvestigation as the combination of "stop"and "decelerate (go slowly)".

60
43.7

40.6

40

35.2

■ No significant difference in yieldrates when broken down by time of
day

20
0
Noon
昼間

Evening
薄暮

Night
夜間

(n=936)(n=456)(n=437)23

Factors Affecting Yield■ Is there a difference in yield rate when investigation items are subdivided (Analyzed at Site A)
Number of vehicles (N=2530)
Yielded.
intransigent(n=1036)(n=1494)

Number ofpedestrians(n)[%].

Single681[37.6].

1131[62.4].

Several355[49.4]

363[50.6].

Near-side

467 [45.4].

561[54.6].

Pedestriancrossing
position(n)[%].

Far-side459 [35.5].

835[64.5].

Both sides

110 [52.9].

98 [47.1].

Vehicle Type(n)[%].

Automobile
Taxi674[38.5].
130 [51.0].

1075[61.5].
125[49.0]Bus

127 [76.5].

39[23.5]

Freight
Small freight
Motorcycle

45[47.9]26[27.4]
34[19.9].

49[52.1]
69[72.6]
137[80.1]

130 [29.7].

308[70.3]

61[51.3].

58[48.7]

82 [26.9].

223[73.1].

125[42.4]

170[57.6]

542[42.6].
240 [39.7].
254[38.8]729[57.4].
364[60.3].
401[61.2].

Pedestrian
behavior(n)[%].

Time zone(n)[%].

Standing at the
sidewalk
Standing in the
roadway
Crossing
Moving throughthe sidewalk
Day
EveningNight

P-value＜0.001**＜0.001***A residual analysis was performed to compare groups as asubanalysis, but the results are omitted.

Factors andcircumstancesthat leads to not yielding
or hard to yield

SingleSeveralLeft side from the drivernear-side：運転者から見て左側＜0.001**

Far-side
far-side：運転者から見て右側
Right side fromthe driver

Automobile

Small freight car

Motorcycle＜0.001**

Standing on the sidewalk

Crossing

0.21

24

Yield Rate Results by Lane (Point A)
Yield rate by lane (location A)

Tsudanuma Station

Second Lane

Third Lane

Fourth Lane

第4車線
(n=16)

至津
第2車線(n=721) 田沼
第3車線
十(n=444)
字
第4車線
(n=5)
路
第1車線
(n=87)

19.5%

41.9%

Second Lane

38.0%

35.1%

49.3%
18.8%

Third Lane

Fourth Lane

60.0%

First lane

至第2車線
津 (n=528)
田
沼 第3車線(n=470)
駅

47.1%

Second lane

第1車線
(n=51)First Lane

Third laneFirst Lane

Fourth lane

n=2322Tsudanuma crossroads intersection

On-site Situation

second lane

Third lane

Analysis based on near-side and far-side data, excluding both sides with single and multiple pedestrians.

■The yield rate is higher for vehicles traveling in the lane closer to thepedestrian crossing position.

25

Yield Rate Results by Lane (Point B)
Comparison of yield rates by signal light color

Tsudanuma Station

n=1753First Lane

第1車線
(n=187)

至Second
第2車線Lane
津 (n=168)
田
Third Lane
沼 第3車線(n=480)
駅 Fourth Lane
第4車線
(n=55)

54.0%

37.5%

40.6%

第1車線
(n=230)

36.6%

47.2%

21.8%

至
津
SecondLane
第2車線(n=232) 田
沼
Third
Lane
第3車線
(n=371) 十字
FourthLane
第4車線(n=30)路
First Lane

22.2%

40.0%

Tsudanuma crossroads intersection

Yield rate by lane (Position B)

Green Light

Investigation result

Signal light color(n)[%].
[Adjusted residuals
errors]■Yield rate by lane tends to be the sameas at Point A

Red Light

Red

Number of vehicles (N=851)
YieldedDid not yield(n=325)(n=526)232[41.4]
329 [58.6].
[2.6].
[-2.6].

Green

72 [29.4].

173[70.6].

Yellow[-3.4].
21[46.7][1.2[3.4
24 [53.3].
[-1.2].

P-value＜0.001**■ Significantly more likely to yield when the signal lightcolor is green compared to red
26

Summary of Investigation on Pedestrian Priority■ Average yield rates (3-day/10-hour observation) at points A and B are both 40.9%■ There was no significant trend in yield rates across time periods■ As for crossing behavior, yield rate when standing on the sidewalk and crossing tends to decrease■ Measures to increase legal compliance and attention to pedestrians for drivers are necessary

Research issues gained from this investigation
Due to differences in the number of lanes (crossing distance) and other factors, some crossing behaviors may beobserved at crossings on four-lane roundtrip roads that are less frequently observed at crossings on two-laneroundtrip roads.
→Requires behavior categorization regarding crossing in this study
Stop at the edge of the crossing or the street and look carefully to the right and left to see if a car is approaching.
(Rules of the road, Chapter 2 Pedestrian Tips, Section 3 How to Cross the Street, Article 3.2 partial excerpt)

Preferably, pedestrians should also stop before the crossing for safety
To move forward with measures to improve safety,

Need to analyze pedestrian crossing behavior at crossings on multi-lane roads
27

Previous studies on Pedestrian Road Crossing Behavior
Pedestrian Decisions(Human Factors)

Psychophysics-based Gap Acceptance(PGA Model)

Tendency to make crossing decisions
based on vehicle arrival time rather than
distance from vehicle
Petzoldt (2014)

