A Review of Pedestrian Safety

Research in the United States

and Abroad

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-03-042 JANUARY 2004

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD

The overall goal of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

Research Program is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks,

sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanded public educational and safety programs, the FHWA’s

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program aims to pave the way for a more walkable future.

The following document summarizes research on pedestrian safety in the United States with a focus on

crash characteristics and the safety effects of various roadway features and traffic-control devices; it also

considers pedestrian educational and enforcement programs. This pedestrian safety synthesis was part of

a large FHWA study (“Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities”) that has generated several other documents on

the safety of pedestrian crossings and the effects of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian

safety. These other reports on pedestrian safety likely will interest readers. 

The results of this research will be useful to transportation researchers, engineers, planners, and safety

professionals involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility.

Michael F. Trentacoste

Director, Office of Safety

 Research and Development

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use

thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names

appear herein only because they are considered essential to the purpose of the document.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.

FHWA-RD-03-042

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

 A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad 

5. Report Date

 January 2004

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

 B.J. Campbell, Charles V. Zegeer, Herman H. Huang, and 

 Michael J. Cynecki 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

 University of North Carolina 

 Highway Safety Research Center

 730 Airport Rd, CB #3430

 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

 DTFH61-92-C-00138

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

 Office of Safety Research and Development

 Federal Highway Administration 

 6300 Georgetown Pike

 McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 Final Report

 1999-2002

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

 This report is part of a larger study for FHWA entitled, “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities.” FHWA Contracting

 Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs): Carol Tan Esse and Ann Do, HRDS.

16. Abstract

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of research studies on pedestrian safety in the United States;

some foreign research also is included. Readers will find details of pedestrian crash characteristics, measures of

pedestrian exposure and hazard, and specific roadway features and their effects on pedestrian safety. Such features

include crosswalks and alternative crossing treatments, signalization, signing, pedestrian refuge islands, provisions

for pedestrians with disabilities, bus stop location, school crossing measures, reflectorization and conspicuity, gradeseparated crossings, traffic-calming measures, and sidewalks and paths. Pedestrian educational and enforcement

programs also are discussed.

This report is an update resulting from two earlier reports. The most recent was Synthesis of Safety Research:

Pedestrians, by C.V. Zegeer (FHWA-SA-91-034, Aug. 1991). The earlier work was Chapter 16, “Pedestrian Ways”

by R.C. Pfefer, A. Sorton, J. Fegan, and M.J. Rosenbaum, which was published by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) in Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements (from

Volume 2, Dec. 1982). This updated report includes results from numerous studies, foreign and domestic. A review

of pedestrian safety research from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom is given at:

www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm.

17. Key Words:

Pedestrians, safety research, crashes, 

countermeasures, education, enforcement

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

 Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

 150

22. Price

 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
ii

ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches inft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ftyd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards ydmi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres acmi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl ozgal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons galft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces ozlb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lbT short tons (2000

lb)

0.907 megagrams (or

"metric ton")

Mg (or "t") Mg (or "t") megagrams (or

"metric ton")

1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 

or (F-32)/1.8

Celsius oC oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fcfl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbflbf/in2 poundforce per

square inch

6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per

square inch

lbf/in2

 *SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 Page

PART 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

Organization of this Report ........................................................... 2

Summary of Main Findings ........................................................... 2

Evolution of Vehicle/Pedestrian Collision Problems ...................................... 4

Guides and Model Programs .......................................................... 6

PART 2. CRASHES INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Introduction ............................................................. 13

Limitations of National Pedestrian Crash Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Number of Pedestrian Fatalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

When Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Who Is Involved in Pedestrian Crashes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Where Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

How Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

How Severe Are Pedestrian Collisions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Summary of Pedestrian Collision Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Exposure-Based Hazard Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Conflict Analysis Hazard Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

PART 3. OVERVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTERMEASURES AND

SAFETY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Cautions Regarding Design Problems in Studies of Countermeasure Effectiveness . . . . 57

Marked Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Crash Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Behavioral Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Assessment of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Alternative Crossing Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Crosswalk Illumination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Barriers, Signals, and Signage to Restrict Pedestrian Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Median Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Freeway Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Roadside/Sidewalk Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Signalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Right Turn on Red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Innovative Traffic Control Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Pedestrian Refuge Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Provisions for Pedestrians with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Countermeasures for Pedestrians with Vision Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Safety Measures for Pedestrians with Hearing Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Guides and Manuals for Accommodating Pedestrians with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Bus Stop Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con’t)

 Page

School Trip Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Alternatives to Signalization for School Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Reflectorization and Conspicuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

One-Way Streets as a Pedestrian Crash Countermeasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

What is Traffic Calming? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Traffic-Calming Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

1. Play Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

2. Community Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3. Woonerf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

4. Transit Malls: Shared Use of Pedestrian-Oriented Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5. Area-Wide Traffic Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

6. Speed Humps and Speed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

7. Effects of Speed Humps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

8. Experience with Speed Humps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

9. Guidelines for Speed Hump Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

10. Bulbouts and Street Narrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

11. Roundabouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

12. Cul de sacs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

13. Emergency Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

14. Traffic Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Traffic Calming in Original Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Effectiveness Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Education Countermeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Enforcement and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

PART 4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................ 121

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Pedestrian Crash Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Overview of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures and Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Annotated Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

APPENDIX A. REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY RESEARCH IN

 AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE NETHERLANDS, SWEDEN, AND

 THE UNITED KINGDOM 

Australia

Canada

Netherlands

Sweden

United Kingdom

(Appendix A reports may be found at: www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm)
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Pedestrians include a wide range of ages and physical abilities ....................... 1

Figure 2. School-trip safety can be enhanced by well-trained adult crossing guards ............... 3

Figure 3. Pedestrian capacity of CBD sidewalks is reduced by light posts, mailboxes, 

parking meters, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4. Pedestrians in rural and developing areas need to be able to get from one place to 

another safely and conveniently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 5. Pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities, 1927-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 6. A disproportionately high percentage of pedestrian deaths occur at night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 7. Pedestrian injuries by time of day for urban and rural land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 8. Pedestrian fatalities by time of day for urban and rural land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 9. Pedestrian fatalities by day of week for urban and rural land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 10. Pedestrian crashes by age and occurring in fall or winter months (September—February) . 23

Figure 11. Pedestrian fatalities by month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 12. Pedestrian groups overrepresented in pedestrian crashes include males and children. 

Older adults are more at risk for serious injury or death than younger pedestrians if 

struck by a motor vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 13. Studies have found that between 42 and 61 percent of pedestrian fatalities in motor vehicle

crashes involve pedestrians under the influence of alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 14. Percent of crashes involving pedestrians drinking alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 15. Rural areas account for 23.1 percent of non-fatal injury pedestrians crashes, but 

45.2 percent of pedestrians deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 16. Pedestrian crashes (fatal and nonfatal) by age and intersection vs. nonintersection . . . . . . . 36

Figure 17. Approximately 60 percent of U.S. urban pedestrians crashes occur at places other than

intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 18. Pedestrians running into the road without looking are a factor in approximately

15 percent of pedestrian collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 19. Turning vehicles pose a particular threat to pedestrians at intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 20. Percentage of pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes resulting in death, by pedestrian age, 

1980-1990, North Carolina data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
vi

LIST OF FIGURES (Con’t)

 Page

Figure 21. Some pedestrian crash types are overrepresented in fatal outcomes, including walking 

along road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 22. Relative hazard of selected pedestrian characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 23. Crosswalk marking patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 24. Pedestrian crash rates at types of crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 25. Unsafe motorist behavior at marked crosswalks is one of the causes of pedestrian

crashes at marked crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 26. Crosswalk treatments such as lighted signs have been used in an attempt to affect 

pedestrian and/or motorist behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 27. Directional movements of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in right-turn-on-red crashes 76

Figure 28. Examples of treatments that have been tested to reduce pedestrian crashes related to 

right-turn-on-red (RTOR) motorists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 29. These innovative pedestrian crossing signs had mixed results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Figure 30. Examples of innovative pedestrian signalization alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 31. The Clearwater pedestrian crossing treatment resulted in a positive influence on 

pedestrian and driver behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 32. Illuminated pedestrian push buttons were not found to alter pedestrian crossing behavior . 84

Figure 33. Automatic pedestrian detectors have been found to significantly reduce pedestrian

violations of the DON’T WALK indication and reduce pedestrian vehicle conflicts . . . . . . 84

Figure 34. Some pedestrians are not able to cross an intersection within the signal time provided . . . . 85

 

Figure 35. Raised median and pedestrian islands may provide a measure of safety to pedestrians . . . . 86

Figure 36. Without adequate facilities, vision-impaired pedestrians are at increased risk . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 37. Studies have found that uniformed crossing guards are safer than other control devices

such as signs or markings alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 38. School regulatory flashes have been found to have only limited success in reducing vehicle

speeds in school zones, unless adult crossing guards are also helping to control traffic . . . . 92

Figure 39. Reflectorization has been shown to result in a major increase in the visibility of a 

pedestrian at night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 40. Nighttime detection and recognition distance of pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
vii

LIST OF FIGURES (Con’t)

 Page

Figure 41. Expected usage rate of pedestrian bridges and underpasses, relative to time needed to

cross at street level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 42. Grade-separated crossings can be beneficial to pedestrians under certain situations but are very

costly and may not be used by pedestrians if not planned properly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 43. Illustrative traffic calming devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 44. Many traffic-calming measures create an improved environment for pedestrians by

reducing vehicle speeds or volumes, and/or shortening crossing distances for pedestrians 102

Figure 45. Street narrowing can reduce vehicle speeds and provide pedestrians with a narrower 

street to cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 46. Traffic diversion projects are designed to shift traffic off neighborhood streets . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 47. Pedestrians are safer in areas with sidewalks than in areas without them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 48. “Looking behavior” is encouraged in pedestrian education programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 49. Effects of “Willie Whistle” educational campaign on pedestrian crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 50. Preschool and elementary school children are the target of many pedestrian education

programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 51. Undivided highways had the highest crash risk for pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 52. Textured pavements at crosswalks may help vision-impaired pedestrians to cross streets . 124
viii

LIST OF TABLES

 Page

Table 1. Matrix of potential engineering countermeasures for urban pedestrian crashes ........... 7

Table 2. Matrix of potential “performance objectives” for urban pedestrian crashes .............. 9

Table 3. Partial summary of pedestrian facility problems and possible solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 4. Estimated national traffic fatalities by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 5. Ranking of state pedestrian fatality rates per 100,000 residents, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 6. Pedestrian collisions by time of day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 7. Fatal and nonfatal pedestrian crash types by light condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 8. Pedestrian deaths, injuries, and total collisions by gender of victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 9. Pedestrian crash types by age of pedestrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 10. Pedestrian crash types by pedestrian sobriety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Table 11. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities by area type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 12. Pedestrian crash types by traffic control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 13. Pedestrian crash types by speed limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 14. Factors contributing to pedestrian collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 15. Pedestrian crash fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 16. Pedestrian crash types by party at fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 17. Urban pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 18. Rural pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 19. Freeway pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 20. Driver activity leading to pedestrian collisions on freeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 21. Pedestrian activity leading to pedestrian collisions on freeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 22. Pedestrian crash types by pedestrian injury severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 23. Pedestrian action and crash data with resulting hazard index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 24. Vehicle action and pedestrian collision data with resulting hazard index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 25. Crash effects of providing sodium floodlights at pedestrian crossings (Perth, Australia) . . 69

Table 26. Effects of crosswalk illumination on pedestrian crashes (Israel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 27. Summary of effects of pedestrian signal timing on pedestrian crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 28. Violations and conflicts related to right turn on red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Table 29. Summary of traffic conflicts related to right-turn-on-red pedestrian crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table 30. Comparison of crashes before and after installation of pedestrian overpasses (Tokyo, Japan) 97

Table 31. Recommended guidelines for new sidewalk/walkway installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
1

Figure 1. Pedestrians include a wide range of

ages and physical abilities.

PART 1. INTRODUCTION

Walking, the most traditional mode of transportation, can carry a high risk of injury or death on

many of our Nation’s streets and highways. Motor vehicles only have been around for about a century,

but during that comparatively short time, they often have made walking hazardous.

Emphasis on highway transportation historically has focused on increasing the safety and

mobility of motor vehicles; less attention has been given to pedestrians. The trend has begun to shift in

recent years. Several detailed studies have been conducted on various aspects of pedestrian safety. These

studies have attempted to quantify the magnitude and characteristics of pedestrian collisions and identify

the traffic and roadway characteristics associated with such crashes. Some research has also involved

attempts to evaluate the safety effects of various roadway and educational treatments. (Editor’s note: 

The terms “accident”, “collision”, and “crash” are used throughout this report. Some authors use one

term and some another. All of these terms should be assumed to mean a crash between a pedestrian and

a motor vehicle.)

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of research studies on pedestrian safety,

including details of pedestrian crash characteristics, measures of pedestrian exposure and hazard, and

specific roadway improvements and their effects on pedestrian safety. Pedestrian educational

considerations and enforcement programs also are discussed. Because this report is confined to a review

of safety research, it follows that other important topics are left out. Thus, we do not address matters of

facility design, finance, pedestrian comfort, convenience, factors affecting the amount of walking by

pedestrians, and other salient issues.

This report is an update resulting from two earlier reports. The most recent was Synthesis of

Safety Research: Pedestrians, by C.V. Zegeer (FHWA-SA-91-034, August 1991). Before that was

Chapter 16, “Pedestrian Ways,” by R.C. Pfefer, A. Sorton, J. Fegan, and M.J. Rosenbaum, which was

published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in Synthesis of Safety Research Related to

Traffic Control and Roadway Elements (Volume 2, December 1982). This updated report includes results

from numerous foreign and domestic studies. A review of pedestrian safety research from Australia,

Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom is given at:

www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm.
2

Organization of this Report

This report consists of five parts. Part 1 is an executive summary followed by introductory text. 

Part 2 deals with statistics regarding traffic collisions and injuries to pedestrians. Part 3 reviews

published research on the effectiveness of facilities and other measures adopted for increased pedestrian

safety. Most research cited was carried out in the United States; many studies are recent, but some date

back to the 1960s. Some older studies now may be less valid. There is also a series of reviews of

pedestrian safety research in several foreign countries, authored by research professionals in Australia,

Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden. These may be found at

www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm. 

Summary of Main Findings

! In terms of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections (i.e., no stop sign

or traffic signal on the approach roadway) on a two-lane road, the presence of a marked

crosswalk alone is associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate compared to an

unmarked crosswalk. On multilane roads with traffic volumes above 12,000 vehicles per

day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) is

associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other site factors)

compared to an unmarked crosswalk. More substantial improvements are recommended to

provide for safer pedestrian crossings at such pedestrian crossings, such as adding traffic

signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, providing raised medians, installing speedreducing measures, and/or others. 

! Providing raised medians on multilane roads can substantially reduce pedestrian crash risk

(and can also make it easier to cross the street).

! There is evidence that substantially improved nighttime lighting can enhance pedestrian

safety in certain situations.

! At intersections with traffic signals, adding a WALK/DON’T WALK signal with a standard

timing scheme (i.e., motorists move parallel to pedestrians and may turn right or left on a

green light across pedestrians’ path) has no significant effect on pedestrian crashes. 

Providing an exclusive pedestrian interval (i.e., motorists are stopped in all directions during

the same interval each cycle while pedestrians cross in any direction) reduces pedestrian

collisions by 50 percent. However, exclusive timing schemes can increase pedestrian and

motorist delay and are most appropriate at downtown intersections with a combination of

heavy pedestrian volumes, good pedestrian compliance, and low vehicle volumes.

! Allowing vehicles to make a right-turn-on-red (RTOR) maneuver appears to result in a small

but clear safety problem for pedestrians. In fact, 21 percent of motorists violate NO TURN

ON RED (NTOR) signs if given the opportunity, and 23 percent of RTOR violations result

in a conflict with a pedestrian. Countermeasures that have been effective in reducing

pedestrian risks related to RTOR include illuminated NTOR signs, offset stop bars at

intersections where RTOR is allowed (i.e., motorists are more likely to make a full stop

often), variations in NTOR signs, and others.

! Various pedestrian and motorist warning signs have been found to reduce vehicle speeds or

conflicts between pedestrians and motorists. These devices include the “strong yellow

green” pedestrian warning sign, YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS WHEN TURNING sign,

PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES sign, three-section WALK WITH
3

Figure 2. School-trip safety can be

enhanced by well-trained adult

crossing guards.

CARE signal head, a DON’T START display to replace the flashing DON’T WALK

display, and others.

! Curb medians provide a safer environment for pedestrians compared with two-way, left-turn

lanes (TWLTLs), while undivided highways have the highest crash risk for pedestrians in

TWLTLs setings.

! Numerous treatments exist to address the needs of pedestrians with disabilities, such as

textured pavements, audible and vibrating pedestrian signals, larger signs and pedestrian

signals, wheelchair ramps, and others. While formal safety studies are difficult to conduct

on such treatments, benefits may result from such devices, depending on site conditions and

pedestrian needs.

! Careful placement of bus stops can affect pedestrian safety. Use of bus stops on the far side

of an intersection and at locations with good sight distance and alignment (e.g., not on steep

grades or on horizontal curves) is important.

! Safety of trips to and from school can be enhanced by sidewalks and proper signalization,

but also by well-trained adult crossing guards and selective police enforcement. Certain

warning signs (e.g., flashing school speed limit signs) and markings (e.g., school

crosswalks) are also appropriate and beneficial to pedestrians in many school zones.

! Pedestrian safety and mobility are enhanced by sidewalks and walkways. This is a critical

component of a pedestrian transportation network in urban and suburban areas. Rural roads

should also provide shoulders for pedestrian travel.
4

! Overpasses and underpasses can substantially improve safety for pedestrians needing to

cross freeways or busy arterial streets at certain locations. However, such facilities must be

carefully planned and designed to encourage pedestrians to use the facilities and not

continue to cross at street level.

! Countermeasures to improve conspicuity of pedestrians include a flashlight, jogger’s vest,

dangle tags, and rings (retroreflective material on the head band, wrist bands, belt, and ankle

band). Such measures can increase a motorist’ visibility distance of a pedestrian up to 1,300

feet, compared with about 200 feet for a “base pedestrian” wearing blue jeans and a white tshirt.

! Several studies have shown that converting from two-way to one-way streets can substantially reduce pedestrian collisions. In many cases, however, converting from two-way to

one-way streets may not be solely justified by pedestrian safety considerations. More often,

several concerns such as capacity, traffic circulation, and overall traffic safety are major

considerations. However, one-way streets can greatly simplify the task of crossing a street,

particularly if the one-way street conversion does not result in increased vehicle speeds.

! While traffic-calming measures are primarily intended for neighborhood streets to reduce

vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through vehicle traffic, measures such as street closures,

speed humps, chicanes (series of alternating curb extensions), traffic curbs, diverters, and

others are in use in various U.S. cities. While controversial, many of these measures have

been found to effectively improve safety for pedestrians and/or traffic as a whole based on

reductions in crashes, vehicle speeds, and/or reductions in cut-through traffic on

neighborhood streets.

! Educational measures have been found to reduce crashes involving child pedestrians to age

groups receiving the educational program. However, most U.S. educational programs have

received few if any formal evaluations and had limited measurable effects.

! Enforcement of traffic laws and regulations represents another important element in safe

pedestrian activity in a roadway environment. This includes not only the enforcement of

pedestrian regulations (e.g., jaywalking, crossing against the signal) but also motorist actions

related to pedestrians (e.g., speeding, yielding to pedestrians when turning, drunk driving). 

While a number of U.S. cities (including Seattle, Milwaukee, and San Diego) have had

active police enforcement programs in recent years, no quantitative studies have been done

to deter- mine the specific effects of police enforcement on pedestrian crashes and injuries. 

Such a study would be difficult to conduct because of many other contributing crash factors

in a city.

Evolution of Vehicle/Pedestrian Collision Problems

Even the ancients knew it was a good idea to separate pedestrians from vehicles roadways. Fruin

(1973) presents a comprehensive historical perspective of the methods used in the past to limit vehicular

intrusion into cities; regulations prohibiting heavy wagons within the central city after dusk; vehicle/

pedestrian separation using stone barriers and metal spikes; and special areas along main thoroughfares

where pedestrians could rest. Medieval city planners provided central pedestrian plazas as an open space

for the marketplace and the cathedral, as well as a location for festive occasions and recreation. In a

number of cities, pedestrians were protected from the elements by galleries, canopies, colonnades, and

porticos.
5

 

The introduction and increased use of motor vehicles in urban areas has made it much more

difficult to ensure pedestrian mobility and safety. Most space provided for pedestrians has been

sacrificed to provide space for motor vehicle traffic. Both motorist and pedestrian face visual clutter of

traffic signals and signs.

The central business district (CBD) of a city hosts various land uses: office buildings,

government, shopping, entertainment centers, restaurants, historical sites, and high-rise residential

developments. The CBD is the focal point of the regional transportation network and the confluence of

transit and highways. Because of its flexibility, walking is the only means of transportation satisfying the 

short, dispersed trip linkages required in the CBD. Downtown-origin-and-destination surveys in most

cities show that approximately 90 percent of all internal trips within the CBD are made on foot.

The traditional urban core is often superimposed on an archaic street system surviving from past

land use and a smaller population. The street system of the Manhattan financial district of New York

City, for example, dates to colonial times when the tallest structure was two or three stories. Now these

same streets serve buildings rising 50 to 100 stories, representing millions of square feet of office space.

Thousands of workers and visitors enter and leave these buildings each day, exceeding the capacity of the

sidewalk and spilling over into the roadway. In such situations, maximum use of sidewalk area and flow

capacity is a necessity.

In many high-density CBDs, the sidewalk width has been reduced to facilitate vehicular traffic

movement. This reduces pedestrian traffic capacity, but does not always produce a commensurate

increase in vehicle capacity. The wider streets increase the likelihood of pedestrian-vehicle crosswalk

conflicts, which limits vehicle capacity at intersections.

The potential pedestrian capacity of the CBD sidewalks is further reduced by the intrusion of

refuse cans, fire hydrants, fire alarm boxes, parking meters, traffic signals, control boxes and poles,

signposts, newsstands, telephone booths, mailboxes, bus benches, planters, sewer and ventilation gratings, 

Figure 3. Pedestrian capacity of CBD sidewalks is reduced by 

 light posts, mailboxes, parking meters, etc. 
6

and other street furniture. In addition, building service operations, such as unloading or loading

of trucks, often inconvenience and sometimes endanger the pedestrian. Many intersections were built with

little control over the location of fixed sidewalk furniture and utilities that often appear in clusters at

intersections, the most critical points in the pedestrian circulation network.

Pedestrians waiting at intersections need space, and intersections must accommodate weaving,

opposing pedestrian flows. The intersection is also the most common location for bus stops and rapid

transit entrances. The pedestrian is further harassed by vehicles stopped in the crosswalk or turning into

the path of crossing pedestrians. When a rapid transit entrance is situated along a narrow sidewalk near an

intersection, narrow subway stairs can cause pedestrian queues both in the transit station below and on the

surface.

This all adds to inconvenience, potential danger, and delay for the pedestrian. Although the total

amount of pedestrian delay time may far exceed driver delay time within the CBD, traffic signalization is

usually designed to facilitate vehicular flow. Often, the only consideration given to pedestrians at signals

is to meet the minimum pedestrian WALK and clearance times, which may not be sufficient for

pedestrians with special crossing needs. Where automatic detection is provided for motor vehicles,

pedestrians typically must push a button to be detected. In some cases, long cycle lengths encourage

pedestrians to cross against a signal.

The rectangular grid pattern of the typical CBD is not conducive to characteristically short

pedestrian trips. In some instances, the grid pattern of Manhattan's streets requires a time- and energyconsuming 1,000-foot walk for a straight-line trip distance of only 200 feet. Larger midblock buildings

with frontages on adjacent streets are often used as through-routes so the pedestrian can reduce trip

distances. This practice is more common in inclement weather. Depending on city location, one day in

four may be too windy, cold, wet, or hot for the pedestrian's comfort. But, protection of the pedestrian

from the elements is a low priority in most cities.

Guides and Model Programs

There is some variation among the States’ laws and regulations for pedestrian movement, though

the Uniform Vehicle Code (1992) and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1998 and 2001)

have helped to reduce this variability. Since the early 1970s, numerous publications have discussed

alternative measures to prevent pedestrian crashes. Several studies in the 1970s suggested possible

countermeasures for predominant pedestrian crash types, such as dart-outs, midblock dash crashes, and

others. Brief synopses of some of these are provided in the following paragraphs. 

A recent FHWA guide provides a matrix of 47 possible pedestrian treatments for 13 groups of

pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al., Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility,

FHWA, March, 2002). The matrix of candidate engineering countermeasures is given in table 1. This

guide provides information for each of the 47 engineering treatments, including a description of the

countermeasure, considerations for using it, implementation cost, and a photo and/or sketch. A

countermeasure matrix is also provided in that report (see table 2) for use in addressing various

performance objectives (e.g., reducing vehicle speeds, reducing vehicle volume). Finally, the guide

provides examples of pedestrian case studies and success stories, as well as recommendations and

priorities for installing sidewalks and walkways, marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing

treatments. This guide may be found at http://www.walkinginfo.org/rd/for_ped.htm#guide. 

FHWA's Model Pedestrian Safety Program, written in 1977 and updated in 1987, provides a sixstep process for planning, implementation, and evaluation relative to an agency's pedestrian safety 
7

Table 1. Matrix of potential engineering countermeasures for urban pedestrian crashes.
8

Table 1. Matrix of potential engineering countermeasures for urban pedestrian crashes. (Con’t)
Table 2. Matrix of potential performance objectives for urban pedestrian crashes.

9
10

Figure 4. Pedestrians in rural and developing areas

need to be able to get from one place to another

safely and conveniently.

program. The User's Guide Supplement presents detailed information on the various countermeasures for

pedestrian crashes, including their advantages and disadvantages and implementation considerations. 

Details on work-zone management for improved pedestrian protection is given in Work Zone Traffic

Management, a report published by FHWA in 1989.

 In 1981, a report by Vallette and McDivitt reviewed available pedestrian literature and

operational experiences of 19 U.S. cities concerning pedestrian safety programs. The study included the

development of a matrix of 450 pedestrian-related articles and publications by 71 subject categories.

Operational experiences of 19 city agencies were provided based on visits and interviews with those

agencies relevant to their safety program coordination, traffic engineering, school and child safety

programs, provisions for the handicapped, public information and education, enforcement of pedestrianrelated laws, safety analysis, and safety program recommendations and philosophy.

The WALK ALERT program is a national pedestrian safety program, a cooperative effort of the

National Safety Council, FHWA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and more

than 100 service and community organizations. The primary objective is to reduce pedestrian crashes.

The 1989 WALK ALERT Program Guide (National Safety Council, 1988) provides the steps needed to

organize and implement a local pedestrian safety effort. The guide includes information on engineering

improvements, educational materials for all age levels, and possible enforcement/laws and ordinances to

improve pedestrian safety. Information is also provided for working with the news media, along with a

resource guide that lists pedestrian safety programs, audiovisuals, and print materials recommended for

the WALK ALERT program.

In 1988, a Transportation Research Board (TRB) synthesis, Pedestrians and Traffic-Control

Measures, was published by C. Zegeer and S. Zegeer. This report provides details on publications and

information related to 21 specific types of engineering traffic-control measures. This information is based

on question- naire responses from 48 city and state transportation agencies on pedestrian facilities,

including traffic and roadway conditions under which each measure is most and least effective. The report

includes discussions of special pedestrian situations (e.g., work-zone travel) and traffic-control needs for

special pedestrian groups (e.g., college students, children in school zones, older and handicapped adults).

Recommendations are provided for selecting effective traffic-control measures to improve pedestrian

safety and movement.

A 1987 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report, Planning and

Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas contains information on 
11

 Table 3. Partial summary of pedestrian facility problems and possible solutions.*

Description of Problem

Magnitude

of

Problem

Possible Solutions

Current Level

of Use or

Acceptance

Limitations in 

Applicability

Potential

Effectiveness

Barriers to

Implemen-tation Cost

Impact on

Other Groups Comment

CrossSection Design

Difficulty of crossing wide,arterial streets, especiallyundivided arterials

 Major 1. Install medians on all new 

suburban highways of 4 or

 more lanes.2. Install European-style refuge

 islands in strategic locations on existing undivided highways.

3. Design for reduced street width between signalized intersec-  tions (since capacity constraints are at signal[s].4. Introduce additional traffic  signals to facilitate ped. crossings.5. Provide midblock actuated

flashing ped. signal.

6. Provide ped. overpass.

 Moderate Low Low Low Low Low

Virtually no limitations for newhwys. However, some limitationsare currently perceived.Must narrow lanes on existinghwys. to accommodate refugeislands. Must be well lighted.Could only be done where spacingbetween intersections is high.Could only be done in a fewselected locations.Should only be installed in keylocations.Only effective where at-gradecrossing is blocked or isinconvenient.

 High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate- depends on  no. of peds

 Moderate Moderate High High Moderate Moderate

 Moderate Low to moderate Low Moderate LowHigh

PositiveMinimalNegativeHighly negativeSlightlynegativePositive

Potentially the mosteffective solution to street crossing problems.This solution is greatlyunderutilized in U.S.Probably not feasible asa general practice.More feasible whereped. crossings areconcentrated at a pointDesigned to informdriver of presence ofped; maynot make crossing easier.Lack of use of facilitycontinues to be aproblem.

Difficulty of crossinghighways with two-way leftturn lanes

 Moderate to Major

1. Reduce use of this technique and

provide medians to control access.

2. Instal refuge islands in spots 

where no turning is necessary.

 Low Low

Would need to design infrequent U-turn capability.Must have at least some “deadspots” where turning would notgenerally occur.

 High High

 High Moderate

 Moderate to high Low

NegativeMinimal

Merchants and driverswill object heavily.Islands must be welllighted and marked.

No facilities provided for ped.to walk along side of road

 Major 1. Require sidewalk/pathway with 

all new hwy. construction. Pavedor stabilized shoulder adequate inoutlying areas.

2. Provide easier methods for 

obtaining easements to address existing highways constrained byright of way.

 Moderate Low

Only allowed exclusion should below-volume residential streets.Probably would be viewed asgiving excess authority to publicagencies.

 High High

 Moderate High

 Moderate Low

MinimalNegative

Could be required byFHWA for Federalprojects.Would put propertyowners at adisadvantage.

Narrow bridges with nopedestrian accommodations

 Moderate 1. Design all new bridges with 

shoulder or raised walkway.

2. Design low-cost walkway 

system for attaching to outside of bridge.

 Moderate Low

NoneFeasibility and design dependenton structural nature of existingbridge

 Moderate to high Moderate to high

 Moderate Moderate

 Moderate  to high Moderate

PositivePositive

 *Source: Smith, S.A., et al., 1987.
12

providing for pedestrian needs outside of urban areas. The report discusses the nature of suburban and

rural pedestrian problems and how they occur, the planning process, pedestrian facilities within highway

right-of-way, and practical considerations for providing such facilities. A summary addresses pedestrian

facility problems and possible solutions, and a sample of such information is given in table 1. Many of the

deficiencies that were found in suburban and developing rural areas were attributed to planners’ failure to

think about how to get pedestrians safely and conveniently from one place to another.

A report entitled, Handbook on Planning, Design, and Maintenance of Pedestrian Facilities

(Bowman, Fruin, and Zegeer, 1989) assembled current information to help design, construct, and

maintain pedestrian facilities. The planning and design details are emphasized for such facilities as

sidewalks and walkways, crosswalks, curb ramps and refuge islands, overpasses and underpasses,

pedestrian priority zones (e.g., malls, auto-restricted zones, and temporary street closings), traffic-control

devices, and pedestrian facilities in work zones. The report also provides information on pedestrian

characteristics and how to conduct pedestrian traffic and safety studies.

Planning Community Pedestrian Safety Programs— An Agenda for Action (NHTSA, 1980) is a 

guide to assist local communities in either integrating pedestrian safety into an existing community traffic

safety program or developing and implementing a new and independent pedestrian safety program. The

components of community programs are discussed in addition to methods for developing the plan of

action and program evaluation.

As discussed above, a number of user guides and procedural manuals have been written on

developing local or statewide pedestrian safety programs (e.g., WALK ALERT Program Guide, Planning

Community Pedestrian Safety Programs, Model Pedestrian Safety Program User's Guide) (National

Safety Council, 1988; Planning Community Safety Programs, 1980; Work Zone Traffic Management,

1989). Other publications document city pedestrian safety programs and/or provide information from

previous pedestrian literature in selected areas (e.g., Vallete and McDivitt, 1981; Zegeer and Zegeer,

1988). Still others assist the planning, design, implementation, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities

(e.g., Smith et. al., 1987 and Bowman et. al. 1989).
13

 PART 2. CRASHES INVOLVING PEDESTRIANS

Introduction

The sheer number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in U.S. traffic collisions each year is

an important consideration in the Nation’s highway transportation system. The NHTSA estimated that

5,300 pedestrians were killed in the United States during 1997 (Traffic Safety Facts, 1997). NHTSA also

reported 77,000 nonfatal injuries. Casualties of this magnitude take on even greater meaning in view of

the national policy to encourage increased walking as a matter of both transportation and health.

Limitations of National Pedestrian Crash Data

Pedestrian crash statistics must be considered with two caveats: First, the numbers presented in

this report are estimates, aggregated from information compiled in 50 States plus the District of

Columbia, or taken from studies that sample pedestrian collisions. Predictably, there is some uncertainty

in the reporting processes and expectable variations due to sampling differences. Second, definitions vary

among agencies. Thus, fatality estimates from the National Safety Council (NSC) differ somewhat from

those of the NHTSA due to their definitions of death. NSC counts a traffic fatality as any crash death that

ensues within 1 year after the crash, whereas NHTSA only counts those deaths that occur within 30 days. 

Other totals would result if, for example, traffic death counts were confined to victims who died at the

crash scene.

Another caution pertains to interpreting the following data tables, which may themselves be

overly simplistic. A collision may be associated with several factors, therefore a table that displays only

two or three factors leaves much unsaid. For example, a table depicting pedestrian crashes by time of

occurrence will show that a certain proportion occurs at night. However, not all of the observed trends

shown in such a table would be caused by reduced nighttime visibility. Although reduced visibility at

night plays an important role in the likelihood of a crash, the nighttime figures are also influenced by the

number of people who are exposed to risk at night as opposed to in the daytime, the ages of the

pedestrians, and the role of alcohol. Thus, any table of crash data reflects the influence of variables not

shown, as well as the influence of the variables that are depicted. 

Moreover, many studies do not consider the number of people actually exposed to risk. 

Reports reviewed here span the period during which standardized terminology was evolving. 

Thus, various authors use the term “accident”, “collision”, or “crash” to describe the phenomena under

examination here. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, “crash” has become the term

preferred by safety organizations.

The Number of Pedestrian Fatalities

The NSC annually publishes an estimate of U.S. pedestrian deaths for the most recent year

available, as well as for years as far back as 1927 (Accident Facts, 1995, 1996, 1997 editions). The

estimated number of pedestrian fatalities for 1927 was 10,820, as shown in table 4. The pedestrian death

count irregularly grew until 1937, when 15,500 pedestrian deaths were reported, the largest number in

U.S. history. Thereafter, the number declined. The number of pedestrian fatalities exceeded 10,000

during 1969, 1972, and 1973, and since then decreased to 6,100 in 1996. It should be noted that the NSC

estimating procedure was changed in 1987 and the annual number of deaths it reported became

substantially lower beginning that year.
14

 Table 4. Estimated national traffic fatalities by year.

Year National Safety Council

National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (U.S. DOT)**

Total

Fatalities

Pedestrian

Fatalities

%

Pedestrian

Total

Fatalities

Pedestrian

Fatalities

%

Pedestrian

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

25,800

28,000

31,200

32,900

33,700

29,500

31,363

36,101

36,369

38,089

39,643

32,582

32,386

34,501

39,969

28,309

23,823

24,282

28,076

33,411

32,697

32,259

31,701

34,763

36,996

37,794

37,956

35,586

38,426

39,628

38,702

36,981

37,910

38,137

38,091

40,804

43,564

47,700

49,163

53,041

52,924

54,862

55,791

54,633

54,381

56,278

55,511

46,402

45,853

47,038

49,510

52,411

53,524

53,172

51,385

45,779

44,452

46,263

45,901

47,865

48,290

49,078

47,575

46,814

43,536

40,982

42,200

43,000

43,,363

43,,300

10,820

11,420

12,250

12,900

13,370

11,490

12,840

14,480

14,350

15,250

15,500

12,850

12,400

12,700

13,550

10,650

 9,900

 9,900

11,000

11,600

10,450

 9,950

 8,800

 9,000

 9,150

 8,900

 8,750

 8,000

 8,200

 7,900

 7,850

 7,650

 7,850

 7,850

 7,650

 7,900

 8,200

 9,000

 8,900

 9,400

 9,400

 9,900

10,100

 9,900

 9,900

10,300

10,200

 8,500

 8,400

 8,600

 9,100

 9,600

 9,800

 9,700

 9,400

 8,400

 8,200

 8,500

 8,500

 8,900

 7,500*

 7,700

 7,800

 7,300

 6,600

 6,300

 6,400

 6,300

 6,700

 6,100

41.9

40.8

39.3

39.2

39.7

38.9

40.9

40.1

39.5

40.0

39.1

39.4

38.3

36.8

33.9

37.6

41.6

40.8

39.2

34.7

32.0

30.8

27.8

25.9

24.7

23.5

23.1

22.5

21.3

19.9

20.3

20.7

20.7

20.6

20.1

19.4

18.8

18.9

18.1

17.7

17.8

18.0

18.1

18.1

18.2

18.3

18.4

18.3

18.3

18.3

18.4

18.3

18.3

18.2

18.3

18.3

18.4

18.4

18.5

18.6

15.5*

15.7

16.4

15.6

15.2

15.4

15.2

14.6

15.4

14.1

44,525

45,523

47,878

50,331

51,093

51,091

49,301

43,945

42,589

44,257

43,825

46,087

46,390

47,087

45,582

44,599

41,508

39,250

40,150

40,676

7,516

7,427

7,732

7,795

8,096

8,070

7,837

7,331

6,826

7,025

6,808

6,779

6,745

6,870

6,556

6,482

5,801

5,549

5,649

5,472

16.9

16.3

16.1

15.5

15.8

15.8

15.9

16.7

16.0

15.9

15.5

14.7

14.5

14.6

14.4

14.5

14.0

14.1

14.1

13.5

*Estimation procedure changed

effective 1987 figures.

**Published information not

available from NHTSA prior to

1973. 

Sources: 

1. Accident Facts, 1995 and 

1997 editions, National

Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1995.

2. Traffic Safety Facts’1994, 

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, U.S. Department

of Transportation, Washington, DC,

August 1995. 
15

It is also of interest to consider pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities. 

During 1927, pedestrian deaths accounted for 41.9 percent of total traffic deaths. That percentage has 

declined and was 14.1 percent of the total in 1996, a substantial decline from 1927 (figure 5). Increased

travel by car is one factor in that change. Evans (1991), among others, has reported that the higher the

degree of motorization in a country, the number of motor vehicles per 100,000 population, the lower the

proportion of pedestrian deaths to total traffic deaths. The proportion of pedestrian deaths declined as the

United States progressively became more motorized. This trend also is seen in less motorized countries

(Choueiri et al., 1993). 

This influence of car travel was highlighted by the U.S. experience during World War II when

there was an interruption in the steady decline in pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of total traffic

fatalities. The pedestrian fatalities were 33.9 percent in 1941. During the war years (1942-1945) the total

abruptly jumped to values between 38 and 41 percent. In 1947, the figure reversed again to a new low of

32 percent, and after 1949 did not again reach 30 percent (See table 4). The increase during World War II

probably reflected the fact that motor vehicle mileage fell during those years because civilian vehicle

production gave way to military needs, and the existing civilian motor vehicle fleet amassed drastically

fewer miles because of gasoline and tire (that is, rubber) rationing. It is also likely that the characteristics

of highway users changed during that period, what with millions of young men away in the military, plus

unprecedented numbers of women in the work force. It should be noted that Choueiri et al. (1993) show a

greater pedestrian death decline in Europe during recent years than in the United States. 

Table 5 shows a comparison of States (and Puerto Rico), using NHTSA data (Traffic Safety

Facts, 1995) from highest rank to lowest according to pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population. The

table is reproduced here to suggest some of the complexities that underlie pedestrian crash and death

figures. The 10 States with the highest pedestrian death rate per 100,000 population vary significantly:

two are urban and densely populated (DC and Puerto Rico), 3 are sparsely populated desert states, and 3

are among the 11 most populous states (California, Florida, and North Carolina). This suggests that the

complex of factors producing high pedestrian death rates may differ from one State to another. Also,

none of these rates consider pedestrian exposure or vehicle exposure, the proportion of pedestrians by

age, or many other possible contributing factors. 

 At the other end of the spectrum, the 10 States with the lowest pedestrian death rate per 100,000

population also differ. The lowest 10 include rural States, cold weather States, industrial heartland states,

and the agricultural midwest. This may be indicative of lower amounts of walking by pedestrians and/or

less pedestrian interaction with high volumes of motor vehicles. 

When Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur? 

A. TIME OF DAY

Collisions can and do occur at any time, but there are trends involving the time of occurrence. 

Table 6 shows how pedestrian crashes, injuries, and fatalities vary by time of day. 
16

Pedestrian Fatalities as a Percentage of All Fatalities

05

1015202530354045

19271930193319361939194219451948195119541957196019631966196919721975197819811984198719

Year

Percent

 Figure 5. Pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities, 1927-1996.
17

Table 5. Ranking of State pedestrian fatality rates per 100,000 residents , 1994.

Rank State

Pedestrians

Killed

Population

(Thousands)

Pedestrian Fatality

Rate per 100,000

Population

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

New Mexico

District of Columbia

Florida

Nevada

Arizona

South Dakota

South Carolina

California

North Carolina

Maryland

Delaware

Louisiana

Texas

Georgia

Arkansas

Oregon

Hawaii

New York

Utah

New Jersey

Mississippi

Alaska

Illinois

Alabama

Connecticut

Michigan

Tennessee

Maine

Missouri

Oklahoma

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Virginia

Washington

Pennsylvania

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Colorado

Indiana

Montana

North Dakota

Minnesota

Ohio

Nebraska

New Hampshire

Wisconsin

Kansas

Iowa

Wyoming

Idaho

Vermont

USA

Puerto Rico

72

23

531

54

148

23

108

843

184

129

18

103

436

163

55

69

26

397

40

165

54

12

232

81

63

182

97

20

85

52

16

29

102

83

171

54

85

51

80

11

8

53

127

17

11

49

22

24

4

8

2

5,472

205

1,654

570

13,953

1,457

4,075

721

3,664

31,431

7,070

5,006

706

4,315

18,378

7,055

2,453

3,086

1,179

18,169

1,908

7,904

2,669

606

11,752

4,219

3,275

9,496

5,175

1,240

5,278

3,258

997

1,822

6,552

5,343

12,052

3,827

6,041

3,656

5,752

856

638

4,567

11,102

1,623

1,137

5,082

2,554

2,829

476

1,133

580

260,341

3,700

4.35

4.04

3.81

3.71

3.63

3.19

2.95

2.68

2.60

2.58

2.55

2.39

2.37

2.31

2.24

2.24

2.21

2.19

2.10

2.09

2.02

1.98

1.97

1.92

1.92

1.92

1.87

1.61

1.61

1.60

1.60

1.59

1.56

1.55

1.42

1.41

1.41

1.39

1.39

1.29

1.25

1.16

1.14

1.05

0.97

0.96

0.86

0.85

0.84

0.71

0.34

2.10

5.54

Source: Traffic Safety Facts, 1994: 1994 Motor Vehicle Crash Data from FARS and GES National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, D.C., 1995.
18

Figure 6. A disproportionately high

percentage of pedestrian deaths occur

at night.

 Table 6. Pedestrian collisions by time of day.

National Fatalities1 National Injuries1 Sample of Crashes2

%N% N%N

6-9 AM

9 AM-Noon

Noon-3 PM

3-6 PM

6-9 PM

9 PM-Midnight

Midnight-3 AM

3-6 AM

7.5

6.9

8.8

13.9

24.8

19.4

11.7

6.5

409

377

480

760

1359

1062

638

353

9.5

9.3

18.4

25.5

21.2

10.7

4.3

1.1

9,000

8,000

16,000

23,000

19,000

10,000

4,000

1,000

8.9

9.3

32.20

20.2

11.3

6.0

1.9

9.2

420

440

735

 1271

954

536

283

92

100% 5472 100% 90,000 100% 4,731

1

Estimates of national figures. Source: Traffic Safety Facts, 1994: 1994 Motor Vehicle

Crash Data from FARS and GES, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

USDOT, Washington, D.C., August 1995.

 

 2Sample data from six states. Source:Derived from database used in Pedestrian and

 Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W., Stutts, J., Pein, W., Cox, C., 

 UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996. The sample noted crashes of all severities ranging 

 from fatal to no injury, and was drawn from California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, 

 North Carolina, and Utah, covering collisions that occurred in 1991 or 1992.

Table 6 can be used to contrast the time of occurrence for “all” pedestrian crashes, fatally injured

pedestrians, and pedestrians injured but not killed. 
19

Among the sample of pedestrian collisions (Hunter et al., 1996), 62 percent happened during the

day between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Consistent with those daytime numbers are other findings, based on

data from urban areas. These show general agreement that the peak time for pedestrian crashes is

between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. This peak represents about 30 to 40 percent of the collisions (Fatal Accident

Reporting System, 1990; Knoblauch, 1977; Davis and Huelke, 1969; Cove, 1990) and the proportion

decreases on either side of this period. Smaller secondary peaks from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and Noon to 1 p.m.

were reported by Smeed (1968).

NHTSA figures (Traffic Safety Facts, 1995) show that the distribution by time of occurrence for

pedestrian injuries is somewhat similar to that of all collisions (about 63 percent of injuries concentrated

from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., compared with 61 percent for all collisions). This was also reported by Cove

(1990), showing pedestrian injury crashes to have a major peak between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. and a minor

peak between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., based on data from the National Accident Sampling System (see figure

7).

The time distribution of pedestrian fatalities stands in sharp contrast to the above. Among

pedestrian fatalities, 62 percent happened at night (table 6). Fatal pedestrian crashes peak in the evening

hours (Cove, 1990), between 5 and 11 p.m., including one minor peak from midnight to 2 a.m. (See figure

8).

This trend in fatalities could be partly associated with rural pedestrian crashes involving highspeed vehicles and pedestrians walking along a dark road or in some cases lying unconscious (sleeping)

in the road. In fact, in North Carolina, 10 percent of all pedestrian fatalities involve a pedestrian lying in

the road (North Carolina Traffic Accident Facts, 1990). Thus, the role of alcohol among adults is thought

to be involved in nighttime pedestrian fatalities. Fatality figures suggest that the victim profile would

vary by time of day. Alcohol is a greater factor at night, but children are less likely to be involved at

night.

 

Both the severity of pedestrian injury and the type of pedestrian crash vary by time of day. Data 

from six states, reported by Hunter et al. (1996), illustrate this point. Based on a sample of all pedestrian

crashes, table 7 shows a breakdown of pedestrian crash types according to four different light conditions

(i.e., related to time of day), distributed as follows:

Crashes occurred during Percent of sample

Daylight hours 60.6

Dawn or dusk 4.6

Dark, street lighted 23.3

Dark, street not lighted 11.6

These four categories create a rough scale from the greatest amount of light (daylight) to the least

(dark, street not lighted), thus partly related to time of day, and table 7 shows the crash types that are most

frequent under each light condition. Though daylight hours account for about 61 percent of all crashes in

Hunter’s study, more than 70 percent of some types of crashes occur in the daytime (e.g., 73 percent of

pedestrian crashes related to buses occur in daylight).

Although unlit rural streets and roads might be considered a considerable hazard for pedestrians,

the data in table 7 show that these conditions account for a much smaller percent of all crashes than, for

example, walking along a roadway in daylight.
20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Tim e of Day (in m ilitary hours)

Frequency (in thousands)

Urban

Rural

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

24

2468

10121416182022

Tim e of day (in m ilitary hours)

Frequency

Urban

Rural

Figure 8. Pedestrian fatalities by time of day for urban and rural land use.

 Source: Cove, 1990. 

 Figure 7. Pedestrian injuries by time of day for urban and rural land use.

 Source: Cove, 1990.
21

Table 7. Fatal and non-fatal pedestrian crash types by light condition.

Light Condition*/Percent of All Crashes

Pedestrian

Crash Type Daylight Dawn/Dusk

Dark,

Street Light

Dark, No

Street Light

Bus related 72.7 4.5 20.5 2.3

Other vehicle specific 74.2 2.2 13.5 10.1

Driverless vehicle 82.4 4.1 4.1 9.5

Backing vehicle 72.0 3.2 19.1 5.7

Disabled vehicle 40.0 6.7 16.7 36.7

Working/playing in road 74.7 8.2 11.6 5.5

Walking along roadway 33.5 5.5 19.4 41.6

Not in road 67.8 4.2 22.6 5.4

Vehicle turning at intersection 72.0 5.3 20.5 2.2

Intersection dash 70.9 4.5 20.4 4.2

Driver violation at intersection 63.1 2.7 32.9 1.2

Other intersection 53.8 4.4 34.8 7.0

Midblock dart/dash 73.4 5.7 14.7 6.2

Other midblock 46.8 3.4 32.1 17.7

Miscellaneous 49.5 3.8 28.6 18.1

ALL CRASHES 60.6 4.6 23.3 11.6

*Cases with unknown light condition excluded.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s Hunter, W., Stutts, J.,Pein, W., Cox, C., UNC HSRC, 

 FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.

The nighttime association with fatal crashes is emphasized in a study of the effects of daylight

savings time (DST) (Ferguson et al., 1995). This study asserts that if DST were retained year-round,

approximately 900 additional traffic deaths would be avoided (727 pedestrians and 174 motor vehicle

occupants, say the authors) because the DST clock setting results in more daylight at the end of the day,

when fatal crashes are more likely, an advantage that is apparently not fully offset by the comparably less

daylight during the morning hours.

B. DAY OF WEEK

Pedestrian crashes also vary by day of week. Available data indicate that pedestrian crashes are

overrepresented on Friday and Saturday and are underrepresented on Sunday. These trends may be related

to such factors as: the amount of walking by day of week; less pedestrian interaction with rush-hour

traffic; and/or less late-night drinking and walking. A Wayne County, MI, study (Davis and Huelke, 1969)

reported that 35 percent of the crashes there occurred on Friday and Saturday. This was especially true for

children, with Friday being the highest crash day. Similar patterns were found for urban, suburban, and
22

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.

Number of Fatalities

Rural

Urban

Figure 9. Pedestrian fatalities by day of week for urban and rural land use.

Source: Cove, 1990.

rural data samples from a number of U.S. cities and counties (Knoblauch, 1977). The highest

overrepresentation of pedestrian crashes was on Friday.

Data dealing with pedestrian fatalities also reveal that Friday and Saturday have the greatest

percentages of such crashes for both rural and urban areas, with pedestrian fatalities nearly constant for

Sunday through Wednesday (see figure 9). Pedestrian crashes resulting in non-fatal injuries were most

prevalent on Fridays and lowest on Sundays (Cove, 1990).

C. MONTH OF YEAR

Beyond the trends by hour of day and day of week, there are also differences in U.S. pedestrian

crashes by season of year, mediated in part by factors related to pedestrian age. Figure 10 shows that 

among older pedestrians, more crashes occur during the fall and winter months, whereas among younger

pedestrians more occur during the spring and summer (Zegeer et al., 1993). 

Consistent with the above, a study conducted in Wayne County, MI (Davis and Huelke, 1969)

showed that more pedestrians (13 percent) were killed during December than in any other month. A study

of rural and urban data samples of U.S. areas (Knoblauch, 1977) showed December to be the month having

the greatest overrepresentation. Nationwide pedestrian fatalities in 1989 were found to be highest in

September through January (Figure 11), months with fewer daylight hours and more inclement weather.
23

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Frequency

Figure 11. Pedestrian fatalities by month. 

Source: Cove, 1990.

51.7

44.4

57.4

60.1 59.6

49.6

44.2

35.0

52.9

56.0 56.5

52.5

49.3 49.6

35.5

52.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+

Age

Percent

NC 1980-1990 Crashes

FARS 1980-1989 Crashes

Figure 10. Pedestrian crashes by age and occurring in fall or winter months. 

(September—February).

Source: Zegeer et al., 1993.
24

D. SUMMARY: WHEN DO PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS OCCUR?

1. Fatal pedestrian crashes tend to occur during nighttime hours.

2. Non-fatal pedestrian crashes tend to occur during daytime hours.

3. Pedestrian crashes are more frequent on Friday and Saturday and less frequent on Sunday.

4. Child-pedestrian crashes occur more often during summer.

5. Adult pedestrian crashes occur more often in the winter.

6. Type of pedestrian crashes also varies with time of day, day of week, and season.

Who Is Involved in Pedestrian Crashes?

A. AGE

Table 8 shows that the largest percentage of pedestrian deaths is seen for the two age groups that

span the 25-44 year age range. A total of 31.8 percent (15.4 percent + 16.4 percent) of pedestrian fatalities

occur in this age range, a greater percentage than for the 5 preceding age groups combined. (Note the

varying age intervals used in this table prepared by NHTSA [Traffic Accident Facts, 1995.] The 25-34 age

category spans 10 years while the next lower category (21-24) only covers 4 years. Thus, the 15.4 percent

of fatalities that falls in the 25-34 year category is not as much greater as might appear when compared

with the next younger category, since the latter includes data from less than half as many years. Note also

that 13.9 percent of fatalities fall in the oldest category [greater than 75 years old]; however, the

open-ended age span of this category includes data from more years than the immediately preceding

category. Overall, more than twice as many male pedestrians (3742) are killed as female (1727)

pedestrians.

The final column shows fatalities expressed as deaths per 100,000 persons in a given age category. 

The oldest age category stands in greatest contrast to the rest.

The oldest age category does not contrast as sharply to the next younger age groups in terms of

injury statistics (non-fatal). This may stem in part from the fact that older pedestrians are more likely to

succumb to their injuries than younger adults. Children may be more likely to survive collisions on lower

speed neighborhood streets. The difference in injuries between male and female pedestrians is less than

that for fatalities. The ratio of male/female pedestrian injuries is 1.4 while the ratio of male/female

pedestrian deaths is 2.2.

 

For “all” pedestrian crashes (Hunter et al., 1996), the distribution by age is more similar to injury

crashes than to fatal crashes. Also, the ratio of male to female differs. In fatal crashes, there are more

males in every age category, but in “all” crashes, males make up fewer than half of the cases in several age

categories, including the 10-20 year age range and the categories that include persons 55 years old and

older. In this database, 61 percent of the pedestrians involved in a collision were males. In short, samples

of fatal pedestrian crashes are more likely to involve males and ages 25-54 compared to nonfatal

pedestrian crashes.
25

Table 8. Pedestrian deaths, injuries, and total collisions by gender of victim.

Killed1

Male Female Total

M/F

Deaths/

N% N % N % 100,000 pop.

Age <5 

 5-9 

 10-15 

 16-20 

 21-24 

 25-34 

 35-44 

 45-54 

 55-64 

 65-74 

 75+

148

196

179

188

221

637

670

439

305

288

427

3.9

5.2

4.8

5.0

5.9

17.0

17.9

11.7

8.2

7.7

11.4

86

96

101

82

61

207

227

172

152

200

334

5.0

5.6

5.8

4.7

3.5

12.0

13.1

10.0

8.8

11.6

19.3

234

292

280

270

282

844

897

611

457

488

761

4.3

5.3

5.1

4.9

5.2

15.4

16.4

11.2

8.4

8.9

13.9

1.7

2.0

1.8

2.3

3.6

3.1

3.0

2.6

2.0

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.5

1.9

2.0

2.2

2.0

2.2

2.6

5.3

 Unknown 44 9 56

 Total 3742 1727 5472 2.2

Injured1

Age <5

5-9

10-15

16-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

2229

7523

8007

5030

2357

7456

7307

4355

3764

1374

2121

4.3

14.6

15.5

9.8

4.6

14.5

14.2

8.5

7.3

2.7

4.1

1810

4629

6637

5038

3778

3733

4818

3024

1266

1719

1636

4.8

12.2

17.4

13.2

9.9

9.8

12.6

7.9

3.3

4.5

4.3

4039

12152

14642

10068

6135

11188

12124

7379

5030

3093

3757

4.5

13.6

16.3

11.2

6.8

12.5

13.5

8.2

5.6

3.5

4.2

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.6

2.0

1.5

1.4

3.0

0.8

1.3

 Total 51520 38088 89608 1.4

Total Collisions2

Age <5

5-9

10-15

16-20

21-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

173

390

341

265

213

556

346

189

140

109

120

6.1

13.7

12.0

9.3

7.5

19.6

12.2

6.6

4.9

3.8

4.2

96

207

292

202

124

286

193

104

95

83

115

5.3

11.5

16.2

11.2

6.9

15.9

10.7

5.8

5.3

4.6

6.4

269

597

633

467

337

842

539

293

235

192

235

5.8

12.9

13.6

10.1

7.3

18.2

11.6

6.3

5.1

4.1

5.1

1.2

1.2

0.74

 0.83

 1.1

1.2

1.1

1.1

0.92

0.83

0.66

 Total 2842 1797 4639 1.6

1

Source: Traffic Safety Facts 1994: Motor Vehicle Crash Data from FARS and GES

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US DOT, Washington, D.C., 1995. 2

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein,

 C. Cox, UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.
26

Figure 12. Pedestrian groups overrepresented in pedestrian crashes include 

males and children. Older adults are more at risk for serious injury or death

 than younger pedestrians if struck by a motor vehicle. 