・Model that incorporates vehicle arrival time as a crossing decision
・ Analysis based on representative values, variance, distribution, etc. ofgaps
Kadali & Perumal (2012), Yannis et al. (2010), Ishiyama et al. (2018)

Challenges exist when applying to multi-lane roads (Figure Normal Gap)
Analysis from three cross-sectional methods based on Lane-Based Gap (LGAP) Zhang(2018)st1 Lane
第1車線

1st Lane
第1車線
第2車線
2nd Lane
GAP

第3車線
3rd Laneth

4 Lane
第4車線
th

5 Lane
第5車線

Assume that the shortest gap
concerning the crossing surface
determines the crossing decision
Issue: gap that would normally berejected

LGAP3
LGAP2

2nd Lane
第2車線

LGAP1

3rd Lane
第3車線
th

4 Lane
第4車線
th

5 Lane
第5車線
第6車線
6st Lane

6st Lane
第6車線

Normal Gap

LGAP of lanes 1 and 2 are long,so lane 3, through which thevehicle passes, is judged to be
crossable.
Characteristic: Analysis
considering subsequent gaps (1stand 2nd) is possible.

LGAP

Pedestrians' choice of crossing method
1. Single Crossing, 2. Two-Stage Crossing, 3. Rolling Gap Crossing28

LGAP and Crossing Method 1
Typical gap value = time [s] (distance/velocity)
Gap value in this investigation= distance from vehicle [m] (surveyed every 5 m)

1. Crossing in a situation
where a gap with the vehicle ismaintained until the end of thecrossing

st

1 Lane
第1車線

SingleCrossing

第2車線
2nd Lane

LGAPrd

3 Lane
第3車線

LGAP

th

4 Lane
第4車線

1st Lane
第1車線

Two-Stage
Crossing

LGAP

第2車線
2nd Lane
3rd Lane
第3車線

No
vehicle
車両なし

4th Lane
第4車線

At a stop
一時停止中

1. When there is no vehicle in
the front lane or a vehicle in
the front lane is at a stop sign
2. A vehicle in the rear lanepasses through the crosswalk
while crossing
29

LGAP and Crossing Method 2
1st Lane
第1車線

Rolling Gap
Crossing

第2車線
2nd Lane

LGAP
LGAP

LGAP

3rd Lane
第3車線

LGAP

4th Lane
第4車線

凡例

減速・停止

1st Lane
第1車線

Standing on the
Sidewalk

第2車線
2nd Lane

LGAPrd

3 Lane
第3車線
4th Lane
第4車線

LGAP

1 A situation where apedestrian slows down orstops to avoid crossing avehicle in the front lane anda vehicle is moving in the
far-side lane.

1 Situation where a pedestrianstops on the sidewalk while avehicle is approaching
2 A situation where a vehicle
has started to cross the street
after stopping or passing
through a pedestrian crossing.

*Analysis based on single pedestrian only
*LGAP is the distance from the crosswalk cross section to the vehicle at the time the pedestrian begins crossing.

30

Investigation Results (partial) and Analysis
男性Standing on
the Sidewalk
歩道佇立

23.4%

Rolling Gap
ローリング
ギャップ
22.6%

Single
一段階横断(n=161)

n=492

56.5%

Two-stage
二段階横断

Single
一段階横断
32.7%

43.5%

65.7%

(n=105)
Rolling Gap(n=111)

Two-stage

女性

34.3%

55.0%

45.0%

Standing on the Sidewalk

二段階横断
21.3%

歩道佇立
(n=115)40.0%

0%■ Percentages of the four crossing methods
are about the same

20%

60.0%

40%

60%

80%

100%

■ Men are more likely to cross in two stages
while women are more likely to stand on the
sidewalk

Analysis■ About 40% of pedestrians (two-stage and rolling gap) choose a different crossing method than recommended■ Expect more pedestrians to attempt to cross based on gap decision than to indicate intention to cross ahead oftime→At night, that decision could be made incorrectly.
■ In cases where the gap is small, it is necessary to reexamine and reintroduce the method of stopping before thepedestrian crossing to inform drivers of their intention to cross (including raising their hands).

31

Discussions at Research Project Meetings• Discussion of the relationship between the yield rate andthe stop rate
• Importance of indicating willingness to cross• Relationship with other devices

32

Road Traffic Law
Article 38, Paragraph 1
When a vehicle crosses or is about to cross in front of its path at a pedestrian crossing, the vehicle shall stop
immediately in front of the pedestrian crossing and shall not obstruct the passage of pedestrians.
*Excerpts applicable to pedestrians only

City of Vancouver Traffic Regulations (Streets and Traffic By-Law No. 2849), Article 11, Section 1"The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if necessary to soyield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian:"

Canadian traffic rules determine whether pedestrians have priority
based on two vehicle behaviors: “stopping" and "slowing down”.
33Discussions at Research Project Meetings• In North America, the indication of the intention to cross (pushthe button) is considered important• Indicate the intention→ car yields → learn that if they push the button,
the car will yield → many people will push the button• Positive learning effects may be evident.
• Reduce the number of pedestrians who do not know whether to cross• Push-buttons are better than sensors

34

Discussions at Research Project Meetings• Relationship with other devices• The relationship between pedestrian and automobile traffic is important.
• Relationship between traffic smoothness (vehicle-side smoothness andpedestrian-side smoothness) and safety• Effective on secondary arterial roads (quasi-arterial roads) that connect
arterial roads with residential roads• If the rate of pause is improved by signaling intent, then RRFB may
be very effective35

36