Table 9 shows a relationship of crash type to age of the collision-involved pedestrian. Certain

crash types are overrepresented in certain age groups. Among the youngest age group shown here, 0-9

years old, the intersection dash and the midblock dash account for 41 and 55 percent, respectively, even

though only 19 percent of all crashes affect children in this age group. For the 10-14-year-old category,

the crash types most overrepresented are bus related (24 percent) and the intersection dash (23 percent),

compared with 11 percent overall. For the oldest age group, backing vehicles seem to constitute the

greatest risk (19 percent). 

Special mention should be made of children in pedestrian crashes because of their particular

vulnerability. One study (Dunne et al., 1992) asserts that parents overestimate their children’s ability to

handle street crossings. They overestimate what the children know and how well they will perform. The

discrepancy between expectations and performance is greatest for the younger children (5 years old).

A German study reported that a significant portion of pedestrians younger than 6 years old and 

involved in a collision on the way to a playground were not accompanied by an adult (Kloeckner, et al.,

1989). Injury severity was also greater in crashes involving unaccompanied children. Another study

showed that children struck in a pedestrian collision that caused injury showed slightly poorer performance

on a laboratory vigilance test than did a closely matched control group who were not in a collision (Pless et

al., 1995).

Other factors of a more global, societal nature also are associated with a higher likelihood of a

child’s involvement in a pedestrian collision. One study reports that children are four-to-five times more

likely to be in a pedestrian collision in poor neighborhoods compared with well-to-do neighborhoods

(Cagley, 1992). Another study reported the statistical association of lower family cohesion with a higher

risk of a child pedestrian crash (Christoffel, 1996).

Children’s risk for a pedestrian collision reflect a number of factors, some of which can be

addressed by a traffic engineer, while others are more properly addressed by various disciplines.
27

 Table 9. Pedestrian crash types by age of pedestrian.

PEDESTRIAN AGE*

Pedestrian Crash 

Type Subgroup

0-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Bus related 23.8 23.8 35.7 2.4 9.5 2.4 2.4

Other vehicle-specific 37.5 13.6 3.4 4.6 21.6 8.0 11.4

Driverless vehicle 13.7 1.4 6.8 9.6 37.0 16.4 15.1

Backing vehicle 15.4 3.2 7.5 12.5 30.1 12.5 18.6

Disabled vehicle related 2.5 1.7 7.6 14.4 53.4 15.3 5.1

Working/playing in road 31.7 14.8 6.3 7.0 25.4 12.0 2.8

Walking along roadway 1.3 6.9 17.4 14.3 43.7 11.5 4.9

Not in road 14.3 10.0 13.4 9.4 30.6 12.0 10.3

Vehicle turning at intersection 4.4 8.3 9.8 9.1 33.3 21.2 13.9

Intersection dash 40.6 23.1 13.2 2.9 13.5 4.1 2.6

Driver violation at 7.9 13.0 11.1 9.1 33.6 11.1 14.2

Other intersection 8.5 14.9 9.5 8.9 31.0 12.6 14.7

Midblock dart/dash 55.2 16.2 6.0 4.1 12.5 2.9 3.2

Other midblock 14.1 7.8 9.7 8.9 33.3 15.3 10.9

Miscellaneous 4.1 7.5 18.5 14.6 40.3 9.4 5.5

ALL CRASHES 18.7 11.1 10.9 9.0 29.7 11.4 9.2

*Row percents. Cases with unknown age excluded.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox, UNC HSRC, 

 FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.

B. GENDER

More males than females are seen in every single age category for fatal crashes (table 8). The ratio

of male to female deaths varies from 3.6 to 1 in the 21 to 24 age group, down to 1.3 to 1 in the oldest age

group. Despite the greater numbers of females compared to males in the 65+ age group, males slightly

outnumber females in pedestrian fatalities; indicating that if the male and female populations in this age

group were equal, the ratio of male to female fatalities would be even higher. Even in the youngest age

group, pedestrians less than 5 years of age, the ratio of deaths among boys compared with girls is 1.7 to 1. 

In one study, boys were found to be involved in about twice as many pedestrian crashes as girls from 5 to

7 (AAA Pedestrian Safety Report 1984, 1977). Such differences between males and females have been

observed for pedestrians as young as 2 years old. In an analysis of all pedestrian collisions in North

Carolina for 1993, 1994, and 1995, crash records of 1,336 pedestrians were reviewed for those 12 years

old or younger (Campbell, 1996). In this group, 61 percent were male. Even among 3-year-olds in
28

pedestrian crashes, 62 percent were male; among 2-year-olds, 66 percent were males. Only for the 2-yearold and younger category (54 percent male) did the proportion approach the baseline proportion of males

seen in birth statistics. This indicates the possibility of fundamental differences between the behavior of

young boys and girls, and/or in the way they are supervised, even as toddlers.

The trends for pedestrian crashes by gender are somewhat different when looking at non-fatal

injuries (table 8). The heavy preponderance of males is not seen in each and every category. Also, the 5-

to-9 and 10-to-15 age categories account for a larger proportion of total injuries than any other age

categories, contrary to the trends seen when only fatalities are considered. For the sample of all crashes,

female involvement is relatively greater. Males are overrepresented, and the degree of overrepresentation

is greater in fatal crashes than in non-fatal crashes. 

C. ALCOHOL

Studies have reported that alcohol impairment is a major problem for pedestrians and drivers. 

Most states have a statutory definition of driver impairment of 0.08 or 0.10 blood-alcohol concentration

(BAC). While it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle with BACs of 0.10, there is no such prohibition for

walking.

One study reported that from 1980 and 1989, between 37 and 44 percent of fatally injured

pedestrians had BACs of 0.10 percent or greater (Alcohol Fatality Facts, 1990). These percentages were

slightly lower than for fatalities involving passengers, vehicle operators, and motorcycle operators. 

Among adults pedestrians killed in 1989 nighttime collisions with motor vehicles, 59 percent had BACs of

0.10 percent or greater, while only 31 percent had no alcohol in their blood.

One Phoenix study showed that 29 percent of all pedestrians involved in collisions had been

drinking, while only 4.4 percent of the drivers had been drinking before the collision (another 13 percent

of these drivers had an “unknown” physical condition, likely due to “Hit and Run” [Cynecki, 1998]. 

Considering that many pedestrians are younger than legal drinking age, but most of the drivers are of legal

drinking age, this difference is substantial.

The percentage of fatally injured pedestrians with high BACs (0.10 percent or more) did not

decline during the 1980s. This contrasts a 20-percent decrease in high BACs for drivers during that period

(Alcohol Fatality Facts, 1990; Williams and Lund, 1990).

A study of motor vehicle fatalities in North Carolina between 1972 and 1989 (figure 13) showed

that between 42 and 61 percent of pedestrian fatalities involved pedestrians under the influence of alcohol

(i.e., BAC of 0.10 percent or greater). This compared with the range of 53 to 64 percent of drivers of

single-vehicle collisions who were under the influence. Among 176 fatally injured pedestrians tested in

1989 (Rehabilitation Alcohol Test, 1990), the following distribution was reported:

Number Percentage of

 Pedestrian fatalities of cases total cases

BACs of 0.10% or above 81 46

BAC less than 0.10% but had been drinking 5 3

No alcohol 90 51

-----------------------------

Total 176 100
29

Figure 13. Studies have found that approximately half of pedestrian fatalities in motor

vehicle crashes involve pedestrians under the

influence of alcohol.

22.0

36.4

32.1

15.4

3.2

1.9

30.9

5.5

27.8

34.9

14.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+

Age

Percent

NC 1980-1990 Crashes

FARS 1980-1989 Crashes

(negligible alcohol involvement)

Figure 14. Percent of crashes involving pedestrians drinking alcohol.

 Source: Zegeer et al., 1993.

Alcohol and age are associated in pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al., 1993). The North Carolina

data shown in figure 14 are the distribution by age of pedestrians in all reported crashes involving use of

alcohol. 

The FARS data address alcohol use among fatally injured pedestrians, broken down by pedestrian age. 
30

Alcohol is most often present for pedestrians 25-44 years old, with the proportion declining for older

pedestrian age categories. These findings indicate that part of the overall age distribution in pedestrian

crashes is related to alcohol use, although the involvement of the elderly in fatal pedestrian crashes seems

likely to be attributable to factors other than alcohol. 

As might be expected, pedestrian sobriety is also related to crash type (Hunter, et al., 1996). As

seen in Table 10, 15.4 percent of all pedestrians in a collision were reported to be using alcohol or drugs

before the collision. For certain crash types, however, the proportion is higher. For the crash type of

walking along the roadway, the alcohol percentage for pedestrians is nearly double (29.6 percent). Adding

to the significance of that figure is the fact that for drivers, the “walking along the road” crash type is

likewise more frequent for drivers using alcohol or drugs (Hunter, et al., 1996).

 Table 10. Pedestrian crash types by pedestrian sobriety.

SOBRIETY*

Pedestrian

Crash Type

Subgroup

No

Alcohol

or Drugs

Alcohol

or

Drugs Other

Bus-related 97.1 2.9 0.0

Other vehicle-specific 87.2 5.1 7.7

Driverless vehicle 96.7 1.7 1.7

Backing vehicle 85.6 10.8 3.6

Disabled vehicle related 84.8 7.1 8.1

Working/playing in road 97.5 0.8 1.7

Walking along roadway 62.4 29.6 8.0

Not in road 85.0 10.6 4.4

Vehicle turning at

intersection

91.1 5.3 3.6

Intersection dash 86.0 9.0 5.0

Driver violation at

intersection

88.0 8.3 3.7

Other intersection 70.5 23.0 6.5

Midblock dart/dash 89.4 7.8 2.8

Other midblock 61.9 30.6 7.5

Miscellaneous 71.3 22.0 6.7

ALL CRASHES 79.4 15.4 5.2

*Cases with unknown sobriety excluded.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, 

 W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox, UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.
31

A 1992 study by Dickman and Cope (1992) reported on 4,329 injured pedestrians, of whom 2,109

(49 percent) had been drinking. The blood alcohol levels were:

 BAC level Number Percent of total

0 2,220 51.2

0.01 - 0.099% 586 13.6

0.10 - 0.199% 486 11.2

0.20 - 0.299 686 15.9

0.30 or higher 351 8.1

A substantial proportion of those who had been drinking had seriously elevated BACs. Not only is

alcohol use by pedestrians a significant factor associated with involvement in a crash, but it is also

reported that excessive amounts of alcohol significantly increased the likelihood that death will result from

the collision (Miles-Doan, 1996).

D. VEHICLE TYPE

Another factor related to the “who” of pedestrian crashes is vehicle type. In a NHTSA report 

(Traffic Safety Facts, 1995, table 93), pedestrian collision percentages with regard to vehicle type are:

 Pedestrians Pedestrians

Vehicle Type Killed Injured

Passenger car 55.8% 76.5%

Light truck 29.2% 20.0%

Other (including motor- 15.0% 3.5%

cycles & heavy trucks) ___________________

 100% 100%

Light trucks as well as the “other” vehicle classes are more often represented in fatal pedestrian

crashes than in injury crashes.

E. SUMMARY: WHO IS INVOLVED IN PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS?

1. The largest percentage of pedestrian fatalities falls into the 25-44 age category.

2. However, when fatalities per 100,000 population is calculated, the oldest age category stands

out higher than the rest.

3. Nevertheless, compared with their proportion in the U.S. population, children and young adults

ages 2-22 are overrepresented in terms of pedestrian deaths and injuries.

4. More male than female fatalities are seen in every age category.

5. Even in the youngest age group, pedestrians less than 5 years of age, the population pedestrian

death rate for males is 1.7 times greater than females, and males outnumber females in

pedestrian collisions at the age of 2.

6. Alcohol is an important factor in pedestrian crashes. A North Carolina study showed that

between 42 and 61 percent of fatally-injured pedestrians had BAC levels of 0.10 or greater. 
32

Figure 15. Rural areas account for 23.1 percent of

non-fatal injury pedestrian crashes, but 45.2 percent

of pedestrian deaths.

There is some indication that pedestrians who have been drinking pose a greater threat to

pedestrian safety than do drinking drivers. 

7. Light trucks and “other” vehicles (e.g., heavy trucks) are overrepresented in pedestrian

fatalities.

Where Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur?

A. RURAL VERSUS URBAN

The rural/urban distribution of pedestrian crashes is given in table 11, based on estimates by the

NSC (Accident Facts, 1994). Of the estimated 71,200 pedestrian collisions in the United States in 1993,

75 percent occurred in urban areas, where pedestrian traffic is much higher than in rural areas. The table

Table 11. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities by area type.

Area

Type

Non-fatal Injury Fatal Totals

Number

Percent 

(Raw %) Number

Percent 

(Raw %) Number

Percent 

(Raw %)

Rural 

Urban

15,000

50,000

 23.1

 76.9

2,800

3,400

 45.2

 54.8

17,800

53,400

 25.0

 75.0

Totals 65,000 100.0 6,200 100.0 71,200 100.0

Source: Crash Facts, 1994

also shows that rural areas account for only 23.1 percent of nonfatal injury pedestrian crashes, but 45.2

percent of fatal pedestrian crashes. The overrepresentation of fatalities in rural areas is most likely because

of the higher speeds and more severe crash types in rural areas.
33

B. LAND USE

Several studies that categorized pedestrian crashes by land use are summarized below:

Thirteen major cities (Snyder and Knoblauch, 1971)

Sample - 2,100 pedestrian crashes

 Place Percent of Crashes

Central business district 1

Residential area 50

Mixed commercial 7

Commercial area 40

School area 2

Wayne County, MI (Davis and Huelke, 1969)

Sample - 268 Fatal pedestrian crashes 

Shopping business area 58

Residential area 29

School area 2

Expressway area 2

Other 9

Rural and suburban area sample (Knoblauch, 1977)

Residential area 50

Commercial area 24

Open area 16

School area 7

Other 3

Tucson, AZ (Nizlek, 1984)

Business area 60

Residential area 37

School crossing 1

Other 2

The four studies vary in definition of categories and outcome, but they are similar in the

prominence of pedestrian crashes in residential and commercial areas where most pedestrian exposure

occurs. 

C. TRAFFIC CONTROL BY CRASH TYPE

Another way of describing pedestrian crashes is by the nature of any traffic control present at the

pedestrian crash site. Table 12 is based on the aforementioned 1992 sample of 4,329 pedestrian crashes of

all kinds (Diekman and Cope, 1992), and the following overall distribution is seen with respect to traffic

controls:
34

 Traffic Control Type Percent of Pedestrian Collisions

No traffic control 74.4

Stop sign 7.0

Traffic signal 17.3

Other 1.4

 ---------------

100

Specific types of crashes markedly depart from the above distribution. Thus, whereas 74 percent

of pedestrian crashes happen where there is no traffic control, the value is 96 percent for crashes involving

walking along the roadway. On the other hand, only 15.5 percent of pedestrian crashes that involve

turning at an intersection occur where there is no traffic control (as compared with 74 percent overall). 

Overall, 7 percent of pedestrian crashes occur where a stop sign is the traffic control, but for vehicles

turning at an intersection, the value is higher at 20 percent. As a final example, 17.3 percent of all

pedestrian crashes occur at signalized locations, but the value is 63 percent for crashes involving vehicles

turning at an intersection. Thus, a strong association with crash type accompanies the overall distribution

of pedestrian crashes with respect to traffic control types.

Table 12. Pedestrian crash types by traffic control.

TRAFFIC CONTROL*

Pedestrian

crash type

No

control

Stop

sign

Traffic

signal

Other traffic

control**

Bus-related 79.1 11.6 9.3 0.0

Other vehicle specific 90.6 4.7 4.7 0.0

Driverless vehicle 97.6 1.2 1.2 0.0

Backing vehicle 96.1 1.1 2.2 0.7

Disabled vehicle related 87.3 2.5 7.6 2.5

Working/playing in road 77.9 8.6 5.0 8.6

Walking along roadway 96.1 2.1 1.3 0.5

Not in road 94.3 3.1 0.9 1.7

Vehicle turning at intersection 15.5 20.0 63.3 1.2

Intersection dash 66.0 9.8 24.0 0.3

Driver violation at intersection 38.8 24.7 34.1 2.4

Other intersection 47.5 9.6 42.2 0.6

Midblock dart/dash 94.4 1.9 2.9 0.8

Other midblock 91.1 1.0 6.6 1.4

Miscellaneous 85.0 5.3 7.2 2.5

ALL CRASHES 74.4 7.0 17.3 1.4

 *Cases with unknown traffic control excluded.

 **Flashing signal, yield sign, railroad crossing, official flagger.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein,

 C. Cox, UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.
35

SPEED LIMIT BY CRASH TYPE

Table 13 shows pedestrian crashes according to the speed limit posted where the collision took

place. The posted speed limit is certainly not a perfect indication of the actual speed at which a collision

may occur. The overall distribution is:

 Percent

 Speed Limit Pedestrian Crashes

Speed limit to 40 km/h 27.0

48-56 km/h 46.9

64-73 km/h 14.3

81 km/h or greater 118.0

100

Table 13. Pedestrian crash types by speed limit.

SPEED LIMIT*

Pedestrian

Crash Type

< 40

km/h

48 to 56

km/h

64 to 73

km/h

81+

km/h

Bus related 23.7 68.4 5.3 2.6

Other vehicle specific 44.9 38.5 6.4 10.3

Driverless vehicle* 45.7 30.4 0.0 23.9

Backing vehicle** 50.0 38.7 2.8 8.5

Disabled vehicle related 4.7 24.3 16.8 54.2

Working/playing in road 39.2 36.8 8.0 16.0

Walking along roadway 14.3 32.7 16.2 36.8

Vehicle turning at intersection 20.8 65.8 11.9 1.6

Intersection dash 24.0 54.8 17.4 3.7

Driver violation at intersection 32.1 56.7 10.3 0.9

Other intersection 18.0 56.4 20.4 5.2

Midblock dart/dash 34.7 41.8 14.7 8.8

Other midblock 21.7 47.4 19.2 11.8

Miscellaneous 30.1 40.6 12.0 17.4

ALL CRASHES 27.0 46.9 14.3 11.8

 *Cases with unknown speed limit excluded.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s Hunter, W., J. Stutts. W. Pein, C. Cox, 

 UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.

Some specific crash types markedly differ from this breakdown. Pedestrian crashes involving a

backing vehicle are higher on roads with low speed limits than overall (50 percent versus 27 percent). In

contrast, for pedestrian crashes involving walking in the roadway, sites with higher speed limits account

for more than expected (37 percent versus 12 percent), with a correspondingly smaller proportion at the

lower speed limit sites (14 percent versus 27 percent).
36

6,000

20,000

9,000

7,000

6,000

21,000

10,000

4,000

6,000

5,000

3,000

7,000 7,000

4,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-44 45-64 65+

Age group

Number of injured or killed

Intersection

Non-Intersection

Figure 16. Pedestrian crashes (fatal and nonfatal) by age 

 and intersection vs. nonintersection.

Source: General Estimates System, NHTSA, 1990.

E. INTERSECTION VERSUS NON-INTERSECTION

Almost 60 percent of U.S. urban pedestrian crashes occur at places other than intersections. In

rural areas, the figure is closer to 67 percent. When considering fatalities, the proportion remains

essentially the same in urban areas. In rural areas, approximately 85 percent of the deaths occur at places

other than intersections (Accident Facts, 1988).

A 1977 survey of child pedestrian crashes in more than 1,900 cities indicated that approximately

75 percent occurred at non-intersection locations. This increases to between 80 and 90 percent for the

5-year-old-and-under age group (AAA Pedestrian Safety Report, 1984). This high percentage is likely

associated in part with the high incidence of young children running into the street at midblock locations.

A 1989 summary of pedestrian injuries and deaths by age was estimated by NHTSA for

intersections and nonintersections. As illustrated in figure 16, a majority of crashes involving pedestrians

up to age 44 occurs at nonintersections. For ages 45-64, there almost is an equal number of pedestrian

crashes at intersections and nonintersections. For pedestrians age 65 and older, the trend reverses, and

more are struck at intersections than at nonintersections. Although only limited pedestrian behavioral and

survey data are available concerning choice of crossing locations, older pedestrians generally are more

likely to cross at intersections than are younger ones (General Estimates System, 1990).
37

Figure 17. In U.S. cities, most pedestrian crashes occur at

places other than intersections.

F. SUMMARY: WHERE DO PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS OCCUR?

1. One study showed that about 85 percent of pedestrian collisions occur in urban areas and about 15

percent in rural areas. However, 25 percent of fatal pedestrian crashes occur in rural areas,

reflecting the generally more severe character of pedestrian collisions outside urban areas.

2. Another study of pedestrian crashes showed a breakdown of 68 percent urban and 32 percent rural. 

In this study, certain crash types were overrepresented in some categories. In rural areas,

pedestrians walking along the road were overrepresented. In urban areas, pedestrian crashes

associated with driver violations at an intersection were overrepresented.

3. Overall, 74 percent of pedestrian crashes occur where there is no traffic control, 7 percent where

there is a stop sign, and 17 percent in the presence of a traffic signal. However, this breakdown

greatly varies by crash type. When pedestrian crashes involve a vehicle turning at an intersection,

63 percent occur where there is a traffic light, versus 17 percent overall. 

4. With respect to speed limits, most pedestrian crashes occur where speed limits are low or

moderate.

5. Though most pedestrian crashes occur in urban areas, 60 percent of all pedestrian crashes in urban

areas do not occur at intersections. This compares to 75 percent of child pedestrian crashes which

occur not at an intersection. The percentage that do occur at intersections varies by crash type. 

Age is also a variable of importance, with 75 percent of child pedestrian crashes not at

intersections, contrasting with the majority of the elderly that do occur at intersections.
38

How Do Pedestrian Collisions Occur?

A. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

A considerable number of factors, singly or in combination, increase the likelihood of a pedestrian

collision. Table 14 shows the breakdown of a series of contributing factors related to 5,073 pedestrians

involved in crashes (Hunter, et al., 1996). These are shown in four groups:

Pedestrian contributing factors

Roadway/environment factors

Driver contributing factors

Vehicle factors.

It is noteworthy that for each of the four major data groupings, the largest single category is “None

indicated.” Thus, despite numerous categories for assigning crashes, an appreciable portion of crashes

defy such categorization. (This is all the more noteworthy because a main purpose of Hunter’s study was

to categorize pedestrian crashes.)

With respect to “Pedestrian Factors”, the largest single category is “ran into road.” Yet this

category accounts for only 15 percent of collisions. Many other contributing factors are cited, but each is

identified in only a small percent of cases. The largest specific “Roadway Factor” is "vision obstruction"

(11 percent). For drivers, the largest category is "failure to yield right-of-way." 

 "Hit and run" is a somewhat larger category in the driver group, but such a classification tells

nothing about the driver’s actions that contributed to the crash, only that unlawful flight took place

afterwards. Some characteristics of the hit-and-run situation are presented for fatal crashes in a 1995 study

(Solnick and Hemenway, 1995). The authors examined the FARS database for 1989-1991 and listed

factors that were over- or underrepresented in fatal hit-and-run situations. Overall, 20 percent of drivers

left the scene:

Hit and run was less likely when: victim was a child or was elderly

Hit and run was more likely when: crash was in an urban area 

crash was outside of southern U.S.

crash was at night or on a weekend

driver was male

driver was drunk

driver had a bad past driving record

Vehicle factors are cited in only 12 percent of the cases. Because numerous factors can contribute

to pedestrian collisions, and because each individual factor accounts for only a small portion of the crash

total, a successful pedestrian collision prevention program must pursue many different countermeasures. 

Only a small portion of total collisions will be reduced by any given countermeasure.
39

Table 14. Factors contributing to pedestrian collisions.

Pedestrian Contributing Factors

None indicated

Jaywalking (near intersection)

Ran into road

Stepped into road

Stepped from between parked

 vehicles

Failed to yield

Failed to obey signal

Unsafe movement

Alcohol impaired

Drug impaired

Vision/hearing impaired

Other physical disability

Other mental disability

Walk/run wrong direction

Talking/standing in road

Lying in road

Playing in road

Jogging in road

Unsafe skateboard maneuver

Unsafe rollerblade maneuver

Lack of conspicuity

Unsafe enter/exit of vehicle

Fell from truck bed

Working on parked car

Leaning/clinging to vehicle

Pushing disabled vehicle

Other

Unknown

Roadway/Environment Factors

None indicated

Sun glare

Other glare

Dusk/darkness

Vision blockage

Construction zone

Glass/debris/etc.

Pothole/grate/etc.

Narrow roadway

Other

Unknown

N

1719

157

763

207

360

599

151

127

524

20

32

13

19

267

158

32

78

15

13

6

147

37

1

50

82

6

72

113

3801

53

25

162

539

56

7

8

2

330

36

%1

33.9

3.1

15.0

4.1

7.1

11.8

3.0

2.5

10.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.4

5.3

3.1

0.6

1.5

0.3

0.3

0.1

2.9

0.7

0.0

1.0

1.6

0.1

1.4

2.2

74.9

1.0

0.5

3.2

10.6

1.1

0.1

0.2

0.0

8.5

0.7

Driver Contributing Factors

None indicated

Hit and run

Exceeding safe speed

Exceeding speed limit

Reckless driving

Failure to yield to ped.

Failure to signal

Ignored traffic sign

Ignored traffic signal

Avoiding veh./ped./obj.

Safe movement

Improper backing

Improper passing

Improper turning

Right turn on red

Wrong direction

Improper lane use

Changing lanes

Pass stopped school bus

Improper parking

Fail to secure gear in park

Left engine running

Alcohol impairment

Drug impairment

Illness

Drowsy/fell asleep

Other physical impairment

Inattention/distraction

No driver's license

Inexperience

Restriction non-compliance

Improper vehicle equipment

Assault by vehicle

No lights

Police pursuit

Failed to secure cargo

Other

Unknown

Vehicle Factors

None indicated

No inspection sticker

Oversized vehicle/load

Extended mirror

Defective brakes

Defective lights

Defective tires

Foggy/dirty windshield

Other

Unknown

N

2263

824

225

87

171

762

4

26

50

25

243

285

36

40

84

24

35

6

9

6

93

12

157

3

5

4

14

213

70

21

3

9

63

5

5

2

72

96

4507

2

4

19

15

4

12

16

42

457

%

44.6

16.2

4.4

1.7

3.4

15.0

0.1

0.5

0.1

0.5

4.8

5.6

0.7

0.8

1.7

0.5

0.7

0.1

0.2

0.1

1.8

0.2

3.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

4.2

1.4

0.4

0.1

0.2

1.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

1.4

1.9

88.8

0.0

0.1

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.8

9.0 1

N = 5073 (total number pedestrian cases with contributing factors). Since up to 3 factors could be coded in each category, the percentages add to more than 100. 

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox, C. UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163,

1996.
40

Figure 18. Pedestrians running into the road

without looking are a factor in approximately

15 percent of pedestrian collisions.

Table 15 shows a breakdown of who was primarily responsible for causing a pedestrian collision

according to a study that reported that police ascribe fault to the pedestrian in 43 percent of cases and to

drivers in 35 percent (Hunter et al., 1996). These are only the overall values, however. In specific

circumstances the results vary, as shown in table 16. For example, though drivers are at fault in about 35

percent of the situations overall, the figure is 88 percent for driver violations at intersections, and 79

percent in situations involving vehicles turning at an intersection. Drivers alone are at fault in as few as

18 percent of crashes involving pedestrians walking along the roadway, but are at least partially at fault in

another 35 percent of these collisions.

 

Table 15. Pedestrian crash fault.

Pedestrian only

Ped. (Driver fault unknown)

Driver only

Driver (Ped fault unknown)

Both ped. and driver

Neither ped. nor driver

Both unknown,

unable to determine

Total

 N

2189

170

1764

104

633

50

163

_____

5,073

 Percent

43.2

3.4

34.8

2.1

12.5

 1.0

 3.2

_____

100.2

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s,

 Hunter, W. J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox,UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163,1996.

 

 

When the pedestrian alone is at fault (43 percent of cases overall), the situation varies by crash

type. When a vehicle is backing, the pedestrian is adjudged at fault only 10 percent of the time, but in an

intersection or midblock dash, the pedestrian is adjudged at fault 91 percent of the time.
41

Table 16. Pedestrian crash types by party at fault (N=5,073).

FAULT*

Pedestrian

Crash Type

Subgroup

Driver

Only

Driver;

Pedestrian

Unknown

Pedestrian

Only

Pedestrian; Driver

Unknown Both Neither Unknown

Bus-related 34.1 0.0 50.0 2.3 9.1 2.3 2.3

Other vehicle specific 21.3 4.3 45.7 6.4 20.2 0.0 2.1

Backing vehicle 67.8 3.7 10.3 0.3 13.4 0.6 4.0

Disabled vehicle

related

62.9 0.8 8.9 3.2 21.0 1.6 1.6

Working/playing in

road

36.8 0.7 50.7 2.6 6.6 0.0 2.6

Walking along roadway 18.0 2.8 28.8 12.8 34.5 0.2 3.0

Ped. not in road 61.0 3.2 22.0 0.7 8.3 0.9 3.9

Vehicle turning at

 intersection

79.1 1.8 9.3 0.6 6.8 0.2 2.2

Intersection dash 0.6 0.0 90.6 2.2 6.6 0.0 0.0

Driver violation at

intersection 87.6 3.9 0.4 0.4 6.6 0.0 1.2

Other intersection 12.6 3.3 59.5 5.5 11.4 0.4 7.3

Midblock dart/dash 1.0 0.2 91.8 1.8 5.0 0.2 0.0

Other midblock 11.5 2.2 60.4 5.3 16.0 0.5 4.1

Miscellaneous 39.3 2.0 21.7 3.3 18.9 7.1 7.8

ALL CRASHES 34.8 2.1 43.2 3.4 12.5 1.0 3.2

*Cases with unknown fault excluded.

 Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W. J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox, 

 UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.

B. CRASH TYPES AND CAUSAL BEHAVIOR

 Several major U.S. studies of pedestrian behavior were based on field observations, on interviews

with pedestrian safety professionals, and on data from collision reports (AAA Pedestrian Safety Report,

1984; Rehabilitation Alcohol, 1990; Accident Facts, 1988). These studies categorized crash types for

urban, rural, and freeway locations as shown in Tables 17, 18, and 19 (Model Pedestrian User’s Manual,

1987 edition, Knoblauch, 1975; Knoblauch, 1977; and Knoblauch, 1978). The objective of these studies

was to identify crash causes and to develop countermeasures.

Another source of information is a study of freeway pedestrian crashes (Knoblauch et al., 1978),

which examined driver and pedestrian activities leading to freeway pedestrian crashes. Table 20 gives the

percentages of various driver activities preceding the crash, such as going straight, driving off the road,

etc. The percentage distribution of pedestrian activities, such as running across the freeway, standing next

to a disabled vehicle, etc., is in table 21.
42

 Table 17. Urban pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors (N=2,044).

Collision Type

Percent of

Collisions

Studied

Location and/or Critical

Behavioral Descriptors

Dart out (first half) 23 Midblock (not at intersection). 

Pedestrian sudden appearance and short time exposure.

Driver has no time to react to avoid collision.

Pedestrian crossed less than halfway.

Dart out (second half) 9 Same as above except pedestrian gets more than

halfway across before being struck.

Midblock dash 7 Midblock (not at intersection). 

Pedestrian running but not sudden appearance

or short-term exposure as above.

Intersection dash 12 Intersection.

Short time exposure or running.

Same as “dart out” except occurs at intersection.

Vehicle turn merge with 

attention conflict

4 Intersection or vehicle merge location.

Vehicle turning or merging into traffic.

Driver attending to auto traffic in one direction

collides with pedestrian located in direction different

from driver’s attention.

Turning vehicle 5 Intersection or vehicle merge location.

Vehicle turning or merging into traffic.

Driver attention not documented.

Pedestrian not running.

Multiple threat 3 One or more vehicles stop in traffic lane (e.g., lane 1)

for pedestrian. Pedestrian hit stepping into parallel same

direction traffic lane (e.g., Lane 2) by vehicle moving in

same direction as stopped vehicle.

Collision vehicle driver’s vision of pedestrian 

obstructed by stopped vehicle.

Bus stop related 2 At bus stop.

Pedestrian steps out from in front of bus at bus stop and

is struck by vehicle moving in same direction as bus

while passing bus.

Same as “multiple threat” except stopped vehicle is

bus at bus stop.

Vendor, ice cream 

truck

2 Pedestrian struck while going to or from vendor in

vehicle on street.

Disabled vehicle 

related

2 Pedestrian struck while working on or next to disabled

vehicle.

Result of vehiclevehicle crash3 Pedestrian hit by vehicle(s) as result of vehicle-vehicle

collision

Trapped 1 Signalized intersection.

Pedestrian hit when traffic light turned red (for 

 pedestrian) and cross-traffic vehicles started moving.

 Source: Knoblauch, 1975 and Model Pedestrian User’s Manual, 1987 edition.
43

 Table 18. Rural pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors (N=1,750).

Collision Type

Percent of

Collisions

Studied

Location and/or Critical

Behavioral Descriptors

Dart out (first half) 11 Pedestrian sudden appearance, short time exposure. 

Driver does not have time to react to avoid collision.

Pedestrian crossed less than halfway.

Dart out (second half) 10 Same as above except pedestrian more than 

halfway across before being struck.

Midblock dash 10 Midblock (not at intersection). 

Pedestrian running but not sudden appearance

or short-term exposure as above.

Intersection dash 10 Intersection.

Short time exposure or running.

Same as “dart out” except occurs at intersection.

Vehicle turn merge with

 attention conflict

1 Intersection or vehicle merge location.

Vehicle is turning or merging into traffic.

Driver attending to auto traffic in one direction

collides with pedestrian located in different direction

than that of driver’s attention.

Turning vehicle 2 Intersection or vehicle merge location.

Vehicle turning or merging into traffic.

Driver attention not documented.

Pedestrian not running.

Multiple threat 2 One or more vehicles stop in traffic lane (e.g., Lane 1)

for pedestrian.

Pedestrian hit stepping into next parallel same direction 

traffic lane (e.g., Lane 2) by vehicle going in same

direction as stopped vehicle.

Collision vehicle driver’s vision of pedestrian 

obstructed by stopped vehicle.

School bus related 3 Pedestrian hit while going to or from school bus or 

 school bus stop.

Vendor, ice cream truck 1 Pedestrian struck while going to or from vendor in

vehicle on street.

Disabled vehicle related 6 Pedestrian struck while working on or next to disabled

vehicle.

Result of vehicle-vehicle

 crash

1 Pedestrian hit by vehicle(s) as result of vehicle-vehicle

collision

Backing up 2 Pedestrian hit by vehicle backing up.

Walking along roadway 12 Pedestrian struck while walking along edge of highway 

or on shoulder.

Can be walking facing or in same direction as traffic.

Hitchhiking 2 Pedestrian hit while attempting to thumb ride.

Weird 8 Unusual circumstances.

Not countermeasure corrective.

 Source: Knoblauch, 1977 and Model Pedestrian User’s Manual, 1987 edition.
44

Table 19. Freeway pedestrian collision types and critical behavior descriptors (N=236).

Collision Type

Percent of

Collisions Studied

Location and/or Critical

Behavioral Descriptors

Disabled vehicle related 20 Pedestrian struck while working on or next to disabled

vehicle.

Result of vehicle-vehicle

 crash

10 Pedestrian hit by vehicle(s) as result of vehicle-vehicle

collision.

Weird 10 Unusual circumstances.

Not countermeasure corrective.

Hitchhiking 9 Pedestrian hit while attempting to thumb ride.

Walking to/from 

 disabled vehicle

 

8 Pedestrian struck while walking along edge or 

 shoulder of highway.

Reason for walking because of disabled vehicle.

Can be walking facing or in same direction as traffic.

Dart out 5 Not at interchange.

Pedestrian sudden appearance and short time 

exposure.

Driver does not have time to react to avoid collision.

Walking along roadway 5 Pedestrian struck while walking along edge of 

 highway or on shoulder.

Can be walking facing or in same direction as traffic.

Working on roadway 3 Pedestrian (flagperson or other construction worker) 

struck while working on roadway or shoulder.

Midblock dash * Not at interchange.

Pedestrian running but not sudden appearance or short 

time exposure.

Vehicle turn-merge with

 attention conflict

* Vehicle merge location.

Vehicle merging into traffic.

Driver attending to auto traffic in one direction 

collides with pedestrian located in different direction 

 than that of driver’s attention.

Turning vehicle * Vehicle merge location.

Vehicle merging into traffic.

Driver attention not documented.

Pedestrian not running.

 *Less than 1 percent.

 Source: Knoblauch, 1978 and Model Pedestrian User’s Manual, 1987 Edition.

A 1980 study by Habib identified causal factors related to pedestrian crashes at intersection

crosswalks and recommended possible solutions. While 51.4 percent of such pedestrian crashes in

Habib’s study involved a through vehicle, left-turn vehicle maneuvers were involved twice as often as

right-turn crash maneuvers (24.8 percent vs. 13.1 percent). The left-turn maneuver was nearly four times

as hazardous as the through-movement in terms of collisions and exposure. Also, driver error was found

to increase when the left-turn movement was made as compared with right-turn maneuvers. Factors

identified as contributing to the left-turn crashes with pedestrians include driver visibility problems, poor

driver habits, and signal location. 
45

Table 20. Driver activity leading to pedestrian collisions on freeways (N=236).

Percent of

Pedestrian

Collisions

Driver Activity

51

15

9

8

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

Going straight and/or sustaining speed

Driving off traveled way or out of control

Decelerating

Unknown

Other

Changing lanes

Speeding

Negotiating curve

Starting from stopped position

Backing up

Passing

Merging

 Source: Knoblauch et al., 1978.

Table 21. Pedestrian activity leading to pedestrian collisions on freeways (N=236).

Percent of

Pedestrian

Collisions

Pedestrian Activity

21

11

10

10

10

8

6

5

4

3

3

3

2

2

1

Crossing, running

Standing next to a disabled vehicle

Crossing, walking

Working on a vehicle

Other

Walking with traffic

Standing

Flagging vehicle

Crossing, not further specified

Entering or exiting vehicle

Pushing vehicle

Unknown

Sitting or lying down

Walking against traffic

Working on roadway

 Source: Knoblauch et al., 1978.

Obviously, a left-turning driver has a complex task. Oncoming traffic must be monitored to

identify a safe gap to permit the turn. Traffic coming up from behind is also factor in the safety of the

left-turning driver (risk of turning vehicle’s being struck from rear). Add to this the necessity to monitor 
46

Figure 19. Turning vehicles pose a particular

threat to pedestrians at intersections.

pedestrian traffic at the left of the driver’s field of view and it is easy to realize that the left turn is a highdemand situation for the driver. Solutions proposed by Habib include changes in vehicle design to

improve driver visibility, location of an additional signal mounted on the left far-side of the sidewalk,

improved crosswalk illumination, and driver education concerning the problem.

A study of the causes of pedestrian collisions in Arizona by Matthias and Stonex (1985)

found that urban pedestrian collisions and fatalities tended to occur on wide, high-speed arterial streets. 

Causes of approximately half of the pedestrian collisions were failure to yield by the driver or pedestrian

and failure to use the crosswalk. The authors concluded that there was little in the way of engineering

countermeasures that would be useful. They indicated that public education, particularly for children

under 14 years of age, appeared to be the most useful countermeasure.

Many factors characterize pedestrian crashes. Some lend themselves to traffic engineering

intervention to improve safety, but others are associated with general societal characteristics and generally

beyond the traffic engineer’s influence. For example, the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation

Survey (Antonakos, 1995) characterized pedestrians as: slightly lower in socioeconomic status; less likely

to be employed; less likely to own a motor vehicle; and less likely to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle.

Still, almost no one can avoid occasional pedestrian status.

 

C. SUMMARY: HOW DO PEDESTRIAN CRASHES OCCUR?

1. Many factors contribute to a pedestrian crash, but each contributes only a small portion to the

crash totals. Any given crash-prevention measure, targeted to any one crash factor, is likely

to produce only a small improvement overall.

2. It is reported that pedestrians are solely responsible for causing 43 percent of collisions and

drivers solely responsible for 35 percent of collisions. The remainder have multiple causes or

are caused by unknown factors.
47

3. Culpability varies by crash type, as would be expected. For crashes involving a midblock

dash, pedestrians are judged at fault most of the time. Driver culpability is rated high for

pedestrian crashes involving vehicles turning at an intersection. 

How Severe Are Pedestrian Collisions?

 

A. FINDINGS

Although many pedestrians are killed in motor vehicle collisions, most pedestrian collisions do not

result in fatal injuries, in spite of pedestrians’ vulnerability in a collision with a 908-kg or 2000-lb rigid

motor vehicle. Data from NHTSA (Traffic Safety Facts, 1995) show that in 1994 there were:

Pedestrian deaths 5,472

Incapacitating injuries 22,000

Not incapacitating injuries 30,000

Other injuries 38,000

Other data sources indicate that, in some pedestrian crashes, the police report indicates that the

pedestrian is not injured. The injury scale shown here is one used by many police departments. The fivecategory scale is shown below along with the injury distribution reported by Hunter et al., 1996, who

reported on 5,073 pedestrian crashes.

 Percent

No injury 3

“C” Injury (minor) 29

“B” Injury (moderate) 35

“A” Injury (severe) 27

 Fatal 6

Table 22 shows how this injury distribution differs according to type of crash. Note the crash type

categories that indicate most and least severe injuries. As to the fatal category, the greatest risk is 

"Walking along the roadway" (13.3 percent versus 6.1 percent fatal overall). At the other end of the scale,

the crash types in which the largest number of pedestrians who escape with minor injuries or no injuries

(that is, “C” injuries plus “No injuries”) are those involving a backing vehicle, 42 percent compared with

31 percent overall. Speed is a likely factor in these differences. Pedestrian crashes resulting in little or 

no injury are more likely to go unreported than those in which the pedestrian was seriously injured or

killed.
48

 

 Table 22. Pedestrian crash types by pedestrian injury severity (N=5,073).

INJURY SEVERITY*

Pedestrian

Crash Type

Subgroup

No

Injury

Minor

(C)

Moderate

(B)

Severe

(A) Fatal

Bus related 2.3 25.0 45.5 22.7 4.5

Other vehicle specific 0.0 24.7 43.8 25.8 5.6

Driverless vehicle 1.4 24.3 36.5 35.1 2.7

Backing vehicle 2.4 39.2 35.8 20.8 1.7

Disabled vehicle related 2.5 24.2 31.7 32.5 9.2

Working/playing

 in road

3.5 32.2 37.1 25.9 1.4

Walking along roadway 1.5 23.9 34.3 27.2 13.2

Not in road 3.3 31.9 36.4 24.7 3.6

Vehicle turning at 

 intersection

2.4 44.6 34.5 16.6 1.8

Intersection dash 3.4 25.4 37.6 29.4 4.2

Driver violation at 

 intersection

2.4 32.2 37.6 22.7 5.1

Other intersection 3.0 27.2 33.6 30.8 5.4

Midblock dart/dash 2.4 23.2 38.8 30.0 5.6

Other midblock 1.5 23.0 28.7 35.7 11.1

Miscellaneous 3.8 26.5 36.8 25.7 7.3

ALL CRASHES 2.5 28.7 35.3 27.4 6.1

*Cases with unknown injury severity excluded.

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, C. Cox,

 UNC HSRC, FHWA-RD-95-163, 1996.
49

7.6

6.1

4.9

8.3

10.5

15.3

18.6

25.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+

Age

Percent fatal

 Figure 20 Percentage of pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes resulting 

 in death, by pedestrian age, 1980-1990, North Carolina data. 

 Source: Zegeer et al., 1993.

Figure 20 shows that injury severity is also related to age (Zegeer et al., 1993). Older persons

succumb to injuries that a younger person might survive. Fatal injuries among the youngest age group

also are elevated relative to the lowest point of the curve. Fatalities among those 0-4 years are greater

than for the next two older age groups. 

B. SUMMARY: HOW SEVERE ARE PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS?

1. Although too many pedestrian crashes result in fatal injuries, the great majority of pedestrian

collisions do not produce fatal injuries.

2. Some crash types are overrepresented in fatal outcomes. The walking-along-the-roadway

crash type is an example.

3. Some crash types are overrepresented in less severe outcomes. This includes pedestrian

crashes involving backing vehicles and those involving driver violations at an intersection.

4. Older pedestrians are more likely to die from injuries in a collision than are younger

pedestrians.

Summary of Pedestrian Collision Statistics

1. Fatal pedestrian crashes tend to occur at night.

2. Nonfatal pedestrian crashes tend to occur during the day.

3. Pedestrian crashes are more frequent on Friday and Saturday and less frequent on Sunday.

4. Child pedestrian crashes occur more often in the summer.
50

5. Adult pedestrian crashes occur more often in the winter.

6. The largest percentage of fatal pedestrian crashes is in 25-44 age category.

7. The oldest age category (75 years or older) shows higher percentages of collisions per unit

population. 

8. Compared with their proportion in the U.S. population, children ages 21–22 are 

overrepresented in pedestrian deaths and injuries.

9. More male than female pedestrian fatalities are seen in every age category.

10. Some data show that even for children 2 and 3 years old, more males than females are

struck.

11. Alcohol use by pedestrians is an important factor in pedestrian crashes. A North Carolina

study showed that between 42 and 61 percent of fatally injured pedestrians were under the

influence of alcohol (i.e., BAC of 0.10 or greater). 

12. As might be expected, pedestrian sobriety is also associated with crash type. For the crash

type of walking along the roadway, alcohol involvement is overrepresented for both drivers

and pedestrians. While alcohol-related collisions are dropping in the driving population,

there has been little change in alcohol-related collisions involving drinking pedestrians.

13. Vehicle types overrepresented in fatal pedestrian crashes include the light truck category as

well as heavy trucks and motorcycles.

14. One study shows that approximately 85 percent of pedestrian crashes occur in urban areas

and approximately 15 percent in rural areas. However, 25 percent of fatal pedestrian crashes

occur in rural areas, showing the disproportionately severe character of such pedestrian

crashes.

15. Another study of pedestrian collisions showed a breakdown of 68 percent urban and 32

percent rural. Certain crash types were overrepresented in each category. In rural areas, 

pedestrian crashes involving walking along the road were overrepresented. In urban areas, 

pedestrian crashes involving driver violations at an intersection were overrepresented.

16. Three-quarters of pedestrian crashes occur where there are no traffic controls, 7 percent

where there is a stop sign, and 17 percent where there is a traffic signal. However, this

varies by crash type. For the crash type of walking along the roadway, 96 percent occur

where there is no traffic control versus 74 percent overall. For the category of vehicle

turning at an intersection, 63 percent occur where there is a traffic light, versus 17 percent

overall.

17. With respect to speed limits, most pedestrian crashes occur where speed limits are low or

moderate (consistent with the fact that most pedestrian crashes occur in urban areas).

18. Approximately 40 percent of pedestrian crashes occur at intersections, although 75 percent

of child pedestrian crashes are not at intersections. The majority of pedestrian crashes

involving the elderly do occur at intersections.
51

Figure 21. Some pedestrian crash types are overrepresented in fatal outcomes, including walking along road.

19. Many factors contribute to a pedestrian crash, but no single factor accounts for a sizable

percentage of crashes. Thus, any given crash prevention measure, targeted to address any

one factor, can produce only a small overall improvement.

20. Pedestrians are solely culpable in 43 percent of crashes and drivers in 35 percent of crashes.

21. Culpability varies by crash type. For crashes involving a midblock dash, pedestrians are

found at fault most of the time. Drivers are more often categorized as culpable in crashes

involving vehicles turning at an intersection.

22. Some crash types are overrepresented in fatal outcomes. Walking along the road is an

example.

23. Some crash types are overrepresented in less severe outcomes. This includes pedestrian

crashes involving backing vehicles.

Exposure-Based Hazard Index

Several studies have addressed the need for a measure of the relative exposure to hazards based on

pedestrian crash statistics (Knoblauch, 1977; Lea et al., 1978; Goodwin and Hutchinson, 1977).

In 1977, Knoblauch developed a hazard index, defined as the ratio of the frequency with which

any particular attribute was present in the crash sample to the frequency with which it was present in the

general population at the site (base rate), at approximately the same time of day. Tables 23 and 24 show

the relative hazards of pedestrian and vehicle actions derived in this manner. Table 23 shows that while

crossing at a location other than an intersection was the most frequent action identified in the pedestrian

crash sample, when compared with non-involved pedestrian actions at the site, it is a substantially less

hazardous action than, for example, standing in the roadway. Similarly, out-of-control and backing

vehicles are shown to be extremely hazardous to the pedestrian compared with turning vehicles. This
52

procedure did not take collision severity into account when defining a hazard index (fortunately, these

collisions are of low severity). The hazard index was computed based on the percent of pedestrian

crashes divided by the relative exposure. Thus, for example, in table 24, the hazard index for “vehicle

straight ahead” was relatively safe (hazard index of 0.9), even though 77.2 percent of pedestrian crashes

involved a vehicle traveling straight ahead. This is because 85.1 percent of the vehicle exposure involved

the straight ahead vehicle movements. Thus, the ratio of crash percentage divided by exposure percentage

= (77.2) ÷ (85.1) = 0.9

Table 23. Pedestrian action and crash data with resulting hazard index.

Pedestrian Action

Crash

Data Percent

Base Rate 

Data Percent

Hazard Index

Safer More

Hazardous

Standing in roadway 8.1 1.5 5.4

Coming from behind parked vehicle 5.3 1.1 4.8

Working in roadway 2.2 0.8 2.8

Working on vehicle 3.5 1.8 1.9

Crossing, not at intersection 39.4 27.0 1.5

Walking in road with traffic 10.8 12.3 0.9

Playing in road 3.6 4.9 0.7

Walking in road against traffic 4.8 8.0 0.6

Crossing at intersection 18.3 29.0 0.6

Getting on/off school bus 1.6 3.6 0.4

Getting on/off other vehicle 2.4 9.9 0.2

 Source: Knoblauch, 1977.

Table 24. Vehicle action and pedestrian collision data with resulting hazard index.

Vehicle Action

Crash

Data Percent

Base Rate 

Data Percent

Hazard Index

Safer More

Hazardous

Out of control 2.7 0.0

Backing up 3.0 0.1 3.0

Passing 2.5 0.1 2.5

Other 3.6 0.2 1.8

Standing in roadway 1.9 0.5 3.8

Changing lanes 1.2 0.4 3.0

Going straight ahead 77.2 85.1 0.9

Turning right 2.3 5.1 0.5

Turning left 2.2 5.2 0.4

 Source: Knoblauch, 1977.
53

In a later study, additional hazard relationships were updated, as shown in figure 22 (Knoblauch

et al., 1987). Samples of pedestrian crashes and exposure were used to develop hazard scores for various

pedestrian and vehicle characteristics. Scores of +1 or higher represent higher–than–average and -l- or

less, a safer–than–average level of hazard. Pedestrians aged 1 to 4 years old had the highest hazard scores

(+8.3); pedestrians aged 5-9 (+4.0), 10-14 (+1.2), and 60 and older (+1.7) had higher–than–average

hazard scores. Running is more hazardous for pedestrians than walking (+4.7 vs. -1.9). Walking against a

traffic signal has a hazard score of 5.1 compared with a score of -1.8 for crossing with the signal, while a

right-turn-on-red maneuver by a motor vehicle was the most hazardous (score of +3.2) vehicle maneuver.

Motorcycles and buses are associated with higher hazards to pedestrians (+3.3 and +2.9, respectively)

than other vehicle types.

Conflict Analysis Hazard Formula

Conflict analysis has been used in a number of pedestrian crash studies to determine the hazard

level as a basis for developing countermeasures (Knoblauch, 1977; Petzold, 1977; Zegeer et al., 1980;

Husband and Sobey, 1978; Cynecki, 1980).

In a Rochester, MI, study, pedestrian conflicts were defined for school zones, based on

observations at 10 school sites (Zegeer et al., 1980). These conflicts and events are:

! Vehicle slows or stops for pedestrian

! Secondary vehicle conflict resulting from the first vehicle slowing for pedestrian

! Vehicle weaves for crossing pedestrian

! Vehicle brakes or weaves for standing pedestrian

! Vehicle brakes or weaves for pedestrian walking on shoulder

! Turn conflict

! Pedestrian runs across street

! Pedestrian stops in street

! Pedestrian violation of traffic signal

! False start across street

! Jaywalking

The number of pedestrians crossing the street within the school zone, where pedestrians could be

exposed to approaching vehicles, was also counted. The authors selected five conflict variables:

S - Severe conflicts

M - Moderate conflicts

R - Routine conflicts

J - Jaywalkers

C - Legal street crossings

Their relative contributions to hazard was determined by establishing weightings for an index

using a delphi procedure. The result was the following formula for a subjective danger index (DI):

 DI = 7.4 S + 2.8 M + l.0 R + 0.7 J + 0.2 C

This model was then proposed for use as a ranking tool for identifying high hazard school-zone

sites and for guiding the selection of countermeasures. 

A conflict analysis technique was developed by Cynecki (1980) for use in identifying hazardous

pedestrian crossing locations. A total of 13 types of pedestrian conflicts were defined with assigned 
54

 

Pedestrian and

Vehicle Characteristics Pedestrian 

Accidents

Pedestrians

or Vehicles

Observed

Less Hazard More Hazard

Pedestrian Age

1-4 8.3 1.0

5-9 21.6 5.4 4.0

10-14 12.2 10.1 1.2

15-19 10.9 11.5 -1.1

20-29 18.4 22.6 -1.2

30-59 15.8 41.7 -2.6

60+ 12.8 7.7 1.7

Pedestrian Mode

Walking 47.1 88.8 -1.9

Running 52.9 11.2 4.7

Pedestrian Crossing Location

Crosswalk 24.0 54.3 -2.3

Within 50' of Intersection 24.1 9.4 2.6

Diagonally Across Intersection 0.9 1.7 -1.9

Midblock 51.0 34.6 1.5

Pedestrian Signal Response

With Signal: Green 51.3 90.4 -1.8

Against Signal: Red 48.7 9.6 5.1

Vehicle Action

Going Straight 90.0 84.6 1.1

Turning Right 3.8 7.7 -2.0

Turning Left 4.6 7.2 -1.6

Right Turn on Red 1.6 0.5 3.2

Vehicle Type

Cars 79.3 83.5 -1.1

Vans, Pickups 12.4 11.6 1.1

Trucks, Other 2.3 2.4 -1.0

Buses 2.0 0.7 2.9

Taxis 0.7 0.8 -1.1

Motorcycles 3.3 1.0 3.3

Percentage of Hazard Score

8.3

-5 -3 +1 +3 -1 +5

Figure 22. Relative hazard of selected pedestrian characteristics.

Source: Knoblauch et al., 1987
55

severity levels. The technique was tested at five locations and used to select pedestrian crash

countermeasures. The author recommended further investigation of relationships among pedestrian

conflicts and vehicle-pedestrian crashes. 

Another study that attempted to determine the relationship between pedestrian-vehicle conflicts

and pedestrian crashes based on a predictive model used discriminate analysis to develop crash-group

models for the cities of Washington, DC and Seattle, WA (Davis et al., 1989). These models were used to

predict intersection groups expected to have, for example, 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more pedestrian crashes. The 

crash groups were defined based on conflicts, as well as such exposure measures as pedestrian volume,

vehicle volume, number of lanes, and type of traffic control. The models were considered particularly

useful in setting priorities for hazardous locations and for evaluating various traffic control strategies. The

model was developed using a subset of the crash data, and then was at least partly validated by being

applied to the remaining crash data. 
56
57

PART 3. OVERVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTERMEASURES AND

SAFETY PROGRAMS

Cautions Regarding Design Problems in Studies of Countermeasure Effectiveness

This report is based on a review of many evaluation studies of pedestrian safety initiatives, so it is

useful to comment on the difficulties inherent in this kind of research and the study design problems that

plague such research efforts.

First, research on the effectiveness of pedestrian safety initiatives is inherently difficult because 

pedestrian crashes are generally quite rare at any given location; therefore, a study may not have enough

data for numerical stability. It is common that years will pass between instances of a pedestrian-vehicle

collision at a given site. While the rarity of pedestrian collisions at a site is fortunate, it makes the study

of countermeasures difficult.

To compensate for small numbers, investigators often aggregate data from many sites. Many

intersections will be studied, and the study period will be extended for as long as possible because this is

the only way that usable numbers of crashes can be accumulated. However, such aggregation of sites and

long time periods creates other sources of crash variability, perhaps partly offsetting the benefit of the

larger sample size.

The other significant problem is the almost inevitable study design flaws in many research

efforts. These critical study design flaws include selection bias and regression to the mean. These

particular study design problems generally are encountered because of the procedures used to decide

where to install treatments. 

Given limited funds and great needs, authorities earmark countermeasure sites based on some

kind of priority procedure. It may be a formal warranting procedure, or an informal approach of placing

the remedies where the problem is judged to be greatest. This latter procedure is prudent, and is

completely justified from an operational standpoint. However, from a research standpoint it can be

troublesome, especially in assessing pre- and post-treatment data.

The problem is that the sites where the treatments are introduced were usually different from the

comparison sites before the interventions were introduced. That is why the treatments were put there

rather than somewhere else. 

This pre-existing difference is very likely to overwhelm the effect of the treatment. If the “after”

experience is different from the “before” experience, one cannot know how much of the change was

produced by the treatment and how much is a continuation of the pre-existing difference.

A special case of selection bias is regression to the mean. If the pretreatment collision record is

the basis for introducing an intervention at a particular site, and if the “worst” sites are selected for

introduction of countermeasures, then the after-crash experience will be better than before the experience

because of the operation of the probability phenomenon called “regression to the mean.” When that

particular flaw is embedded in a study design, one cannot know whether the favorable results are from the

countermeasure, from the regression effects, or from a combination of the two.

Many studies reviewed herein likely suffer from one or the other of these study design flaws. 

This is not said as a particular criticism of the study authors: Sometimes it is virtually impossible to carry

out a study without such flaws, given the manner in which operational decisions are made to install

treatments.
58

Figure 23. Crosswalk marking patterns.

If studies are to be done in a way that avoids these study design problems, it will be necessary to

change the manner of deciding how treatments are to be introduced. These study design problems are not

mentioned in many following reviews, but the reader should keep these cautions in mind in assessing the

studies reported in the following discussion.

Marked Crosswalks

Crash Studies 

Zegeer, Stewart, Huang and Lagerwey (2002) have completed what is the largest and most

comprehensive study of marked crosswalks reported so far. The authors analyzed data from 1,000

marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matching unmarked sites in 30 U.S. cities. Information was collected at

each of the 2,000 sites, including pedestrian crash history (average of five years per site), daily pedestrian

volume, traffic volume, number of lanes, speed limit, area type, type of median, type and condition of

crosswalk marking, location type (midblock vs. intersection), and other site characteristics. All study

sites were at intersection or midblock locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approaches. 

The comparatively large sample size permitted analysis of relevant data subsets.

A number of site factors were found to be related to crashes and therefore had to be used as

control variables in the analysis. Such factors included: higher pedestrian average daily traffic (ADT),

higher traffic ADT, and number of lanes (three or more lanes vs. two lanes). In addition, multilane roads

with raised medians had significantly lower crash rates than similar roads with no median or painted

medians only. There was also a significant regional effect: Sites in western U.S. cities had a significantly

higher crash risk than in eastern U.S. cities (after controlling for other site conditions).

Some site factors were not found to be associated with crashes in and of themselves. These

included area type, speed limit, and type of crosswalk marking pattern (see figure 12 for various

crosswalk marking patterns from that study).
59

All site factors that were related to crashes (i.e., pedestrian ADT, traffic ADT, number of lanes,

median type, and region of the country) were then included in the statistical models used to determine

effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks. (Poisson and negative binomial regression models were

used.)

The study found that on two-lane roads, the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an

uncontrolled location was associated with no difference in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an

unmarked crosswalk. Further, on multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per

day, having a marked crosswalk alone, without other substantial improvements, was associated with a

higher pedestrian crash rate after controlling for other site factors, compared to an unmarked crosswalk

(see figure 13). Raised medians provided significantly lower pedestrian crash rates on multilane roads,

compared to roads with no raised median. Older pedestrians’ crash rates were high relative to their

crossing exposure.

The authors state (page 1): “Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and

they should, therefore, be able to use this system safely. Pedestrian needs in crossing streets should be

identified, and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access.”

Some improvements suggested by the authors at unsignalized crossing locations:

! Providing raised medians on multilane roads, which can substantially reduce pedestrian

crash risk and also facilitate street crossing

! Installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) where warranted and/or where serious

pedestrian crossing problems exist

! Reducing the effective street-crossing distance for pedestrians by providing curb extensions

and/or raised pedestrian islands, "road diets" (i.e., reducing four-lane undivided roads to two

through-lanes with left-turn lane)

! Installing raised crossings (raised crosswalk, raised intersection, speed humps)

! Providing street-narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, "skinny street," etc.)

! Using intersection designs (traffic mini-walks, diagonal diverters)

! Providing adequate nighttime lighting for pedestrians

! Designing safer intersections and driveways for pedestrians (e.g., tighter turn radii)

! Constructing grade-separated crossings or pedestrian-only streets

! Using innovative signs, signals and markings shown to be effective

Two studies by Knoblauch were conducted on pedestrian and motorist behavior as part of the

overall FHWA study on crosswalks in conjunction with the study summarized above.
60

0.12

0.17

0.63

1.37

0.17

0.12

0.25

0.15

0.28

0

0

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.21.41.6

u u u u u 

Type of Crossing

Pedestrian Crash Rate

(Pedestrian Crashes per Million Crossings) M= Marked U= Unmarke

M U

No Median

All ADTs

2 Lanes

(914 Sites)

M U

No Raised Median

< 12,000 ADT

3 to 8 Lanes

(260 Sites)

M U

No Raised Median

12,000-15,000 ADT

3 to 8 Lanes

(149 Sites)

M U

 No Raised Median

> 15,000 ADT

3 to 8 Lanes

(417 Sites)

M U

Raised Median

< 15,000 ADT

3 to 8 Lanes

(87 Sites)

Ra

> 

3 

Sig. = Significant DifferenceN.S. = No Significant Difference

Crosswalk Type

(p=0.62)*

N.S.

(p=0.00)

(p=0.02)

(p=0.87) (p=0.59)

N.S.

Sig.

Sig.

N.S.

Figure 24. Pedestrian crash rates at types of crossing.
61

One study was conducted to determine the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian

behavior at unsignalized intersections (Knoblauch, Nitzburg, and Seifert, 2000). A before-and-after

evaluation of crosswalk markings was conducted at 11 locations in 4 U.S. cities. Behavior observed

included: pedestrian crossing location, vehicle speeds, driver yielding, and pedestrian crossing behavior.

The authors found that drivers approach a pedestrian in a crosswalk somewhat slowly, and that crosswalk

usage increases after markings are installed. No evidence was found indicating that pedestrians are less

vigilant in a marked crosswalk. No changes were found in driver yielding or pedestrian assertiveness as a

result of adding the marked crosswalk. Marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low-speed, lowvolume, unsignalized intersections was not found to have any measurable negative effect on pedestrian 

or motorist behavior at the selected sites, which were all 2- or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 35 or 40

mph.

In a comparison study, a before-and-after evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk markings was

performed in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona (Knoblauch and Raymond, 2000). Six sites were selected

that had been recently resurfaced. All sites were at uncontrolled intersections with a speed limit of 56

km/h (35 mi/h). “Before data” were collected after the centerline and edgeline delineation was installed

but before the crosswalk was installed. “After” data were collected after the crosswalk markings were

installed. Speed data were collected under three conditions: no pedestrian present, pedestrian looking,

and pedestrian not looking. All pedestrian conditions involved a staged pedestrian. The results indicate a

slight reduction at most, but not all, of the sites. Overall, there was a significant reduction in speed under

both the no-pedestrian and the pedestrian-not-looking conditions.

These more recent studies must be considered in the context of contradictory results among

several earlier studies. The above study shows that marked crosswalks do not differ in safety from

unmarked crosswalks under most circumstances, while in the high-volume, multilane case, the use of

marked crosswalks alone is associated with increased pedestrian risk. This does not fully agree with

several other studies that reported that marked crosswalk crashes in general were much more frequent

than at unmarked crosswalks. However, most of the older studies typically did not analyze the effects of

marked crosswalks as a function of number of lanes, traffic volume, or other roadway factors. 

For example, Herms (1972) authored an early and oft-quoted (and sometimes mis-quoted) study

from San Diego, CA, reporting that crashes on marked crosswalks were twice as frequent per unit

pedestrian volume. In this study, 400 intersections were selected, each having one marked and one

unmarked crosswalk leg on the same street. 

Herms made no mention in 1972 of warrants used to determine where to paint crosswalks, but an

earlier version of the study did (Herms, 1970). The warrant directive for San Diego (January 15, 1962)

established a point system calling for painting crosswalks when: 1) traffic gaps were fewer rather than

more numerous; (2) pedestrian volume was high; (3) speed was moderate; and (4) "other" factors

prevailed, such as previous crashes. Thus, it is possible that crosswalks may have been more likely to be

painted in San Diego where the conditions were most ripe for pedestrian collisions, compared to

unmarked sites.

In a 1994 study, Gibby et al. revisited the issue in an analysis of crashes at 380 California

highway intersections. These were picked in a multi-step selection process from among more than 10,000

intersections. Results showed that crash rates at the selected 380 unsignalized intersections were 2 or 3

times higher in marked than in unmarked crosswalks when expressed as crash rates per pedestrian-vehicle

volume.
62

Other studies on crosswalk effects have also been conducted. Gurnett (1974) described a project

to remove painted stripes from some crosswalks that had shown a bad crash experience in the recent past. 

This is a before-after study of three locations picked because they had a recent bad crash record. 

Crosswalk paint was removed. Subsequent crashes were tallied and fewer were found. The findings of

this study are likely an artifact of the well-known statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean.

Another study of marked crosswalks at non-signalized intersections was reported by the Los

Angeles County Road Department in July, 1967. In a before-after study of 89 intersections, painted

crosswalks were added at each site. Collisions increased from 4 during the before period to 15 in the after

period. All sites that showed crash increases after crosswalks were installed had ADT of less than 10,900

vehicles. At sites with smaller ADT volume, no change in crashes was seen. 

The above finding regarding ADT above approximately 11,000 is consistent with the findings of

Zegeer, Stewart, and Huang and Lagerwey (2002) reported at the beginning of this section. Moreover,

Zegeer et al. attempted to compare their results with those of Herms. They lumped all their study sites

together and computed a simple ratio of crashes divided by pedestrian crossing volume, as did Herms. By

replicating the Herms analysis method on the 2000-site (30-city) data set, they too found the marked

crosswalks were worse by slightly more than 2-to-1 than the unmarked. It is only when the data were

disaggregated (and more appropriate Poisson and negative binomial modelling analyses were done) that it

was seen that higher pedestrian crash risk of marked crosswalks is confined to the high volume,

multi-lane case.

In contrast to the foregoing, however, Tobey and colleagues (1983) reported reduced crashes

associated with marked crosswalks. They examined crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a

function of pedestrian volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V). When the P x V product was used

as a denominator, crashes at unmarked crosswalks were overrepresented, and considerably

underrepresented at marked crosswalks. Communication with the authors indicates that this study

included controlled (signalized) as well as uncontrolled crossings. It seems likely that more marked

crosswalks were at controlled crossings than were unmarked crosswalks, which could partially explain the

different results compared to other studies.

It should be noted that the study methodology was useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for

a variety of human and location features. It was never intended, however, to be used for quantifying the

specific safety effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway situations.

Results of a study of pedestrian crossings in London, England calculated crash risk as the ratio of

crashes per unit time to pedestrian volume counts (Mackie and Older, 1965). The authors found that the

risk was lower in zebra crosswalks than in areas up to 45.7 m (50 yards) away from the crosswalks. 

There was a gradient effect, with crash risk highest nearer to the zebra crossing, but the risk was lower in

the crossing. They found similar results for zebra crossings near a signalized crossing.

However, Ekman of the University of Lund in Sweden found in 1988 that "a pedestrian

experiences approximately a double risk of being injured when crossing on a zebra crossing compared to

a crossing location without any signs or road markings, presupposed that all other conditions are equal." 

Ekman contrasted his results with those from a similar Norwegian study, which reported that pedestrian

risk associated with Norwegian zebra crossings was significantly lower than on the Swedish counterparts. 

In 1985, Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto, Ontario, 

intersections. The basis for selecting the intersections was not described. A before-after study was

carried out and it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to

increase at the same pace after crosswalks were installed. It would appear that marking the crosswalks

did not have much of an effect. However, the author pointed to an increase in tailgating crashes after
63

Figure 25. Unsafe motorist behavior at marked

crosswalks is one of the causes of pedestrian

crashes at marked crosswalks.

crosswalk painting. He also reported that the increased crashes during the after phase seemed to be

explained by involvement of out-of-town drivers.

It is difficult to summarize these disparate findings, but it can be said that marked crosswalks

have little or no association with pedestrian crash risk on two-lane roads and also on multilane roads with

ADT less than approximately 10,000. However, for multilane facilities with ADT greater than 10,000, a

significant crash risk is associated with using marked crosswalks alone without other, more substantial

pedestrian safety treatments.

Behavioral Studies 

It is logical to expect behavioral studies of driver and pedestrian reaction to marked crosswalks in

view of the counterintuitive crash results reported in the literature. In his 1972 study, Herms stated: 

"Evidence indicates that the poor crash record of marked crosswalks is not due to the crosswalk being

marked as much as it is a reflection on the pedestrian's attitude and lack of caution when using the marked

crosswalk."

No behavioral data were presented in that study, however. Other authors advanced similar

assertions with regard to pedestrian behavior in marked crosswalks (Public Works, 1969) (Los Angeles

County Road Department, 1967). In a 1994 study, Gibby et al. provided a thorough review of the

literature including behavioral studies. Some are reviewed here in a separate consideration of pedestrian

vs. motorist behavior.

PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOR

In 1999, Knoblauch and his colleagues carried out a study intended to directly observe incautious

or reckless pedestrian behavior, such as Herms and others postulated to exist, and that might account for

the negative crash results reported in some studies. They found no such behavior (Knoblauch, 1999). 

The research team collected data at eleven sites before and after crosswalks were marked. They

measured vehicle speed and volume, pedestrian volume, and recorded pedestrian and motorist behavior. 

Their study addressed three hypotheses related to pedestrian behavior:
64

Hypothesis: Will pedestrians, perhaps feeling more protected, act more aggressively when

crossing a marked crosswalk compared to one not marked?

No difference was seen in blatantly aggressive pedestrian behavior whether the crossing was

marked or not.

Hypothesis: Will pedestrians keep in the corridor defined by the stripes?

Pedestrians walking alone tended more to use marked crosswalks, especially at busy

intersections. Pedestrians in groups tended not to use the marked crosswalks. Overall, crosswalk usage

increased once markings were in place.

Hypothesis: Will marked crosswalks result in less pedestrian "looking behavior," perhaps because

they feel more protected?

Looking behavior increased significantly after crosswalk markings were installed. No evidence

was seen that the pedestrians were less vigilant in a marked crosswalk compared to one not marked.

The findings are generally consistent with an earlier study that likewise addressed pedestrian

looking behavior and how well they kept within the area defined by the markings (Knoblauch et al.,

1987). Of one case study, these authors said, "The analysis of behavioral data indicates that there were

little or no changes in pedestrian behavior resulting from the installation of the pedestrian crosswalk 

markings." (p. 21)

Of a second case study, the authors said, "...pedestrians tended to stay in the crosswalk. There

was no change in the number of pedestrians looking before entering the roadway; fewer pedestrians

continued to look during the first half of the crossing. There was no change in looking behavior during

the second half of the crossing. (pp. 25-26)

Hauck (1979) reported a before-after study done in Peoria, IL, in which 17 crosswalks at traffic

signals were re-painted. Operational evaluation at the sites showed a general decrease in both pedestrian

and motorist violations when comparing "before-and-after results. It was found that the percentage of

pedestrians who stepped out in front of traffic during the after period decreased at 12 of the 17 locations;

crossing against the DON’T WALK phase (signalized intersections) decreased at 13 of the 17 locations,

though jaywalking was unchanged.

These studies show pedestrian behavior to be generally better in the presence of marked

crosswalks. Certainly there is no indication of incautious or reckless pedestrian behavior associated with

the marked crosswalks. What would be of interest, however, would be a study of pedestrian behavior at

the kind of high ADT multilane facility where crashes at marked crosswalks were significantly higher

than at unmarked. A study under those circumstances might not be advisable, however. It should be

noted that the study by Zegeer and colleagues found that much of the increase in pedestrian crashes at

marked crosswalks on multilane roads (above 10,000 ADT) involved “multiple-threat” crashes, where a

vehicle stops in the curb lane to let a pedestrian cross and the pedestrian steps into the street and is struck

by a vehicle in the adjacent lane (whose view of the pedestrian is blocked by the stopped vehicle). Some

agencies have used an advance stop bar with the sign STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS to improve

sight distance (i.e., when stopping vehicles stop further back from the crosswalk) and reduce the risk of

this type of crash.
65

MOTORIST BEHAVIOR

Motorist behavior changes at marked (vs. unmarked) crosswalks, have been studied by looking at

speed (with and without pedestrians present), yielding, and other factors. 

In 1998, Knoblauch reported results of speed measurements at six locations before and after

crosswalk markings were applied. Some measurements were made with no pedestrians present, some

with a pedestrian present and looking at traffic (the pedestrian was a member of the research team) and

another condition in which the pedestrian approached and stood at the edge of the curb, looked straight

across the road and not at traffic. The results were not clear-cut. Traffic behavior at the sites was not

consistent. One site showed a considerably slower speed after the markings were painted even though no

pedestrian was present. This speed change was unexpected and could not be explained; such changes

were not seen at other crossings.

When the pedestrian was present and looking at traffic, the result summed over all six sites was a

small speed decrease of less than 1 kph (.6 mph), which was not statistically significant. However, one

site showed a significant decrease in speed and one showed a significant increase. The author pointed out

that given the overall speed of the vehicles and the point at which the measurements were taken, a

reasonable driver would assume that a pedestrian looking at traffic would not begin to cross. The driver

would therefore see no need to slow down.

When the driver was present and not looking, however, overall the speeds were about 4 kph (2.5

mph) lower after the markings were applied; a statistically significant change. The author concluded that

drivers are aware of and respond to the crosswalk markings in most cases, particularly when a pedestrian

is present but does not look toward the motorist.

In a 1999 study, Knoblauch and colleagues observed motorist behavior to address two questions:

1. Did crosswalk markings affect the ways drivers respond to pedestrians? The differences were

small, but drivers appear to drive slightly slowly when approaching a pedestrian in a marked

crosswalk compared to one that is unmarked.

2. Might crosswalk markings disrupt vehicle flow by causing drivers to stop and yield to

pedestrians? No change was observed. Drivers were neither more nor less likely to yield to

pedestrians in a marked crosswalk than they had been when the crosswalk was not marked. It

should be mentioned that all sites used in Knoblauch’s 1999 study were two or three lanes

(no four-lane roads) and all had speed limits of 56-64 kph (35 or 40 mph).

Ekman reported in 1988 that motorists in Sweden did not reduce their speeds when approaching

zebra crossings. Insofar as this study measured vehicle speed when no one was present in the crosswalk

or at the curb, one might expect speed to change little or not at all. 

In another 1996 Swedish study, Varhelyi measured motorist behavior at non-signalized zebra

crossings. He reported that in 73 percent of "critical" cases, the vehicle maintained or even increased

speed and in only 27 percent of cases did they slow down as required. Despite what the motorists

actually do, it was found in a separate survey that motorists in 67 percent of the cases say they "always"

or "very often" slow down.

In 1992, Van Houten studied factors that might influence motorists to yield for pedestrians in

marked crosswalks. He measured several behaviors at intersections in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, where a

series of interventions was sequentially introduced to increase the vividness of crosswalks. First signs 
66

were added, then a stop line, and then amber lights activated by pedestrians and displayed to motorists. 

The percentage of vehicles stopping when they should do so increased by amounts up to 50 percent. 

Conflicts dropped from 50 percent to about 10 percent at one intersection and from 50 to about 25 percent

at another. The percentage of motorists who yielded increased from about 25 percent up to 40 percent at

one intersection and from about 35 to about 45 percent at another. 

Malefant and Van Houten studied in 1989 ways to increase the percentage of drivers who yield to

pedestrians. An experiment was conducted in St. John's, Newfoundland, and Fredericton and

Moncton-Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada. Countermeasures included additional markings, feedback to

the pedestrians as to compliance, warning signs for motorists, and enforcement. Associated with these

multiple interventions were large increases in the proportion of motorists who yielded to pedestrians,

ranging from 50 percent (before) to 70 percent (after) in one city; from 10 to 60 percent in another, and

from 40 to 60 percent in the third.

In 1975, Katz et al. carried out an experimental study of driver-pedestrian interaction when the

pedestrian crossed. The pedestrians in question were members of the study team and they crossed under a

variety of conditions in 960 trials. It was found that drivers stop for pedestrians more often when the

vehicle approach speed is low, when the pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk, when the distance between

vehicle and pedestrian is greater rather than less, when pedestrians are in groups, and when the pedestrian

does not make eye contact with the driver.

Cynecki and Associates, 1993 reported the results after rumble strips were installed in advance of

marked crosswalks. The strips were placed at 19 uncontrolled locations. After installation, there was

little change in vehicle speed. The authors also reported that 85th percentile speeds showed essentially no

change. Presumably most of the time when the motorist encountered the rumble strip, the marked

pedestrian crosswalk ahead would have been empty.

Assessment of Literature 

It appears that there is a greater crash risk associated with marked crosswalks alone (i.e., if no

other substantial improvement also is present) on multi-lane facilities with ADT greater than

approximately 10,000. Otherwise, it appears that marking a crosswalk has no clear effect one way or

another on pedestrian crashes. The apparent large negative effect reported by earlier authors disappears

on two-lane roads and multi-lane roads having ADT’s below approximately 10,000. The pedestrian

behavior hypothesized to account for the negative results was not observed under the circumstances

discussed.

Alternative Crossing Treatments

Innovative approaches to pedestrian crossing protection were tested in Detroit, MI (Malo et al.,

1971). Combinations of signing, marking, lighting, and pedestrian signal actuation were installed. The

alternative configurations included overhead signs with internal illumination, flashing beacons, and

pedestrian signals.

Thirteen sites were chosen on the basis of poor crash records and/or judgment that indicated an

unusual hazard. Implementation of the devices was preceded by a considerable educational and publicity

effort by the Traffic Safety Association of Detroit, using leaflets, demonstration installations, press

releases, and other public information methods. Field measurements included approach speeds, gaps,

volumes, driver response (slowing), pedestrian attributes, gap acceptance, and behavior. In addition to the 

engineering studies, opinion surveys were conducted of both pedestrians and drivers as well as

evaluations by experts.
67

Figure 26. Crosswalk treatments such as lighted signs have been 

 used in an attempt to affect pedestrian and/or motorist behaviors

The engineering studies led to the following findings:

! There was a significantly greater relative use of crosswalks following installation of devices, 

primarily during daylight hours.

! The speed distribution of free-flow vehicles in the vicinity of the crosswalk did not change 

substantially.

! Many more drivers slowed for pedestrians waiting to cross the street.

! Pedestrian use of push buttons increased but not to the level expected.

Interviews of pedestrians and drivers showed drivers were usually satisfied with the devices, but

pedestrians were not satisfied with driver response. It was concluded that drivers did not expect to have

to stop or slow down significantly unless a traffic signal or stop sign were in use. Pedestrians expected

traffic to slow down when the device was activated. 

A study of special crosswalks was conducted in five major Canadian cities (Braaksma 1976). 

Four evaluation criteria were used—safety, delay, aesthetics, and cost. Special crosswalks were defined as

those with some extra features in the form of overhead signs and lighting, pavement markings, parking

prohibitions, or, in some cases, special laws. The best system of performance rating per unit cost was in

Toronto. Excluding cost, the Calgary system performed best. 

The Toronto system consisted of pavement markings and roadside signs. Large "Xs" were

marked on the pavement in each lane 30.5 m (100 ft) back on the approach to the crosswalk. The stripe

widths were between 304.8 mm and 508 mm (12-20 in), and the X was 6.1 m (20 ft) long. A standard

advanced pedestrian crossing warning sign was mounted adjacent to the X at the roadside. The crosswalk 
68

was marked no less than 2.44 m (8 ft) wide with two 152.4-mm to 203.2-mm (6-8 in) stripes, 2235.2 mm

(88 in) apart, delineating each side of the crosswalk. 

The Calgary system employed a large overhead sign bearing the word PEDESTRIAN with two

large “Xs” on either side of the word. On either side of the "Xs" were mounted 203.2-mm (8-in) flasher

units. Below the word PEDESTRIAN a smaller flasher was mounted for pedestrian viewing. The flashers

were activated by a pedestrian button having an appropriate sign instructing the pedestrian to push the

button and cross with caution. Standard crosswalk markings were employed. A sign was post mounted at

the roadside 45.75 m - 76.25 m (150 ft to 250 ft) before each approach, containing the words WHEN

LIGHT FLASHING-MAXIMUM 20*-DO NOT PASS-HERE TO CROSSWALK. A flasher was placed

above the sign. The flasher was also activated by the pedestrian button. 

Before-and-after studies in Toronto showed a marked decline in pedestrian fatalities, although

two hazardous behavior patterns were noted. First, some pedestrians would step off the curb without

signaling their intention to cross the roadway; they apparently expected vehicles to stop instantaneously.

Second, pedestrians noted that vehicles passed each other just before the crosswalk. The need for

consistent laws regarding crosswalks, pedestrian, and driver education in this regard, and improved

enforcement, were also cited. 

Illuminated crosswalk signs were installed and evaluated at 20 locations in Tokyo, Japan, using

before-after comparisons of crashes (Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). Findings show both pedestrian

crossing–related and other unrelated crashes increased after the installation of the signs by 4.8 and 2.4

percent, respectively, in 200-m (218-yd) sections on either side of the installation. Both crash types

increased 11.4 percent in 50-m (55-yd) sections. It was concluded that the illuminated crosswalk signs did

not seem to be effective in reducing crashes; whether this type of device increases crashes, however, is

unclear, as the average annual rate of crash growth on major streets in Tokyo is approximately 24 percent.

Crosswalk Illumination

A two-stage study of floodlighting of pedestrian crossings was conducted in Perth, Australia

(Pegrum, 1972). A pilot study showed sufficient success to initiate a broader scale lighting program.

Sixty-three sites were studied. The illumination consisted of two floodlights, one on each side of the

roadway, on either side of the crosswalk, mounted about 3.66 m (12 ft) from the crosswalk at a height of

5.185 m (17 ft), and aimed at a point .915 m (3 ft) above the pavement. The luminaire was a 100-watt

sodium lamp. The ambient lighting was not from sodium luminaires. The author found sodium

floodlighting resulted in a significant decrease in nighttime pedestrian crashes, as shown in table 25.

A combined illumination and signing system for pedestrian crosswalks was developed and tested

in Israel (Polus and Katz, 1978). The nighttime crash change at the 99 illuminated study sites and 39

unilluminated control sites is shown in table 26 on the following page. The reductions were concluded to

be primarily due to the illumination, since daylight crashes were relatively unchanged. Other threats to

validity were checked, including changes in pedestrian and vehicle flow, weather differences, and

national crash trends. None of these showed any effect on the results.

________________

*The sign indicating “maximum 20" refers to kph.
69

Table 25. Crash effects of providing sodium floodlights at

 pedestrian crossings (Perth, Australia).

 Crashes Involving 

Pedestrian Crashes Vehicles Alone 

Day Night Total Day Night Total

Pilot Test: 6 crossings

5 years before 19(1) 7(1) 26(2) 5 1 6

5 years after 21(1) 2 23(1) 9 0 9

Follow On Test: 57 additional crossings

2 years before 57(2) 32(1) 89(3) 19 2 21

2 years after 58(2) 13(1) 71(3) 18(1) 1 19(1)

Fatalities shown in parentheses.

Source: Pegrum, 1972.

Table 26. Effects of crosswalk illumination on pedestrian crashes (Israel).

 Number of Night Crashes

Before After

Illuminated Sites 28 16

Unilluminated

Control Sites 10 16

Source: Polus and Katz, 1978

A study in Philadelphia assessed the impacts of installing improved lighting at seven sites

(Freedman et al., 1975). The impacts were evaluated on the basis of behavior as measured for 728

pedestrians and 191 drivers at the 7 study sites and 7 control sites. The study sites were high-crash

locations, while the control sites were low-crash locations. The illumination improvement consisted of

90-watt low-pressure sodium lamps. Each system was controlled by a photocell that energized the circuit

at sundown and turned it off at sunrise. Experimenter override was possible.

The evaluation was conducted using two primary comparisons of pedestrian attribute changes.

One approach used five basic factors—search behavior, crossing path, concentration, erratic behavior, and

clothing brightness. The results of comparing the five basic factors before and after lighting

improvements showed that "perceived clothing brightness" increased significantly on the basis of all

comparisons for high-crash locations with the installation of the special illumination. Observers searching

the street in a fashion similar to drivers perceived the general appearance of pedestrians as brighter. There

was significant improvement in the apparent concentration of pedestrians to the crossing task at all

signalized locations. Search behavior was found to improve significantly under all conditions. Drivers

appeared more aware of approaching hazardous crosswalks when the illumination was present. It should

be noted that the crash data changes in both groups moved as if toward the mean, consistent with what

would be expected since one group consisted of high-crash sites and the other low-crash sites. However,

the behavioral measures should not have been influenced by regression to the mean.
70

Barriers, Signals, and Signage to Restrict Pedestrian Movements

Median Barriers

As part of a test of various countermeasures, median fence barriers were installed at two sites

(Washington, D.C., with a 1.22-m- [4-ft-] high fence, and New York City, with a 1.83-m- [6-ft-) high

fence) (Berger, 1975). One site had two gaps at intersecting minor streets. After installation of the

barrier, 61 percent of the pedestrians identified the barrier as the reason for using the crosswalk. When

asked whether the barrier affected the manner in which they crossed the street, 52 percent stated it had no

effect, while 48 percent indicated the only effect was to force them to cross at the intersection.

Of those who were crossing midblock before the installation, 61 percent did so out of

convenience. About one-third indicated they would use the crosswalk only if midblock traffic were "very

heavy." After the fence was installed, 32 percent of the 22 pedestrians interviewed who previously made

midblock crossings stated inconvenience as the major factor, with high turning volume at the intersection

as a close second (23 percent). Older pedestrians were generally concerned with the intersection turningtraffic problem. Many cited recent crash experience. Almost one-quarter of those interviewed indicated

they had walked along the median to the end of the barrier, or an opening, before completing the crossing. 

While merchants at a control site did not indicate anticipating much effect from a median barrier, 58

percent of those at the experimental sites indicated their belief that its major effect was to discourage

customers from shopping both sides of the street. Most residents accepted the barrier. Only 7 percent

wanted it removed. A few complained about inconvenience and its unsightly appearance.

Freeway Barriers

As part of the analysis of freeway pedestrian crashes, attempts were made to estimate the

maximum national impact of right-of-way fencing and/or median barriers on freeway crashes if these

pedestrian barriers were employed and were completely effective in controlling crashes identified as

related to this countermeasure (Knoblauch et al., 1978). The field investigators estimated that 14 percent

of freeway pedestrian crashes were susceptible to this countermeasure. One analysis of the crash types

and the contributing factors suggested that these countermeasures could address between 160 and 222 of

these usually severe nationwide crashes per year. 

Roadside/Sidewalk Barriers

Chains, fences, guardrails, and other similar devices have been proposed in several studies as a

means for channelizing and protecting pedestrians (Knoblauch, 1977; Snyder and Knoblauch, 1971;

Knoblauch et al., 1978; Model Pedestrian Safety Program, 1987 edition).

Parking meter post barriers were tested at three sites in urban areas (Berger, 1975). All involved 

use of chains that connected parking meter posts. The barrier was .9 m (3 ft) high and involved 1, 2, or 3

chains. In Washington, DC, 6 parking meter post barriers were created on one side of a street, resulting in

a series of 3.66-m (12-ft) long single chain sections. In New York City, 19 posts were utilized, 9 on one

side of the street and 10 on the other. These were 3.66-m- (12-ft-) sections with 2 chains. The third site

was a section of one-way street along which three-chain sections were installed on eight posts. The results

were mixed. A vandalism problem (stolen chains) interfered with the experiment, a noteworthy concern.

Twenty-six percent of those interviewed who crossed at the intersections after the installation mentioned

that a factor in their choice of crossing location was the illegality of crossing elsewhere. Since only 12

per- cent had mentioned this before the change, the barriers may have reminded pedestrians that it is

illegal to jaywalk. While 65 percent of merchants perceived no negative effects from the countermeasure,

15 percent noted interference to street crossing, and 18 percent cited a problem when loading or

unloading goods.
71

In London, research was done on a 548.4-m (600-yd) road segment that had been provided with

pedestrian barriers on both sides (Jacobs, 1966). The access openings were not directly across from each

other. Pedestrian crossing movements were mapped and crash data were compiled. Crashes during the

previous 8 years were shown as a ratio to 4-hour pedestrian volume, fewer than 20,000 people. The

result- ing risk ratio was compared with that for 11 other sites in London that did not have pedestrian

barriers. The only significant differences occurred at points within 45.7 m (50 yds) of a signalized 

intersection (more than twice the risk ratio with the pedestrian barrier) and at other midblock locations

within 18.28 m (20 yds) of an intersection where controlled crossings were not present and approximately

10 times the risk ratio. The overall risk ratio was lower at the test site but was not found to be statistically

significant. 

The longitudinal path taken by each pedestrian was studied. This was the distance between barrier

openings used to get on and off the roadway, measured parallel to the curb. The results indicate most

pedestrians would cross away from the crosswalk when the longitudinal distance between barrier

openings on either side of the street was less than 9 m (10 yds). It was suggested by the author that

longitudinal distances between the openings on opposite sides of a street be greater than 9 m (10 yds). 

Pedestrian barrier fences were installed along 18 sections of road in Tokyo (Accident Prevention

Effects, 1969). Crashes were analyzed before and after the installation. Crashes related to crossing

pedestrians declined by nearly 20 percent. An overall 4-percent reduction was observed, including nonpedestrian crashes. It had been thought that even though crashes related to pedestrians’ crossing out of

crosswalks might decrease, crashes related to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalks might increase. The

results indicated both types of pedestrian collisions were reduced equally by 20 percent.

Signalization

Signals are widely employed to direct and assist pedestrians at crossings. A study of 30 locations

in Tokyo where pedestrian-activated signals were installed showed that crashes declined by 37.5 percent

(Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). Little difference was noted in the severity of crashes between the

before and after periods. The effective range of the signal influence seems to be between 25-50 m (27-55

yds) on either side of the signal. The pedestrian-activated signals were found to be much more effective in

reducing night crashes than daylight crashes. Rear-end vehicular crashes, which are usually expected to

increase after signalization, decreased by 12 percent.

Several behavioral studies of pedestrian signals have been conducted in the U.S. Most have

found pedestrian compliance to be poor. One study compared pedestrian crossing behavior at sites with

and without standard pedestrian signals (Mortimer, 1973). Observers noted specific behaviors twice on

different days. A total of 24 sites in Detroit, MI, were analyzed, 12 of which had pedestrian signals. More

than 3,200 pedestrians were observed. Illegal starts on amber/DON’T WALK were about 4 percent less at

sites with pedestrian signals. The percent arriving at the far side of the green/WALK was 20 percent

higher at the sites with pedestrian signals.

An observational sampling study of pedestrian behavior at a site in Brooklyn, NY, noted any 

change occurring with the installation of a pedestrian signal (Fleig and Duffy, 1967). A before-after crash

analysis was also performed on 11 additional sites at which pedestrian signals had been installed. Neither

the behavioral analysis nor the crash analysis showed any significant difference between the before and

after periods.

As part of a behavioral analysis at a variety of intersections in Washington, DC, San Francisco

and Oakland, CA (Petzold, 1977), observations were made of compliance with pedestrian signals at six

intersections. Based on four intersections with pedestrian signals displaying a flashing WALK indication

(550 pedestrians) and two intersections having steady WALK indications (139 pedestrians), no difference
72

was observed between flashing and steady WALK signals in terms of pedestrian usage of the cycle. A

very large portion of the users paid little, if any, attention to the pedestrian signal. This same study

demonstrated that few pedestrians understand the meaning of flashing WALK and DON'T WALK

pedestrian signals, whereas symbolic pedestrian signalization such as the walking pedestrian and upheld

hand offers an improved understanding over word messages. One study showed that, at most, only about

half of the pedestrians pressed the button to activate the WALK light (Palamarthy et al., 1994).

A comparison was made in Massachusetts of the behavior of pedestrians at intersections with

flashing and solid WALK segments of the pedestrian signals (Sterling, 1974). The sites were controlled 

by vehicle-actuated signals having a fixed pedestrian phase length. Sites with high pedestrian and traffic 

volumes were chosen. Pedestrians at the sites with flashing WALK were found to cross in a legal manner

only 29 percent of the time compared with 51 percent who did so at the sites with a steady WALK

indication. The percentage of crossings for which a vehicular conflict occurred was 6 percent for the

steady indication and 8 percent for the flashing indication. This difference was statistically significant.

An area-wide, centralized computer-controlled signal system was installed in West London. The

impact on pedestrian safety and other impacts were studied (Crook, 1970). A significant 5-percent

reduction in pedestrian crashes occurred in the experimental area while a 20-percent increase in

pedestrian crashes occurred in a comparison (control) area.

Studies in the U.S. and Israel have quantified the effects of pedestrian signals and signal timing

on pedestrian crashes. The most comprehensive study involved the collection and analysis of pedestrian

crashes, traffic and pedestrian volume, signal timing, roadway geometrics, and other data at 1,297

signalized intersections (2,081 total pedestrian crashes) in 15 U.S. cities. The following pedestrian signal

strategies existed (Zegeer et al., 1982, 1983):

! Concurrent (standard) timing allows pedestrians a WALK interval concurrently (parallel) to

traffic flow, while vehicles are generally permitted to turn right or left on a green light across

the pedestrian’s path. These represented 658 intersections, or over 50.7 percent of the sample,

and is by far the most common type of pedestrian signal timing in the U.S.

! Exclusive timing refers to a pedestrian signal timing where pedestrians are given an exclusive

interval each signal cycle while traffic is stopped in all directions. "Scramble" or "Barnes

Dance" timing is exclusive timing where pedestrians are also permitted to cross the street

diagonally. There were 109 such intersections, or 8.4 percent of the total, in the database.

! Other timing patterns include early release, where pedestrians are given a head start in the

cycle before motor vehicles are permitted to turn behind pedestrians. Late-release timing

holds pedestrians until motor vehicles make their right (and/or left) turns before pedestrians

are allowed to cross. Only 22 intersections, or 1.7 percent of the total, had one of these timing

patterns.

! Pedestrian signal indications were not present at 508, or 39.2 percent, of the sample

intersections.

The study found that the factors significantly related to increased pedestrian crashes include

higher pedestrian and traffic volumes, street operation (two-way streets have higher pedestrian crashes

than one-way streets), wider streets, higher bus use, and greater percentage of turning movements. The

presence of concurrently timed pedestrian signals had no significant effect on pedestrian crashes when

compared with intersections with traffic signals alone. Sites with exclusive pedestrian signal timing had

significantly lower pedestrian experience (about half as many) as sites with either standard timing or with 
73

no pedestrian signals. This exclusive timing scheme was effective, however, only at intersections with

more than 1,200 pedestrians per day. The authors controlled for pedestrian volume, traffic volume,

intersection geometrics, and other factors in their analysis. A summary of results for various signal timing

schemes is given in table 27.

Of possible relevance to the issue of early or late release timing is a study of pedestrian traffic

conflicts at T intersections (Lord, 1996). This study confirmed earlier work that showed more pedestrian

conflicts with left-turning vehicles at T intersections than at standard X intersections. Because leftturning traffic at T intersections has no oncoming vehicle traffic to cause a delay, the driver can initiate

the turn immediately and may intercept a pedestrian who starts at the same time. At an X intersection,

left-turning traffic may have to wait for oncoming vehicle traffic to pass, which may amount to an early

release for the pedestrians.

Zegeer and colleagues (1982, 1983) cite these explanations for the possible lack of effectiveness

of concurrent signal timing:

! The possibility that many pedestrians of pedestrians misunderstand pedestrian signal

messages, such as the flashing DON'T WALK (i.e., pedestrian clearance interval meaning

don't start, but finish crossing if already in the street)

! The false sense of security that some pedestrians may have regarding the WALK interval

(e.g., they sometimes incorrectly believe that a WALK interval protects them by stopping

traffic in all directions including turns, such as with exclusive signal timing) 

! Poor compliance by many pedestrians to pedestrian signals in the 15 test cities (65.9 percent

of pedestrians were found to begin crossing during the flashing or steady DON'T WALK at

64 intersection approaches)

! Reluctance by many pedestrians to activate the push-button pedestrian signals (e.g., the study

found that 51.3 percent of all crossing pedestrians pushed the button to activate the signal)

The study concluded that highway agencies should not indiscriminately install pedestrian signals

at all traffic signalized locations. Instead, the cost of pedestrian signals should be weighed against their

effectiveness at a given location. On the other hand, the authors cite a need for pedestrian signals at some

signalized locations (e.g., within established school crossings, wide street crossings, or where vehicle

signals are not visible to pedestrians) as discussed in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(1988). 

In a 1987 study from Israel by Zaidel and Hocherman, pedestrian crashes were used to compare

the safety of various types of pedestrian signal options at signalized intersections in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem,

and Haifa. These included sites with a concurrently-timed pedestrian signal, an exclusively timed

pedestrian interval, and no pedestrian control. Extensive control data were collected for use in the

analysis.

A total of 1,310 pedestrian crashes and 5,132 vehicle crashes were analyzed at 320 intersections.

The factors most strongly associated with higher pedestrian crashes include increased pedestrian and

traffic volume and greater intersection complexity (as evidenced by number of intersection legs or

number of conflict points). The type of pedestrian crossing provision was found to have only a slight

effect on pedestrian crashes, and no effect on vehicle injury crashes, particularly where vehicle volumes

were relatively low (i.e., less than 18,000 vehicles per day). Exclusively timed pedestrian signals showed

evidence of crash reduction where high vehicle and pedestrian volumes existed.
74

Table 27. Summary of effects of pedestrian signal timing on pedestrian crashes.

Comparison

Dependent

Variable

Adjusted Means

(Sample Sizes in

Parentheses)

Control Variables

SignificDifferethe 0.05 

1. All Ped. Signal Alternatives

A. Mean Pedestrian Crashes per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.36 (508)Concurrent: 0.40 (658)Exclusive: 0.22 (109)Other: 0.38 (22)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

B. Mean Pedestrian Turning Crashes per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.13 (508)Concurrent: 0.17 (658)Exclusive: 0.01 (109)Other: 0.20 (22)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

2. No Ped. Signal Indication vs. Concurrent Ped. Signal Timing

A. Mean Pedestrian Crashes per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.36 (508)Concurrent: 0.40 (658)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

N

B. Mean Pedestrian Turning Crashes per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.12 (508)Concurrent: 0.15 (658)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

3. No Ped. Signal Indication vs. Exclusive Ped. Signal Timing

A. Mean Pedestrian Crashes per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.33 (508)Exclusive: 0.15 (109)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

B. Mean Pedestrian Turning Crashes  per Year

No Ped. Signal: 0.11 (508)Exclusive: 0.00 (109)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

4. Concurrent Ped. Signal Timing vs. Exclusive Ped. Signal Timing

A. Mean Pedestrian Crashes per Year

Concurrent Timing: 0.43 (658)Exclusive: 0.27 (109)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

B. Mean Pedestrian Turning Crashes  per Year

Concurrent Timing: 0.17 (658)Exclusive: 0.03 (109)

Pedestrian Volume (AADT)Total Traffic Volume (AADT)Street Operation (One-Way/ Two-Way)Ped. Signal Alternatives

 Source: Zegeer et al., 1983 *Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) 
75

A 1984 study by Robertson and Carter examined the safety, operational, and cost impacts of

pedestrian signal indications at signalized intersections. The study was based on information obtained

from existing literature, an analysis of pedestrian crashes, a delay analysis, and a benefit-cost analysis.

The authors concluded that pedestrian signal indications appear to reduce pedestrian crashes at some

intersections, have little or no effect at others, and even increase such crashes at other intersections. Also,

while the presence of pedestrian signals apparently did not significantly offset pedestrian and vehicle

delay, the operation of pedestrian and vehicular signals (i.e., signal timing) had a profound effect on

delay. The authors recommended that further efforts be made to determine intersection conditions for

effective use of pedestrian signals.

As stated above, many pedestrians do not fully understand the meaning of pedestrian signals and

markings, nor the legal obligations underlying them, and that may explain, in part, the less-than-perfect

performance associated with these devices. A 1995 study by Tidwell and Doyle reported survey results

based on data collected in 48 states. The following survey responses were reported:

! 86-94 percent say crossing should be at intersections or marked midblock crossings. 

! 92-97 percent understand that motorists should give way to pedestrians in a marked 

crosswalk.

! 79-87 percent know that RTOR vehicles should yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

! 59-61 percent did not know that motorists are not obliged to stop when a pedestrian

is waiting on the sidewalk.

! 42-46 percent erroneously believe the DON’T WALK signal means return to the original curb.

! 47 percent think a WALK signal means there will be no conflict with turning vehicles.

Signing

A variety of pedestrian-related signs are used by state and local agencies. Examples of regulatory

signs include PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED, WALK ON LEFT FACING TRAFFIC, NO

HITCHHIKING, and others. Warning signs for pedestrians include the advance pedestrian crossing sign,

school warning sign, and others. Guide signs provide travel information and can direct pedestrians to

sidewalks, walkways, hiking trails, overpasses, and other facilities. Criteria for the design and placement

of signs are contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (1988) and

supplemented by the Traffic Control Devices Handbook, (1988). A 1988 study for the Transportation

Research Board summarizes experiences from 48 state and local agencies regarding traffic and roadway

conditions where certain signs are most (and least) effective (Zegeer and Zegeer, 1988).

An experiment was conducted using a novel flourescent yellow-green sign warning motorists of

pedestrians (Clark et al., 1996). A before-and-after study was done, including a comparison group where

no such sign was deployed. An increase was found in the proportion of vehicles slowing or stopping for

pedestrians. However, no decrease was seen in conflict events.

Right Turn on Red

The effects of RTOR on pedestrian safety was investigated in a 1981 study by Preusser and

Associates. Right turn crashes increased from 1.47 percent before RTOR to 2.28 percent of all pedestrian

crashes after RTOR went into effect. A common RTOR pedestrian crash resulted when a motorist was

stopped at the intersection looking for approaching vehicles from the left and failed to see a pedestrian

crossing from the right side. Directional movements related to RTOR crashes involving pedestrians and

bicyclists are illustrated in figure 27. The study concluded that there was a small but clear safety problem

for pedestrians because of RTOR. A 1994 NHTSA report to Congress said that about two-tenths of 1

percent of all fatal pedestrian and bike crashes result from RTOR (Compton and Milton, 1994).
76

Figure 27. Directional movements of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in rightturn-on-red crashes.

Source: Preusser et al., 1981.

A 1986 study by Zegeer and Cynecki investigated motorist violation rates related to NO TURN

ON RED (NTOR) signs and resulting pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Observational data for more than

67,000 drivers at 110 intersections were collected at intersections in Washington, DC, Dallas, Austin,

Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. It was found that 3.7 percent of all right-turning motorists at RTORprohibited intersections violate the NTOR signs. However, approximately 21 percent violate the NTOR

signs if given an opportunity (e.g., first in line at the intersection with no pedestrians in front of them and

no vehicle coming from the left). A summary of motorist violations and resulting conflicts at RTORprohibited sites is shown in table 28.

According to Zegeer and Cynecki’s findings, approximately 23.4 percent of all RTOR violations

result in a conflict with a pedestrian. These types of conflicts are summarized in table 29 for the near and

far crosswalks. At intersections where RTOR is allowed, 56.9 percent of motorists fail to make a full stop

before turning right on red. This compared with 68.2 percent of vehicles that failed to make a complete

stop at other intersections with stop-sign control. The higher violation rate (i.e., not fully stopping) at stop

sign intersections was attributed in part to the greater opportunity for a rolling stop or no stop (because of

lower side street volumes and pedestrian activity at stop-sign locations compared with signalized

locations). Based on locational factors, 30 candidate countermeasures were developed to improve

pedestrian safety relative to RTOR. 

A follow-up evaluation of promising countermeasures was conducted for RTOR pedestrian

crashes. Seven countermeasures were tested at 34 intersection approaches in six U.S. cities on the basis 

of motorist violations and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts related to RTOR and right turn on green (RTOG).
77

Table 28. Violations and conflicts related to right turn on red.

Total

Number

of Hours

Number of

Intersection

Approaches

Number of 

RTOR 

Maneuvers

(No. per

Hour)

Number of RTOR

Conflicts

(No. per Hour)

Percent of RTOR Vehicles

Involved in Conflict

Number of RTOR

Conflicts Plus 

Interactions (No.

Per Hour)

Pe

Cross

Street

Vehicles

Pedestrians Cross

Street 

Vehicles

Pedestrians Total Pedestrians

Ped

RTORAllowedSites

496.7 108 8,507

(17.13)

324

(0.65)

428

(0.86)

3.8 5.0 8.8 792

(1.59)

RTORProhibitedSites

435.8 91 2,225

(5.11)

133

(0.31)

135

(0.31)

6.0 6.0 12.0 222

(0.51)

Total Sites 932.5 199 10,732

(11.51)

457

(0.49)

563

(0.60)

4.3 5.2 9.5 1,014

(1.09)

 Source: Zegeer and Cynecki, 1986.
78

Table 29. Summary of traffic conflicts related to right-turn-on-red pedestrian crashes

Types of

Sites

Hours of 

Data

Collected

Type of

Conflict

Near Crosswalk Far Crosswalk T

Conflicts Interactions Totals Conflicts Interactions Totals Conflict 

 RTOR- Allowed

496.7 RTOG 118

(0.24)

161

(0.32)

279

(0.56)

5,018

(10.10)

2404

(4.84)

7,422

(14.94)

5,136

(10.34)

RTOR 151

(0.30)

185

(0.37)

336

(0.67)

277

(0.56)

179

(0.36)

456

(0.92)

428

(0.86)

Totals 269

(0.54)

346

(0.70)

615

(1.24)

5,295

(10.66)

2,583

(5.20)

7,878

(15.86)

5,564

(11.20)

 RTOR- Prohibited 

435.8 RTOG 181

(0.42)

140

(0.32)

321

(0.74)

5,234

(12.01)

2,654

(6.09)

7,888

(18.10)

5,415

(12.43)

RTOR 40

(0.09)

44

(0.10)

84

(0.19)

95

(0.22)

43

(0.10)

138

(0.32)

135

(0.31)

Totals 221

(0.51)

184

(0.42)

405

(0.93)

5,329

(12.23)

2,697

(6.19)

8,026

(18.42)

5,550

(12.74)

 Source: Zegeer and Cynecki, 1986.
79

The results showed that the NTOR sign with the red ball was more effective than the standard black and

white NTOR signs. For RTOR motorists, an offset stop bar was found to increase compliance (i.e.,

making a full stop before turning right on red) and also reduced conflicts with cross-street traffic. An

electronic NTOR/ blank-out sign (actuated only during critical times, such as during school crossing

times) was slightly more effective, although considerably more costly than traditional signs. In general,

driver compliance was improved when the RTOR restriction was limited to the peak pedestrian times

instead of full-time restrictions. The NTOR WHEN PEDESTRIANS ARE PRESENT sign was found to

be effective at intersections having moderate or low RTOR volumes. Several of these countermeasures

are illustrated in figure 28. The study also showed that generally the likelihood of an RTOG collision

was higher than a RTOR collision. In some cases, prohibiting RTOR may lead to a greater RTOG

collision potential.

Innovative Traffic Control Devices

Various problems have been identified in recent years regarding traffic controls for pedestrians,

particularly related to the ineffectiveness and confusion associated with pedestrian signal messages. A

1982 study by Zegeer et. al. developed and tested alternatives to warn pedestrians and/or motorists of

potential problems between pedestrians and turning vehicles at intersections. Field testing was conducted

at selected intersections in several cities (Washington, DC, Milwaukee, Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Saginaw,

MI). The results revealed that:

! A red and white triangular sign, 914 m (36 in) on each side and inscribed YIELD TO

PEDESTRIAN WHEN TURNING was effective in reducing turning conflicts between

vehicles and pedestrians. It was recommended that this sign be added to the MUTCD for

optional use at locations with a high incidence of pedestrian crashes involving turning

vehicles.

! A PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES warning sign with black letters

on a yellow background was significantly associated with reduced vehicle turning crashes

involving pedestrians. This sign was also recommended as an optional sign to be

incorporated into the MUTCD.

! A pedestrian signal explanation sign had no detectable effect at two sites where pedestrian

violations were not a problem before the signs were installed (Saginaw), but was associated

with lower pedestrian violations and turning conflicts at two other sites where pedestrian

violations had been a serious problem (Washington, DC).

! A three-section pedestrian signal with the message WALK WITH CARE displayed during

the crossing interval was tested at four sites in three cities to warn pedestrians of possible

turning vehicles and/or vehicles that run red lights. The signal message was associated with

significantly fewer pedestrian signal violations and also fewer turning-related conflicts. This

special message was recommended as an addition to the MUTCD for use only where 

pedestrian collisions were high, especially since overuse was believed to result in its

decreased effectiveness.

Previous research has also shown a general misunderstanding by pedestrians of the flashing DON'T

WALK interval (Robertson and Carter, 1984). As part of the 1982 Zegeer et. al. study, several devices

were developed as alternatives to the flashing DON'T WALK, including:

! A three-message DON’T START display (to be used with the standard WALK and DON’T

WALK where the DON’T START is a steady yellow message) resulted in a significant
80

Figure 28. Examples of treatments that have been tested to reduce

pedestrian crashes related to right-turn-on-red (RTOR) motorists.
81

Figure 29. These innovative pedestrian

crossing signs had mixed results.

reduction in pedestrian violations and conflicts compared with the flashing DON’T WALK

without the DON’T START message. This finding prevailed at three of four test sites. It’s

further testing was recommended for possible eventual adoption nationwide.

! A steady DON'T WALK message for the clearance and pedestrian prohibition intervals

provided no improvement over the flashing DON'T WALK interval and was not

recommended.

An illustration of some of these innovative traffic control alternatives is shown in figure 29.

Huang, Zegeer, and Nassi conducted an evaluation of innovative pedestrian signs at unsignalized

locations in conjunction with marked crosswalks to improve the crosswalk visibility and increase the

likelihood that motorists would yield to pedestrians. Their study evaluated three such devices: (1) an

overhead CROSSWALK sign in Seattle, WA; (2) pedestrian safety cones with the message, “STATE

LAW - YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK IN YOUR HALF OF ROAD” in NY State and

Portland, OR; and (3) pedestrian-activated “STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK” overhead

signs in Tucson, AZ. The signs were used under different traffic and roadway conditions.

The New York cones and Seattle signs were effective in increasing the number of motorists who

stopped for pedestrians. At one location in Tucson, the overhead sign increased instances of motorists’

yielding to pedestrians. The signs in Seattle and Tucson were effective in reducing the number of

pedestrians who had to run, hesitate, or abort their crossing. None of the treatments had a clear effect on

whether people crossed in the crosswalk.

The authors concluded that these devices by themselves cannot ensure that motorists will slow

down and yield to pedestrians, and that it is essential to use such devices together with education and

enforcement. Finally, the authors recommended that traffic engineers should use other measures,

including designing “friendlier” pedestrian environments at the outset.
82

Figure 30. Examples of innovative pedestrian signalization alternatives. 
83

Figure 31. The Clearwater pedestrian crossing

treatment resulted in a positive influence on

pedestrian and driver behavior.

A novel overhead illuminated crosswalk sign and high-visibility ladder style crosswalk were

evaluated in Clearwater, FL by Nitzburg and Knoblauch (2000) using an experimental/control design. 

The effect of the novel treatments on driver and pedestrian behavior was determined. A significant 30-40

percent increase in daytime driver yielding behavior was found. A smaller (8 percent) and insignificant

increase in nighttime driver yielding behavior was observed. A large (35 percent) increase in crosswalk

usage by pedestrians was noted along with no change in pedestrian overconfidence, running, or conflicts. 

It was concluded that the high-visibility crosswalk treatments had a positive effect on pedestrian and

driver behavior on the relatively narrow low-speed crossings that were studied. Additional work was

recommended to determine whether they also have a desirable effect on wider roadways where speeds are

greater.

At many intersections, pedestrians must push buttons to activate the WALK phase. However,

they often do not know whether the button has been pressed and whether it is functional. If the WALK

phase does not appear soon after the button has been pressed, they may believe that it does not work and

start crossing early, while the steady DON’T WALK is still being displayed. When a pedestrian presses

an illuminated push button, a light near the button turns on, indicating that the WALK phase has been

activated and will appear. Huang and Zegeer conducted in 2000 a study to evaluate the effects of

illuminated push buttons on pedestrian behavior. In general, illuminated push buttons did not have a

statistically significant effect on how often the pedestrian phases were activated, how many people

pushed the button, how many people complied with the WALK phase, or such pedestrian behaviors as

running, aborted crossings, and hesitation before crossing. Only 17 and 13 percent of pedestrians pushed

the button in the “before” and “after” periods, respectively. In both the before and after periods, someone

pushed the button in 32 percent of signal cycles with pedestrians. The majority of pedestrians (67.8

percent with, and 72.3 percent without illuminated push button) who arrived when parallel traffic had the

red and who pushed the button complied with the WALK phase.

Automated pedestrian detection systems provide the means to detect the presence of pedestrians

as they approach the curb before crossing the street, and then “call” the WALK signal without any action

required on the part of the pedestrian. Hughes, Huang, Zegeer, and Cynecki conducted a study to

determine whether automated pedestrian detectors, when used in conjunction with standard pedestrian

push buttons, would result in fewer overall pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and fewer inappropriate crossings
84

Figure 32. Illuminated pedestrian

push buttons were not found to alter

pedestrian crossing behavior.

Figure 33. Automatic pedestrian detectors

have been found to significantly reduce

pedestrian violations of the DON’T WALK

indication and reduce pedestrian vehicle

conflicts.

(i.e., beginning to cross during the DON’T WALK signal). “Before” and “after” video data were

collected at intersection locations in Los Angeles, CA (infrared and microwave), Phoenix, AZ

(microwave), and Rochester, NY (microwave). The results indicated a significant reduction in vehiclepedestrian conflicts as well as a reduction in the number of pedestrians beginning to cross during the

DON’T WALK signal. The differences between microwave and infrared detectors were not significant. 

Detailed field testing of the microwave equipment in Phoenix revealed that fine tuning of the detection

zone is still needed to reduce the number of false calls and missed calls.
85

Figure 34. Some pedestrians are

not able to cross an intersection

within the signal time provided.

Pedestrian Refuge Areas

Some pedestrians cannot cross an intersection within the signal time provided, and some

midblock crossings are too wide for the available gaps. Running across intersections has been shown to

be a common cause of pedestrian crashes. Pedestrian refuge areas between traffic lanes offer a place

where pedestrians may pause while crossing a multilane street. They also allow pedestrians to cross one

direction of travel at a time. Refuge areas may be delineated by markings on the roadway or raised above

the surface of the street.

The use of central refuge islands, or medians, for pedestrians is often proposed but seldom

studied. One analysis reports before-after comparisons of personal injury crashes at sites where pedestrian

refuges were installed (Lalani, 1976). "Double-D" shaped islands were installed at 120 sites in London.

The installations were in conjunction with other roadway improvements, including anti-skid surfacing, 

illuminated bollards, bus lanes, and cross-hatch markings. The crash records for comparable before-andafter periods were subjected to statistical tests to determine significant changes. It was found that

provision of refuges, thought of as a facility for pedestrians, reduced vehicle crashes but increased 

pedestrian crashes. Significant pedestrian crash reduction at intersections could be identified only where

the purpose of the refuge was very clearly established, such as: provision of the refuge specifically on the

basis of safety, reinforcement of the refuge with cross-hatch markings, or provision of the refuge for

channelization or vehicular traffic. For single refuges not at junctions, it was possible to identify

significant reductions in vehicle crashes when the refuges were fitted with fully illuminated bollards. It

was possible to identify overall significant reductions in crashes where the refuges were provided in the

vicinity of active pedestrian areas.

Additional studies do not fully remove the ambiguity cited above. Bowman and Vecellio

(1994A, 1994B) reported comparisons of several kinds of medians, including undivided multi-lane

roadway, TWLTL, and raised curb medians. Raised curb facilities seem to be associated with lower 

pedestrian crash rates, as might be expected. But the authors say, “ . . . it appears that both raised and

TWLTL medians significantly reduce the number and severity of vehicular crashes . . . . The literature

did not provide a conclusive indication that medians improved pedestrian safety,” (Bowman and Vecellio,

1994B, p. 186). 
86

Figure 35. Raised medians and pedestrian islands

 may provide a measure of safety to pedestrians.

In general, raised curb medians may be better than TWLTL medians which are, in turn, better

than undivided highways (Bowman and Vecellio, 1994A). The data were broken down several ways, and

recombined several ways. Some differences were significant and others were not.

The need for refuge areas is presumably related to street widths, pedestrian walking speed, and

vehicle gaps. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires clearance intervals to

be based on a walking speed of 1.2 m/s (4 ft/s); however, this may not be sufficient for pedestrians with

mobility impairments. Knoblauch and colleagues measured pedestrian start-up and walk times in 1996. 

The measures varied according to many factors, but the differences, though statistically significant, were

mostly too small to matter from the design standpoint. The authors recommend, however, use of a

walking speed of 0.91 m/s for elderly pedestrians and 1.22 m/s (4 ft/s) for a typical pedestrian.

Further indications of variability of possible relevance to designers are two studies of pedestrian

walking speeds in the tropical countries of Thailand and Sri Lanka.(Tanaboriboon and Guyano, 1991;

Morrall et al., 1991), where walking speeds are slower than typical in the U.S. Thus, when the

temperature is high and when pedestrians may be encumbered with loads, walking speed may be slower.

Provisions for Pedestrians with Disabilities

A study of collisions involving pedestrians with disabilities in Atlanta, GA led to conclusions

regarding various countermeasures for reducing elderly and handicapped pedestrian crashes (Templer,

1979). A telephone interview was used to determine information not available from the collision report

or hospital records of 989 pedestrian crash reports. Field reconnaissance was made of the crash sites. 

The number of crashes in the sample that might have been prevented by each of the following

countermeasures is noted below:

! Design and operate pedestrian facilities to accommodate the handicapped: 5 crashes

! Design traffic facilities for the safety of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic: 17 crashes

! Provide appropriate separation between pedestrian and non-pedestrian areas: 5 crashes
87

! Use traffic engineering measures to ensure each street is used for its intended purpose: 2

crashes

! Provide a safer school trip for young pedestrians: 3 crashes

! Encourage parents to take more responsibility for the supervision and education of their

children in pedestrian safety: 24 crashes

! Provide information to school children and safety personnel about safe and proper pedestrian

behavior: 17 crashes

! Provide information to elderly people about safe and proper pedestrian behavior: 11 crashes

! Prosecute drivers for repeated violations of traffic regulations: 14 crashes

! Keep the pedestrian environment clean and free from debris: 2 crashes

! Remove objects that obstruct visibility between drivers and pedestrians: 3 crashes

! Provide information about the dangers of alcohol overconsumption : 1 crash

In addition to those crashes analyzed for Atlanta, the same study sampled reactions to

environmental hazards by handicapped people in five U.S. cities. Four elements of the pedestrian system

were identified as accounting for 81 percent of the crashes they reported:

Walks and corridors 36 percent

Streets and crosswalks 17 percent

Curbs and curb ramps 11 percent

Stairs 17 percent

Countermeasures for Pedestrians with Vision Impairments

Crossing the street is a major hazard for people with vision impairments. A non-visual system to

assist the vision-impaired has two distinct aspects, according to Hulscher (1975).

! Making the person with vision impairments aware of any special facility so it can be used

properly

! Conveying the information normally displayed by visual means

From a series of interviews with 10 persons with vision impairments in Washington, DC,

Hulscher showed the need for careful consideration of this impairment when widening streets and

intersections, or accomplishing other physical changes. Major recommendations by those interviewed

included:

! Greater separation between vehicle and pedestrian facilities, such as grade-separated

crossings

! Use of textured pavements

! Angular, instead of round, corners (better for directional orientation)

! Braille maps at strategic points
88

Figure 36. Without adequate

facilities, vision-impaired pedestrians are at increased risk..

Particular problems were noted for pedestrians with vision impairments at signalized crossings,

including their difficulty in finding the pedestrian push buttons at actuated signals. Another problem for

visually impaired pedestrians was in determining when the WALK and clearance intervals were

displayed. Conveying signal information under such circumstances has been achieved by both tactile and

audible means. These may be used to provide information regarding signal status as well as crossing

guidance (Hulscher, 1975; Roberts, 1972). One study reported that, in Japan, sound equipment was used

to generate bird calls or little songs to indicate signal status (Van Der Does, 1976). These have been

found least disturbing to others and can be installed to vary in loudness depending on ambient sound

levels.

Combinations of buzzers and beepers have been used in Australia (Chalis et al., 1976). These

were combined with a vibrator, which the pedestrian with a vision impairment must touch at the curb to

determine when it is safe to walk. The beeper then provides information on the clearance interval. 

Disturbance to others and masking due to ambient noise were noted as problems. Interviews with

pedestrians with vision impairments uncovered a pronounced mistrust of mechanical aids at intersections,

based upon experience with the vibrating signal. Several new designs were evaluated on the basis of

behavior on the part of pedestrians with a vision impairment. The recommended mechanism employed an

audible DON'T WALK sound device mounted on a pole to which the pedestrian could go and wait for the

WALK signal. The signals were automatically adjusted to ambient noise level. 

An evaluation of audible pedestrian signals was conducted in 1988 by the San Diego Association

of Governments. The study estimated that as many as 100 cities in the U.S. use audible pedestrian

signals, and they were reported to be used in Australia, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, and other countries

in Europe. One aspect of the study involved a review of pedestrian crashes at 60 intersections in San

Diego, CA, where pedestrian signals had been installed. No differences were found in the number of

pedestrian collisions before and after installation of the audible devices. Drivers were at fault in more

than half of the pedestrian collisions, and most crashes occurred between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. in clear

weather with the vehicle going straight. In spite of the signals’ lack of a measurable effect on pedestrian

crashes, the authors developed specific criteria for their use. 
89

Tactile strips have been laid down to assist pedestrians with a vision impairment in crossing the

street. In San Diego, tests at three sites showed tactile guide strips made of epoxy cement and pea gravel

to be effective and durable under sustained traffic and weather conditions (Herms et al., 1975). They

reported no evidence that the raised strip (102 mm [4 in] wide with 6-mm [0.25-in.] gravel) caused any

subsidiary problems for motorists, bicyclists, or other pedestrians. The authors cautioned that these tactile

strips should not be applied on an areawide basis but rather at selected locations of proven need, under

joint supervision of a traffic engineering specialist and a trained mobility expert. This will help insure

that such devices are provided consistently and to warn visually-impaired pedestrians where it is

appropriate to do so.

Research was done by Gallon and colleagues on the use and utility of tactile surfaces in the traffic

environment for people with visual impairments (Gallon et al., 1991; Gallon, 1992). The 1991 report

included four study parts:

1. A review of literature, and usage practices current in England during the late 1980s

2. A survey of the walking habits of people with visual impairments

3. An experimental search among 20 different surfaces for a subset whose members were 

 mutually distinguishable

4. An evaluation of how well people with visual impairments could distinguish among

 the selected surfaces, and how well they learned the intended uses

Five or six surfaces were found to be reliably distinguished, though none was “perfect,” and color

differences were important for people with some sight. The study also called for training people with

visual impairments and consistent deployment of the various surfaces. In the 1992 study, Gallon reported

that the selected surfaces posed no problems for those with mobility impairments. In contrast, O’Leary et

al. (1995) cite some concerns by people with mobility impairments to the surfaces that assisted people

with visual impairments.

Another device for pedestrians with a visual impairment, tested in Japan is a radio receiver

carried by the vision-impaired pedestrian to receive information on traffic signal status from the signal

installation (Van Der Does, 1976). For the color-blind, red and green are most often difficult to

distinguish, so blue has been included in the green signal, or replaced green, for easier identification.

These “system” approaches can augment motorist behavior in response to seeing a handicapped

pedestrian. In one experiment, a member of the research team crossed traffic with and without carrying a

cane (Harrell, 1992). Drivers stopped more often when the cane was carried, but even under this

condition, an average of three cars passed by before one stopped.

Safety Measures for Pedestrians with Hearing Impairments

A survey of 60 people with hearing impairments in Washington, DC, emphasized the visual

dimension of travel on foot (Roberts, 1972). These pedestrians indicated the need for better, clearer signs

at more appropriate locations; the use of audible crossing signals at various frequencies for the hearing

impaired; more and better lighting facilities along pedestrian routes; and support structures, such as

handrails, at critical locations such as bus boarding areas.

Guides and Manuals for Accommodating Pedestrians with Disabilities

Several published reports, guides, and manuals provide guidance on the selection and use of

facilities for pedestrians with physical or mental impairments. For example, Earnhart and Simon in 1987
90

prepared a manual entitled, Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians - A Manual for Cities,

written to provide guidance to planners and other officials in the development of a program for improved

accessibility. The manual includes information on planning, programing, and design of such facilities,

and also provides example problems and solutions along with a checklist that can be used to solve various

problems. Design details are provided relative to walkways and sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks,

refuge islands, parking and loading areas, ramps and stairs, handrails, signing, street furniture, lighting

and illumination, traffic signals, and tactile surface treatments.

Several FHWA reports address efforts to improve accommodation for elderly and handicapped

pedestrians in U.S. cities. They involve the priority accessible network (PAN) approach, which is based

on planning principles designed to provide for the special needs of these pedestrian populations. (Larsen,

1984; Hawkins, 1984). The goals of the PAN approach are to:

! Provide continuous accessibility to all desired pedestrian destinations.

! Provide a transportation network tailored to the special needs of all handicapped users (e.g.,

wheelchair users, and those with vision impairments).

! Efficiently use resources so the highest priority routes are constructed first.

The PAN process has been applied successfully and documented in, among other cities, Seattle,

WA; New Orleans, LA; and Baltimore, MD (Larsen, 1984; Hawkins 1984; Zegeer and Zegeer, 1989). A

summary of the various types of roadway and engineering improvements for elderly and handicapped

pedestrians has been documented in a 1989 publication by Zegeer and Zegeer, which discusses the many

possible measures related to traffic signals, sidewalks, signs, and design features. 

The FHWA’s two-part Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access report provides further

guidance on designing sidewalks and walkways for people with disabilities. Part I: Review of Existing

Guidelines and Practices looks at existing sidewalk and trail conditions for people with disabilities. By

conducting a literature search and site visits around the U.S., the authors compiled data and reviewed

designs to identify factors that affect accessibility for all populations (Axelson et al., 1999). Building on

the foundation of Part I, Part II: Best Practices Design Guide was created to improve understanding

among city planners, urban designers, and transportation engineers with respect to how sidewalks and

trails can be developed to promote pedestrian access for all users, including people with disabilities

(Kirschbaum et al., 2001).

Bus Stop Location

Two percent of all pedestrian collisions in urban areas can be classified as pedestrian collisions at

bus stops. Most do not involve a pedestrian’s being struck by a bus; rather, the bus creates a visual screen

between approaching drivers and pedestrians crossing in front of the bus. In rural areas, pedestrian

crashes related to school bus stops were identified in 3 percent of all pedestrian crashes. The

countermeasure proposed for the urban crashes involved bus stop relocation to the far side of the

intersections to encourage pedestrians to cross behind the bus instead of in front. This allows the

pedestrian to be seen and to see oncoming traffic closest to the bus. To determine the effect of such

relocation on pedestrian crossing behavior, two studies addressed before-and-after bus stop relocation. 

One was a site in Miami, FL, on a two-way, four-lane street intersecting with a two-way, two-lane street

at an unsignalized location. The other was in San Diego, CA, on a two-way, four-lane street intersecting

with a one-way, three-lane street at a signalized location that included pedestrian signals (Berger, 1975). 

The relocation of the bus stops to the far side eliminated the undesired crossing behavior; previously, half

those crossing after disembarking were crossing in front of the bus.
91

Figure 37. Studies have found that uniformed

crossing guards are safer than other control

devices such as signs or markings alone.

An analysis of pedestrian crashes in Sweden found school bus stops were not located with the

greatest care regarding pedestrian safety factors (Sandels, 1979). They concluded bus stops should be

located:

! So as not to be hidden by vegetation or other obstacles

! Away from roadway curves or superelevated locations

! To provide adequate standing and playing area for the waiting passengers

! So that each location provides maximum sight distance to all critical elements

A U.S. study of crashes involving trips to and from schools investigated the location of school

bus stops and developed guidelines for planning, routing, and scheduling school buses (Reiss, 1975A).

School Trip Safety

Pedestrian safety dealing with the school trip has received much attention from the public and

researchers. It is therefore treated as a separate entity here, referencing a variety of traffic guidance and

control countermeasures.

An inventory of crashes in 1,335 U.S. cities revealed that 25.4 percent of 220 child pedestrian

deaths reported for 1967 occurred as the children were en route to or from school (AAA Special Study,

1968). Among 1,854 child pedestrian injuries, 18.6 percent took place en route to or from school. From

this study, a national estimate was made of 500 fatalities and 11,000 injuries resulting from the walk to

school. The highest proportion of these occur at ages 12 to 14. This is the junior high school age when

the student is usually without the presence of student crossing controls for the first time. Further analysis

showed about 93 percent of all children involved were struck at locations where no school safety patrols,

adult guards, or police officers were stationed. (This study was carried out many years ago and may now

be out of date.)

An intensive study of the school trip was conducted at sites in New York, Maryland, and Virginia

(Reiss, 1975A), surveying both students and drivers. Crashes were also analyzed. The student

surveys sought information on knowledge, behavior, and possible means for modifying these. Driver

surveys sought data regarding perceptions, motivational factors, and reactions to the school zone

environment and their correlation to actual behavior.
92

Figure 38. School regulatory flashes have been

found to have only limited success in reducing

vehicle speeds in school zones, unless adult crossing guards are also helping to control traffic.

The four sites studied employed school warning and speed limit signs. Walking to school

accounts for between 10 and 20 percent of the annual young-pedestrian crashes in the U.S. Significantly

more younger students than older ones indicated they are unaware of or do not differentiate among

various traffic control devices. They consider uniformed crossing guards safer than other control devices. 

They would vary their route to school on the basis of parental instructions.

Zegeer and Deen in 1978 conducted an evaluation in Kentucky of the 25 MPH WHEN

FLASHING sign at 48 high-speed school-zone locations with yellow flashing beacons. Speeds were

predominantly 56-73 km/h (35-45 mi/h) without the flasher. Vehicle speeds overall were an average of

only 5.8 km/h (3.6 mi/h) less during the flashing periods compared with the non-flashing periods. Speed

reductions of 16 km/h (10 mi/h) or more were found at only two sites, and only 18 percent of all motorists

complied with the 40 km/h (25 mi/h) flashing limit. The regulatory flashing signs were not considered

effective in reducing vehicle speeds to 40 km/h (25 mi/h). At rural school zone locations, the 40 km (25

mi) flashers during school periods resulted in an increase in speed variance and thus, they created the

potential for increased rear-end vehicle crashes. The presence of crossing guards and/or police speed

enforcement, however, contributed to improved speed compliance

Another discouraging note is added in a 1990 study by Burritt et al. in which yellow flashers were

added to existing 24 km/h (15 mi/h) school zone signs at a school crossing on a highway in Tucson, AZ.

The flashers, installed over the objections of the Arizona highway authorities, were then evaluated in

December before the flashers and in May after the flashers. Speed was somewhat worse after the flashers

were installed, increasing from 26 to 32 km/h (16-20 mi/h) at one site and from 24 to 27 km/h (15-17

mi/h) at the other. The authors provided no behavioral data. 
93

Alternatives to Signalization for School Crossings

A school pedestrian signal design concept has been used with stop signs on the minor approach

and traffic signals on the major approach. Some western states have used these devices to create adequate

pedestrian crossing gaps across high-speed, high-volume facilities used by school children, the elderly,

and/or those with disabilities where full signalization was not warranted.

A 1977 study by Petzold was directed at identifying and evaluating alternatives to full

signalization at school pedestrian crossings. These crossings were located at the intersection of a highvolume arterial street and a low-volume residential street where traffic gaps are inadequate to allow

pedestrians to cross the arterial street safely without an unreasonable delay. These locations would not

otherwise warrant full signalization.

The following five school pedestrian crossing designs were selected for field testing at

installations in six U.S. cities:

! Sign and beacon: Sign and beacon on the major street approach and stop sign on the local

residential street

! Flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon: Standard traffic signal dwelling in flashing

yellow on the major street and a flashing red beacon on the local residential street

! Flashing green signal and stop sign: Standard traffic signal dwelling in flashing green on the

major street and stop signs on the local residential street

! Signal and stop sign: Standard traffic signal dwelling in solid green on the major street and

stop sign on the local residential street

! Crossing guard: Crossing guard on the major street and stop signs on local residential street

The five school pedestrian crossing designs were evaluated in a time series, matched

experimental-control design. Six measures of effectiveness were used: compliance, behavior, and

volume, for both pedestrians and vehicles; vehicle delay; gaps in the major street vehicular traffic stream;

and driver understanding. In all experiments, a fully signalized intersection was used as a control site. 

Based on the data analysis and observations at each school pedestrian crossing design, Petzold (1977)

listed the following advantages as compared with full signalization:

! Increased pedestrian compliance with the pedestrian signal

! Reduction in the percentage of vehicles stopping on the major street approach

! Reduction in the stop time per vehicle on the major street approach

! Reduction in installation costs

Disadvantages to the full signal alternatives as found by Petzold include:

! Reduction in both pedestrians' and drivers' understanding of how the traffic control devices

operate

! Increase in conflicts between vehicles approaching at a right angle (not significant).
94

Based on the comparison between each school pedestrian crossing design and its fully signalized

control site, the authors made these conclusions:

! The sign and beacon design revealed many undesirable characteristics, especially concerning

vehicle compliance with the flashing red beacon. It was concluded that full signalization is

more desirable than the beacon and stop sign design

! The flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon show characteristics similar to those

obtained at the fully signalized control site. The flashing yellow signal and flashing red

beacon are judged equivalent to full signalization, except full signalization could generate

through traffic on the minor street approach

! The remaining three school pedestrian crossing designs (crossing guard, signal and stop sign,

and flashing green signal and stop sign) were judged to have operating characteristics more

desirable than those measured at the fully signalized control site

Based on the comparison of mean rank scores among the five school pedestrian crossing designs,

the crossing guard had significantly better operating characteristics than the beacon and stop sign or the

flashing yellow signal and flashing red beacon designs. The crossing guard operating characteristics were

not significantly different from the operating characteristics observed at the signal and stop sign and

flashing green signal and stop sign designs.

Reflectorization and Conspicuity

Research has identified reflectorization as a highly effective means of improving visibility (Allen

et al., 1969; Hazlett and Allen, 1968; Jacobs, 1968b). In a survey of safety specialists, reflectorization

countermeasures were identified as having the highest overall rating to reduce school children crashes

occurring during darkness (Reiss, 1975). The key issue is attaining proper usage. A study of 

reflectorization treatments showed that a person dressed in black wearing a thumb-sized retroreflective

tag is detected at greater distances than a person completely dressed in white (Rumar, 1966). Maintaining

the retroreflective power of the tag was also shown to be important to achieve good results, thus

highlighting the need to regularly replace or clean the tag.

A 1984 study by Blomberg et al. investigated countermeasures to improve the conspicuity of

pedestrians and bicyclists. Nighttime field tests were conducted for baseline pedestrians (i.e., wearing a

white tee shirt and blue jeans), compared with pedestrians with dangle tags, a flashlight, jogger's vest, and

retroreflective material on head band, wrist bands, belt, and ankle bands (“rings”). On average, the flashlight was detected by a driver at 420.5 m (1,379 ft). This was slightly more than 183 m (600 ft) further

away than rings, which were the next best target (at 231.8 m [760 ft]) and jogging vest (227 m [744 ft]),

as shown in figure 40. The average detection distance of the baseline pedestrian was 68 m (224 ft).

Owens and Antonoff in 1994 conducted an experiment in which retroreflective materials were

placed on different body locations. Pedestrians with reflective materials on knees, waist, elbows, and

shoulders were seen more readily than when placed on a pedestrian (e.g., chest or back) where no

movement was evident. Authors said “biological motion” was an important part of detection and

recognition. Seen at night, such motions of the reflectorized materials are more pronounced and are more

readily interpreted as characteristic of human motion.

As an engineering countermeasure, retroreflective materials are used for roadway markings such

as crosswalks, stop lines, and lane markings. These materials reflect light from vehicle headlights and 

from roadway illumination. Reflective vests and other clothing for pedestrians have also been made with 
95

Figure 39. Reflectorization

has been shown to result in a

major increase in the visibility

of a pedestrian at night.

224

532

1379

744 760

105

144

316 322

436

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Base Ped Dangle Tags Flashlight Jogging Vest Rings

Target

Feet

Detection

Recognition

Figure 40. Nighttime detection and recognition distance of pedestrians.

Source: Blomberg et al., 1984.

reflective materials. Reflectorization has been shown to increase the visibility of a pedestrian by a factor

of five. The difficulty is making retroreflective clothing that can last more than a few wash cycles. 
96

One-Way Streets as a Pedestrian Crash Countermeasure

A comprehensive study of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in several Canadian cities found fewer

crashes on one-way streets in the core of a city than on two-way streets (Lea, 1978). Thus, conversion to

a one-way street system may also be a relatively low-cost pedestrian countermeasure, having as high as

40-60 percent effectiveness on amenable crashes. However, the applicable crashes were estimated to

represent only about 10 percent of the city total.

A study in Manhattan, NY highlighted the aspects of one-way street grids that tend to provide

safer traffic operation (Fruin, 1973). The simplification of the crossing and turning conditions, which has

been noted to occur for vehicles at the intersection of two one-way streets, is also helpful to pedestrians. 

Two-hundred fifty-three pedestrian crashes, occurring over a 5-year period in an 8-by-4 grid, were

studied. Almost 70 percent of these occurred at intersections. Only five fatalities occurred in the area

during the 5 years; all were males over age 60. 

The four crosswalks at each intersection were divided into two groups, two where there was a

conflict with a vehicle completing a turn (conflict side), and two with no turning conflict. The results of

that study showed that crossings on the turning conflict side of the intersection accounted for 69.7 percent

of the intersection crashes. This total consisted of 44.7 percent turning crashes, 17.5 percent straight

crashes, and 7.5 percent backup crashes. A pedestrian is more than twice as likely to be struck by a

vehicle when crossing on the turning conflict side than when crossing on the non-turning conflict side.

Short vehicle and pedestrian counts were taken at the intersections in the study area. While the

conclusions were not statistically significant, the results offer some useful perspectives. Although vehicle

turning movements averaged only 14 percent of the total intersection volume, turning crashes were almost

45 percent of the total. Left-turn crashes exceeded right-turn crashes by a ratio of two to one. The front

left vehicle window post was suggested as a factor, blocking the driver's view of a critical part of the

crosswalk area. Of course, the left turn is inherently a more complex task for the driver. 

In many cases, converting two-way streets to one-way streets may not be justified solely by

pedestrian safety considerations. Several concerns such as capacity, traffic circulation, and overall traffic

safety are the major considerations. Vehicle speeds may also increase after conversion from two-way to

one-way street patterns. However, one-way streets can greatly simplify the task of crossing a street and in

some cases may improve safety for pedestrians.

Pedestrian Overpasses and Underpasses

An analysis was made of reported pedestrian crashes for 6 months before and 6 months after the

installation of pedestrian overpasses at 31 locations in Tokyo, Japan (Accident Prevention Effects, 1969). 

The overall results are shown in table 30. The table shows data for 200-m (218-yd) sections and 100-m

(109-yd) sections on either side of each site. The “related” crashes (assumed to be pedestrian crossing

crashes) decreased substantially after overpass installation, but non-related crashes (not defined) increased

by 23 percent in the 200-m (218-yd) sections. There was also a greater reduction in daylight pedestrian

collisions than in those occurring at night.

The effectiveness of pedestrian overpasses depends largely on the amount of use by pedestrians. 

A 1965 study by Moore and Older found that use depended on walking distances and convenience of the
97

 Figure 41. Expected usage rate of pedestrian bridges and underpasses, 

relative to time needed to cross at street level.

Source: Moore and Older, 1965.

Table 30. Comparison of crashes before and after installation of pedestrian overpasses

(Tokyo, Japan).

Type of 200-M Section 100-M Sections

Crashes Before After Reduction Before After Reduction

Related

Crashes 2.16 0.32 85.1% 1.81 0.16 91.1%

Non-related

Crashes 2.26 2.77 22.9% 1.65 1.87 -13.7%

Total 4.42 3.09 29.9% 3.46 2.03 41.1%

Source: Accident Prevention Effects, 1969

facility. A convenience measure (R) was defined by the authors as the ratio of the time to cross the street

on an overpass divided by the time to cross at street level. As illustrated in figure 41, the study found that

approximately 95 percent of pedestrians will use an overpass if the walking time in using the overpass 

is the same as crossing at street level (i.e., R = l). However, if crossing the overpass takes 50 percent

longer than crossing at street level (R = l.5), almost no one will use the overpass. Usage of pedestrian

underpasses (subway) was not as high as overpasses for similar values of R.
98

Problems have also been identified relative to pedestrians' use of overpasses. A panel of people

with disabilities was asked to comment on problems after using three pedestrian overpasses in San

Francisco, CA (Swan, 1978). The major elements identified as creating a barrier or hazard to the user

with disabilities included:

! Lack of adequate or no railings to protect pedestrians from dropoffs on the bridge approaches

! Greater than acceptable cross slopes

! No level area at terminals of bridge ramps on which to stop wheelchairs before going into the

street

! Lack of level resting areas on spiral bridge ramps

! Railings difficult to grasp for wheelchair users

! Lack of sight distance to opposing pedestrian flow on spiral ramps

! Use of maze-like barriers on bridge approaches (to slow bicyclists) that create a barrier to

those who use wheelchairs or who are visually impaired

! Lack of sound screening on the bridge to permit people with visual impairments to hear

oncoming pedestrian traffic, and otherwise more easily detect direction and avoid potential

conflicts

A study in 1980 by Templer et al. investigated the feasibility of accommodating pedestrians with

physical disabilities on existing overpass and underpass structures. A review of 124 crossing structures

revealed that 86 percent presented at least one major barrier to the physically handicapped, the most

common being: 

! Stairs only (i.e., no ramps for wheelchair users) leading to the overpass or underpass

! Ramp or pathway to ramp that is too long and steep

! Physical barriers along the access paths on structure

! Sidewalk on the structure that is too narrow

! Cross slope on the ramp that is too steep

Various solutions to these access problems were developed and compared based on costeffectiveness.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) law of 1990 has since required the barriers to

wheelchair users to be removed, requiring more gentle slopes. While these gentle slopes make it easier

for bicyclists and other users, it has also greatly increased the length of ramps, which may discourage

usage. Methods such as carefully planned fencing have been used to channel pedestrians to the

overpasses and underpasses to increase usage.

Grade separations such as overpasses and underpasses for pedestrian crossing can be beneficial

under certain circumstances if the pedestrian can be persuaded to use the grade-separated crossing (i.e.,

perceive it as safer, convenient). However, they are very costly and may not be used by pedestrians if not

planned properly.
99

Figure 42. Grade-separated crossings can be beneficial to

pedestrians under certain situations but are very costly and

may not be used by pedestrians if not planned properly.

Traffic Calming

What is Traffic Calming?

At an Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) meeting attended by traffic calming experts, the

following definition was prepared:

“Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the

negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve

conditions for non-vehicular traffic.” (Lockwood, 1997, page 22)

The need for a definition process grew out of the fact that a variety of activities are called traffic

calming by one person or another. Lockwood (1997) said:

“...traffic calming could mean anything from lowering motor vehicle speeds to an

all-encompassing transportation policy.” (page 22) and “... everything from

slowing down motor vehicles to changing tax laws.” (page 24)

According to Lockwood, the term “mainly physical measures” is meant to include the supporting

political environment, policy, and legislation. The “negative effect of motor vehicle use” refers to

speeding, neighborhood intrusion, energy consumption, pollution, urban sprawl, etc. Many traffic

calming measures typically create an improved environment for pedestrians by reducing vehicle speeds or

volumes, and/or shortening the crossing distances for pedestrians.
100

Traffic-Calming Measures

Many measures can be considered traffic calming. A 1995 document prepared by the Institute of

Traffic Engineers (ITE) (Kemper and Fernandez, 1994) discusses “neighborhood traffic control

measures” and lists 13 types, and other initiatives are not included on the ITE list. :

1. Street closures

2. Cul-de-sacs

3. Diverters (diagonal or semi-diagonal)

4. Traffic circles

5. Woonerfs

6. Chicanes

7. Flares, chokers

8. Speed humps

9. Speed limit signs and speed zones

10. Speed watch and enforcement programs

11. Walkways

12. Parking controls

13. Other signage

Other measures include traffic diversion, which involves moving traffic onto other streets, while

still others, such as speed limit signs and enforcement, fall into traditional traffic engineering approaches. 

Figure 43 illustrates some of the above.

A study in 2000 by Huang and Cynecki evaluated the effects of a variety of traffic-calming

measures on pedestrian and motorist behavior at midblock and intersection locations. “Before” and

“after” data were collected in Cambridge, MA (bulbouts and raised intersection), Corvallis, OR

(pedestrian refuge island), and Seattle, WA (bulbouts). Data were also collected at “treatment” and

“control” sites in Durham, NC (raised crosswalks), Greensboro, NC (bulbouts), Montgomery County,

MD (raised crosswalks), Richmond, VA (bulbouts), and Sacramento, CA (bulbouts). The key findings

include:

! Overall vehicle speeds were often lower at treatment than control sites. 

! The combination of a raised crosswalk with an overhead flasher increased the percentage of

pedestrians for whom motorists yielded. It is not known what part of the improvement was

attributable to the raised crosswalk and what part was attributable to the flasher. None of the

other treatments had a significant effect on the percentage of pedestrians for whom motorists

yielded.

! The treatments usually did not have a significant effect on average pedestrian waiting time.

! Refuge islands often served to channelize pedestrians into marked crosswalks. The raised

intersection in Cambridge also increased the percentage of pedestrians who crossed in the

crosswalk.

In conclusion, these devices have the potential for improving the pedestrian environment. 

However, these devices by themselves do not guarantee that all motorists will slow down or yield to

pedestrians.
101

Figure 43. Illustrative neighborhood traffic control devices.
102

Figure 44. Many traffic-calming measures create an

improved environment for pedestrians by reducing

vehicle speeds or volumes, and/or shortening crossing

distances for pedestrians.

1. Play Streets

Play streets have been employed in the United States in center-city neighborhoods to provide safe

play areas in or near residential areas. A play street is a residential street closed to vehicular traffic during

specific hours to permit a supervised program of recreational activities in the roadway. A series of

interview studies was performed at 20 sites in Philadelphia and New York City. The interviews sought

behavioral and opinion data regarding play streets from users, residents, merchants, play street

supervisory staff, and city officials (Reiss, 1975B).

Play streets were found to be effective in eliminating traffic and parking. The streets drew 67

percent of the users from among those who live along the street. The remainder came from within a

radius of three blocks. Ninety-six percent of the residents and merchants interviewed believed the play

street reduces the likelihood that children will be hit by cars. Eighty-eight percent noted no problems to

them because of the 1 p.m. to 8 p.m. street closure. However, only 12 percent of the play supervisors

interviewed perceived a safety benefit. It was recommended that signing and barricades be judiciously

used to control vehicular access to a play street. The authors recommend that appropriate traffic

engineering studies should be made before selecting a play street site. Guidelines were developed for the

creation and operation of urban play areas. No evaluations of the safety benefits of play streets were

conducted.

A study of the effect of recreational facilities on child pedestrian crashes was made in

Philadelphia (Bartholomew, 1967). Traffic crash records were analyzed for 2 years before and 2 years

after the opening of seven different recreational facilities in various parts of the city. Service areas for

each were defined on the basis of population density and physical barriers. There was a significant

reduction in pedestrian crashes involving children ages 5-14 for the combined areas after facilities were

opened. Outside the seven areas, there was a city-wide trend of an increase in child pedestrian collisions. 

The greatest impact was noted within a radius of one-quarter mile of each facility. This occurred even

though more children were using the facilities and crossing streets going to and from the sites.
103

2. Community Streets

Japan's traffic-calming strategies have been directed toward community streets. Community

streets rely on treatments such as speed humps, bulbouts, chicanes, and other devices to slow down motor

vehicle traffic (Replogle, 1992). In addition, motorists and pedestrians are separated. Community streets

are most appropriate when traffic volumes are 200 vehicles per hour or less.

Road-pia are neighborhood-wide installations of community streets that give priority to

pedestrians and cyclists. In the Koraku district of Nagoya, a road-pia scheme introduced community

streets to connect schools and transit stations to homes. The number of car-pedestrian crashes resulting in

injury or death fell from 32 in the 4 years before the road-pia scheme was installed to only 2 in the 2 years

after. While the effects of individual components such as speed humps or bulbouts was not known, the

combination of these devices was effective in reducing traffic, vehicle speeds, and collisions (Replogle,

1992).

3. Woonerf

The Netherlands is one of the leaders in traffic calming. They developed the “woonerf” based on

the concept of the residential yard (Kraay, 1976). These are areas where the physical and visual

treatments of the public right-of-way create a pedestrian-oriented area. Only local traffic is allowed to

use the roadway and all modes are “forced” to travel almost as slow as the slowest mode (the pedestrian)

through design features. The residential yard's function differs from a conventionally designed residential

street. The paved area is used in common for various functions, including driving, playing, cycling,

walking, and parking. This is intended for application only along low-volume streets having minimal

parking demand.

Special legal and behavioral rules apply to traffic in the residential yard:

! Roads located within a designated residential yard may be used over their entire width by

pedestrians and children at play.

! Drivers must move with the greatest caution, being intruders within the residential yard.

! The speed of all modes is limited to about 11.3 km/h (7 mi/h).

! Pedestrians must not unnecessarily obstruct vehicle progress.

! Motor vehicles with more than two wheels can park in a residential yard only at places with a

parking sign or a letter "P" in spaces on the road surface.

! A new traffic sign indicates residential areas designated as residential yards.

4. Transit Malls: Shared Use of Pedestrian-Oriented Space

The use of transit malls is common in Europe, and is increasing in U.S. cities. 

Studies were conducted of crashes occurring before and after implementation of transit malls in

Philadelphia and Minneapolis (Edminster and Koffman, 1979). Analysis showed non-pedestrian

collisions decreasing sharply on transit malls with no evidence of an increase on nearby streets. Total

pedestrian crashes appear stable with the only increase related to an increase in the exposure rates of

pedestrian and vehicular volumes. Bus-pedestrian conflicts are much higher on transit malls than on other

streets. Fortunately, creating the malls has not resulted in a higher number of bus-pedestrian collisions. 

Factors related to pedestrian crashes in Philadelphia include:
104

! Change from a one-way street to a two-way bus flow appears to cause confusion and

carelessness on the part of pedestrians.

! Illegal pedestrian behavior, particularly jaywalking, results in more collisions in which

pedestrians are at fault.

! Jaywalking is partly encouraged by a low volume of buses.

! Inadequate mall design included roadways that were too narrow, and the lack of barriers to

discourage jaywalking.

! Jaywalking was encouraged by certain amenities such as phone booths used by pedestrians

and placed too close to the curb.

! Construction of bus shelters too far away from crosswalks encouraged bus riders to cross the

roadway outside the crosswalks.

! Midblock pedestrian crossings caused the entire roadway to be viewed in a casual manner by

pedestrians.

! Operational problems may contribute to pedestrian crashes.

Although some people believed speeding buses, encouraged by the freedom from other traffic,

were a danger to pedestrians, there was no evidence of buses speeding.

As a result of a review of studies involving shared use of pedestrian-oriented space, it was

concluded that plans that restrict private vehicles from small sections of the roadway but allow other

public service vehicles have only marginal or small positive safety benefits (Edminster and Koffman,

1979; Katz, 1978). Other pedestrian measures, such as pedestrian delay, are improved. 

5. Area-wide Traffic Restrictions

Area-wide traffic restriction plans have been employed in town centers and residential areas. 

Observations of pedestrian risk were made in Upsala, Sweden, both before and after the implementation

of an area-wide traffic restriction plan in the center of town (Lovemark, 1974). This involved closing

streets to vehicular traffic, institution of one-way flow on bypass routes, and bus-only streets. Risk was

defined as the probability of a collision occurring that would result in personal injury and was predicted

from serious traffic conflicts for various types of pedestrian and driver behaviors. Risk for pedestrians in

the restricted area declined by 29 percent. Risk for pedestrians on surrounding streets outside the

restricted area, which experienced a 30-percent increase in volume after the restrictions were

implemented, increased 12 percent.

In similar traffic management efforts in London, the impact of street closures and a few other

devices on pedestrian safety was analyzed for 19 areas (Brownfield, 1980). Ten sites showed declines in

pedestrian collisions and two sites remained the same. The overall result was a pedestrian crash decline

of 24.4 percent. However, this decline was not statistically significant. 

6. Speed Humps and Speed Tables

Also known as road humps, undulations, or "sleeping policemen," speed humps were developed

by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in Great Britain. The purpose of speed humps is to

promote the smooth flow of traffic at slow speeds, around 32-40 km/h (20-25 mi/h). The speed hump is
105

an elongated bump with a circular-arc cross-section, rising to a maximum height of 76 mm (3 in) above

the normal pavement surface and having a length of 3.7 m (12 ft) in the direction of vehicular travel. 

Speed humps usually extend the full width of the road. 

Speed tables are flat-topped or trapazoidal speed humps. When used in conjunction with

crosswalks, the flat top of the hump can extent the width of the crosswalk. Speed tables are generally the

same height of speed humps, and the raised portion can be built with brick pavers. Speed tables are more

common in Europe and Australia than in the U.S.

The ITE notes that,

Speed humps have the advantage of being largely self-enforcing and of creating a visual

impression, real or imagined, that a street is not intended for speeding or ‘through’ traffic. 

Some items to consider before speed hump installation are their initial construction and

continuing maintenance costs, any potential negative impact on emergency and service

vehicles, increases in vehicle noise, inconvenient access, and to some, their unsightliness. 

They must be appropriate for use at all hours, day and night. In addition, it is mandatory

that they be supplemented with a combination of signs and/or pavement markings to

warn motorists. (ITE Technical Council, 1993)

Other concerns related to speed humps and speed tables include the effect on drainage, snow

removal, and the effect on emergency access of fire trucks and ambulances. 

7. Effects of Speed Humps

According to the ITE, speed hump research and testing have found that:

! Traffic speeds decrease at the humps and at locations between properly spaced successive

humps. Speeds of the fastest drivers are affected as well as those of average drivers. The

speed distribution generally narrows, with the greatest effect on higher vehicle speeds.

! A single hump will only act as a point speed control. A series of humps is usually needed to

reduce speeds along an extended section of street. On long straight streets, speed humps will

be needed about every 153 m (1 block) to more uniformly control speeds.

! Speed humps may divert traffic to other streets, especially in those situations where a

significant amount of traffic is using the street as a shortcut, detour, or overflow from a

congested collector or arterial roadway. Volume reduction is affected by the number and

spacing of humps and availability of alternative routes.

! Studies indicate that speed humps do not have the same effect on all vehicles. Humps tend to

have a more significant impact on longer wheel-base vehicles such as pickup trucks, buses,

and fire trucks, and less of an impact on vehicles with good suspension.

! Speed humps are said not to pose a traffic safety hazard when properly designed and

installed. In fact, crash experience generally remains stable or decreases due to reduced

speeds and volume (ITE Technical Council, 1993). Surveys of various agencies have failed

to identify any clear liability problems associated with the use of speed humps.
106

8. Experience with Speed Humps

Several agencies have reported on the use of speed humps. 

OMAHA, NE (Klik and Faghri, 1993)

! Humps installed on 60 residential streets

! Before-after measurements of 85th percentile speeds at 10 locations showed significant speed

reductions (5 percent significance level)

! Personal injury crashes decreased at 19 locations

! Some residents complained about increased noise levels, vehicle damage, and that speeding

still existed

! Officials were concerned about emergency vehicle response, potential liability, and need for

monitoring signs and pavement markings near speed humps 

BELLEVUE, WA (Clarke and Dornfield, 1994)

! Sixteen speed humps installed in five residential neighborhoods

! 85th percentile speeds declined from before level of 58-63 km/h (36-39 mi/h), to 39-43 km/h

(24-27 mi/h) after installation

! Traffic volumes declined when alternate routes existed

! Most residents said humps were effective and favored continued use

HOWARD COUNTRY, MD (Walter, 1995)

! Seven humps on Baltimore Avenue lowered 85th percentile speeds from 61 km/h (38 mi/h) to

43-47 km/h (27 to 29 mph) between humps, and 24 km/h (15 mi/h) at humps; no crashes in 4

years after vs. 4 crashes in the 2 years before

! Four humps on Dogwood Drive reduced the 85th percentile speed from 64 km/h to 45 km/h

(40 mi/h to 28 mi/h); volumes fell 24 percent

! On Shaker Drive, 85th percentile speed fell from 69 km/h to 47 km/h (43 mi/h to 29 mi/h)

following the installation of two flat-top humps; speed between humps and at humps was

essentially the same

AGOURA HILLS, CA (Cline, 1993)

! Five speed humps were built along a 0.8-km (0.5-mi) stretch of Grey Rock Road. The humps

were 70 mm (2.75 in) high instead of 76 mm (3 in)

! 85th percentile speeds fell 10-15 km/h (6-9 mi/h) after installation

! Volumes remained constant. Observations indicated motorists did not speed up between the

humps, drive in the gutter, or divert to other residential streets
107

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA (Cline, 1993)

! Humps were 67 mm (2.625 in) high

! 85th percentile speed fell 15-23 km/h (9-14 mi/h) after the humps were installed

Several other demonstration projects in Los Angeles used the 67-mm (2.625-in) speed humps,

with results similar to Agoura Hills and Westlake Village 

CORIO, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA (McDonald and Jarvis, 1981)

! Two residential streets each had three road humps. The separation between the humps was

110 to 150 m (361 to 492 ft)

! 85th percentile traffic speeds at humps dropped by nearly half

! Volume fell 28 percent on one street and 24 percent on the other

STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA (Richardson and Jarvis, 1981)

! Eight humps installed, with 115 to 160 m (377 to 525 ft) between humps

! 85th percentile traffic speeds at humps dropped from 65 km/h (40 mi/h) to 21 km/h (13 mi/h)

! Speeds between the humps fell from 70 to 45 km/h (43 to 28 mi/h)

! Volumes fell by roughly half

Other Australian cities conducted evaluations on speed tables. In Croydon, Victoria, the 85th

percentile speeds between speed tables fell as much as 36 percent (Hawley et al., 1992). In Mosman,

New South Wales, the noise levels after speed tables were installed fell by up to 11 decibels, partly the

result of lower traffic volumes (Hawley et al., 1992). With speed tables in place, the character of vehicle

noise changes to thumping (as motorists drive over the tables) and acceleration (as motorists speed up

between tables). Nearby residents may perceive these changes as increased noise.

A Danish study developed a regression model to calculate expected speed changes associated

with speed humps, lateral dislocations, and street narrowing (Engel and Thomsen, 1992). According to

their model, every centimeter in height is expected to reduce speed by 1.0 km/h (0.6 mi/h). (Street

narrowing is predicted to produce a 4.7-km/h (2.9-mi/h) speed reduction. A single lateral dislocation is

predicted to reduce speed by 2.0 km/h (1.2 mi/h), while a double lateral dislocation by 4.7 km/h (2.9

mi/h).)

Zaidel et al. in 1992 surveyed individuals and organizations about speed-reduction devices. 

Based on 23 responses from 13 countries, they concluded that "many communities in several countries

experienced neither vehicle damage nor driver loss of control when passing over humps. Also, no real

operational or comfort problems with bus, truck, or emergency vehicles were reported."

9. Guidelines for Speed Hump Use

Drawing upon experiences with speed humps, the ITE proposed the following guidelines:
1

As used in England, pelican crossings are midblock crossings controlled by traffic signals and pushbutton

pedestrian signals. The pushbutton hardware lights up and conveys specific messages to pedestrians during each

interval (walk phase, clearance phase, and don’t walk phase), with dashed (not solid) parallel lines to mark the

crosswalk (Zegeer, et al., 1994).

108

! A traffic engineering study, including consideration of alternative traffic control measures,

should precede any installation.

! Speed humps should only be installed on local two-lane residential streets with less than

3,000 vehicles per day, with a posted speed or prima facie speed of 48 km/h (30 mi/h) or less.

! Hump locations should be coordinated with street geometry and grades.

! Speed humps should not be installed on streets with significant numbers of emergency

vehicles, transit, or long wheelbase vehicles.

! Support from a documented majority of affected residents should be obtained before any

installation (ITE Technical Council, 1993).

In the United Kingdom, road hump regulations were first issued in 1983, with more flexible

regulations in 1986 and 1990 (Road Safety Division, 1993). Among other changes, the 1990 regulations

allowed tapered-edge and flat-top humps in addition to the conventional round-top, curb-to-curb hump. 

The new regulations allow humps at pelican1

 crossings and do not limit the number of humps in a series. 

When a hump coincides with a crossing, only flat-top humps should be used. Humps may not be placed

closer than 30 m (98 ft) from a pelican or zebra crossing. Pavement markings delineating a crossing

should be placed along the flat top of the hump, not on the ramps leading to and from the hump. A tactile

surface may be necessary to indicate the sidewalk/street edge for pedestrians with vision impairments. At

junctions, humps across side streets can be set back 5-8 m (16-26 ft) from the main road to discourage

pedestrians from crossing the side street to near the main road and thereby reduce conflicts between

pedestrians and turning traffic (Speed Control Humps, 1990).

Although speed humps reduce vehicular speeds and volumes to the benefit of pedestrians, they

have their disadvantages. Adjacent residential streets and arterials are likely to experience higher levels

of traffic as motorists are diverted from the treated street. The noise caused by vehicle acceleration and 

“thumping” over humps may disturb residents who live near the humps. Signing and pavement markings

can render humps unattractive. Because humps reduce speeds, emergency response time may increase. 

They can impede maintenance activities such as sweeping and snowplowing and may affect drainage

(Clarke and Dornfield, 1994). Speed humps also require extra care when resurfacing of the street is

required.

Thus, speed humps are certainly not a cure-all for traffic problems on residential streets. Less

restrictive and more passive devices that may address these problems should be considered first. 

However, where high vehicle speeds create an unsafe environment on local streets, speed humps may be

one possible treatment. Care should be taken to inform the residents of the advantages and disadvantages

of the humps before they are installed. Residents should provide a show of consensus for the humps,

particularly those who will be most directly affected.

10. Bulbouts and Street Narrowing

The purpose of a bulbout, also known as a choker, bulbout, or curb bulb, is to reduce the width of

the vehicle travel way at either an intersection or a midblock pedestrian crossing location. It shortens the
109

Figure 45. Street narrowing can reduce vehicle

speeds and provide pedestrians with a

narrower street to cross.

street crossing distance for pedestrians, may slow vehicle speeds, and provides pedestrians and motorists

with an improved view of one another, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle-pedestrian collision.

In two Australian cities, Keilor (Queensland) and Eltham (Victoria), "curb blisters" (i.e.,

bulbouts) had little effect on reducing vehicle speeds (Hawley et al., 1992). However, in Concord, New

South Wales, a comparison of a subarterial street with both curb blisters and marked parking lanes versus

an untreated street showed that the crash rate on the treated street was only one-third that of the untreated

street (Hawley et al., 1992). The number of these crashes involving pedestrians was not stated, nor is it

known how the streets compared before treatment. 

Australia's "wombat" crossings usually consist of a raised platform with a marked crosswalk on

top, and a refuge and curb blisters where space permits. Thus, they combine features of speed tables and

bulbouts. They are designed to slow motorists, shorten pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles, and

increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. Wombat crossings have generally reduced 85th percentile

vehicle speeds by 40 percent (Hawley et al., 1992).

Anne Arundel County, MD, has been using a combination of medians and bulbouts near

intersections. The medians narrow the traveled way, while the bulbouts force drivers to make a lateral

deflection as they enter the narrowed area. Medians with lateral deflection have reduced the 85th

percentile speeds by 3-8 km/h (2-5 mi/h) (Walter, 1995).

The Dutch towns of Oosterhout and De Meern have installed street-narrowing variations. The

Oosterhout project consisted of installing two bulbouts so as to require motorists to deviate from a

straight path. Both the 85th percentile vehicle speed and the degree of pedestrian-motor vehicle conflict

fell after the deviation was installed. De Meern's deviation was created by placing two bulbouts opposite

one another to narrow the width of the traveled way. A significant reduction in the 85th percentile vehicle

speed was observed at the deviation. Opinions of the deviation in De Meern were mixed. There was not

a strong sense of neighborhood improvement among residents. Swerving cars were thought to endanger

bicyclists. School teachers thought that children would be confused by the deviation. Retailers were

concerned about accessibility and parking. There was little concern about emergency vehicle access

(Replogle, 1992).
110

Macbeth in 1995 reported favorable speed changes seen on five raised and narrowed intersections

and seven midblock bulbouts (two raised). The speed limit was also lowered to 30 km/h (19 mi/h). The

results of speed changes are given below.

 Percent Exceeding

 30km/h 40km/h 50km/h

Before 86 54 13

After 20 3 2

11. Roundabouts

In a Toronto traffic engineering workshop, Frederick (1995) reported modest reductions in 85th

percentile speed after traffic circles were installed. It was reported that local citizens asked for trafficcalming measures (Herget, 1995). Before the installation, the 85th percentile speed was 43-50 km/h (27-

31 mi/h) and 81 percent of traffic was non-local. Two roundabouts were installed and 81 percent of

citizens in the area approved. Herget said there was no measurable effect of the application.

More recently, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in 2000 that roundabouts reduce

crashes when compared to intersections with signals or stop signs, especially when injuries are

considered. Researchers at the University of Maine, Ryerson Polytechnic University, and the Institute

studied crashes and injuries at 24 intersections before and after the construction of roundabouts. Though

the study found that fewer pedestrian crashes occurred when roundabouts were installed, the numbers

were too small to be statistically significant. Accordingly, the topic of roundabouts and pedestrian safety

remain controversial, especially for people with disabilities. For motorists, however, the study found a

39-percent overall decrease in crashes, a 76-percent decrease in injury-producing crashes, and a 90-

percent decrease in crashes involving fatal or incapacitating injuries. 

12. Cul de sacs

In the 1970's, Australia implemented street closures “on the grounds that the problem was caused

by excessive connectivity in the network” (Brindle, 1997, page 26), but now latter-day planners want to

return to connective local street networks as part of a neotraditional neighborhood design. A

disadvantage to cul de sacs is that extra right-of-way is needed to build the turnarounds. If complete

closures are built, blocking pedestrian and bicycle access, it may make travel by automobile more

attractive. 

The authors cite the “benefits” of the neotraditional designs as coming from “increased density, a

mix of land uses, and a grid transportation system” (Szplett and Sale, 1997, page 42), but they 

acknowledge the opposing view, saying “The volume of traffic is often a rallying point for the neighbors

in an adjoining residential area who are opposed to the project. The authors’ experience is that the higher

density is another element of citizen complaints” (p. 43).

13. Emergency Vehicles

Some apprehensions about certain traffic-calming measures relate to fears that emergency

vehicles will be delayed in responding, and the traffic-calming facilities will make vehicle access more

difficult. Atkins and Coleman (1997) report the results of their study of several types of emergency

vehicles, with several drivers, in negotiating several types of traffic-calming devices including humps and

roundabouts. This was carried out as an experiment in non-emergency situations. They report that the

delay was 0 or 1 second in some cases, ranging up to 10 seconds, maximum, in others. They did not
111

report the duration of the typical emergency run, but an additional 10 seconds is within the variation

imposed by random factors encountered on such runs. Despite this, many emergency service providers

may be opposed to certain traffic-calming projects; some that involve street closures, medians, chokers or

other street-narrowing projects may make it more difficult for large fire trucks to negotiate the streets. It

is always a good practice to have the local fire officials review the project to make sure that essential

emergency services will not be unnecessarily disrupted. Implementing traffic-calming projects on streets

that provide primary access to fire stations, hospitals, and other emergency services should be carefully

evaluated.

14. Traffic Diversion

Traffic diversion can be accomplished by street closures, diverters, and signs restricting access,

either during the peak travel hours or on a 24-hour basis. Traffic diversion projects are designed to shift

Figure 46. Traffic diversion projects are designed to shift traffic off neighborhood streets.

traffic off of a neighborhood street that is suffering from cut-through traffic onto other streets. If these

"other streets" are major streets or arterial roads, the project generally can be considered successful. If the

traffic is shifted onto adjacent neighborhood streets, the problem is merely transplanted, not solved.

Parent in 1995 reported that certain roads were closed for a year. When reopened, various trafficcalming measures had been installed such as chicanes and narrowing. He reports that ADT was

diminished from 3,865 to 1,850. Speed was reduced by 14 percent. Local citizens in the neighborhood

rated the changes as good. He did not discuss what happened to the 2,000 vehicles per day that

“disappeared.” Where did they go? Were they safely diverted? Was the total system better?

When considering traffic diversion projects, the entire neighborhood area must be included in the

decisionmaking process. This will allow input from the entire affected area and will prevent one part of

the neighborhood’s being sacrificed to benefit another part. The boundaries of the affected neighborhood

should be broadened to include more than one or two streets that may be currently suffering from cutthrough traffic.

Traffic diversion projects often limit resident access, as well as access for their guests and service

vehicles. The affected residents should provide input into the change or loss of access to ensure that the

tradeoffs will be acceptable. Often, the traffic restrictions can be tested and evaluated before they are

made permanent. A test period can be used to identify potential problems to residents and emergency and

school access, and to allow for adjustments to accommodate those problems that were not readily

apparent at the outset of the project.
112

Traffic Calming in Original Construction

Many residential streets have been designed to provide the most convenient automobile access, 

with little thought of the high traffic levels and speeds that may result. In some cases, the curb returns

and street widths are designed to allow easy access to the largest moving van that may serve an area. 

While it is important to provide access to fire trucks and school buses, some communities may be able to

make significant changes to the layout and design of their neighborhood streets as a part of the design and 

review process to eliminate the potential for cut-through traffic or speeding before the neighborhood

streets are built.

This can include narrowing streets, providing smaller turn radii at corners, and preventing long

straight streets that are unobstructed. Roundabouts and discontinuous street paths can be supplemented

with connective bike and pedestrian paths to provide ideal access to transit, schools, and adjacent

shopping areas. Access to a large neighborhood should not be limited to one or two entry points, and an

adequate system of arterial and collector streets should be provided to diminish the attractiveness of using

local streets.

West and Lowe make the point that traffic-calming measures are often thought of as

modifications to an existing facility, but they urge consideration for traffic-calming designs in original

construction (1997).

Effectiveness Evaluation

Some documents on traffic calming report numerical changes in before-versus-after analyses. In

many cases, it appears that the traffic calming measures had the desired effect of slowing or diverting

traffic. Likewise, fewer “after” crashes are reported in many cases. In some instances, little or no change

is noted. In many of these reports, it is not clear just how the evaluation was conducted.

Leonard and Davis (1997) cite a lack of evaluation of traffic calming installations (page 36) and

list some indicators they say should be used in evaluation:

! Annual use of all urban modes

! Spot monitoring of vehicle emissions and noise

! Network-based highway capacity

! Route choice and travel time

! Crash rates involving pedestrians, bikers, and motor vehicles

! Speed attainment by functional classification

Spielberg (1994) spells out research needs:

! What are the true safety issues?

! Does neotraditional neighborhood design result in slower operating speeds?

! Are dart-out crash rates and severity from on-street parking a real problem? 

! Are there compensating benefits from slower speeds and fewer driveways? 

! How are travel patterns influenced?

! Does the mixed-use design result in lower trip-generation rates?

! Are destinations changed, resulting in shorter trips and lower vehicle miles traveled?

The report also provides a good list of references.

Skene et al. (1997) comment that much is done in the name of traffic calming, but they say

effectiveness is largely unknown. On page 34 they state “there is little information available regarding
113

the applicability, effectiveness, and geometric characteristics of various traffic-calming devices.” They

also say there is little information on the adverse effects of traffic-calming initiatives.

Nevertheless, before-and-after data are reported for many projects. In “Traffic Calming in

Practice” prepared by the County Surveyors Society in England and published by Landor Publishing

Limited in November, 1994, a total of 85 case studies is reported; in 74 cases, before-and-after-crash data

are cited. In 69 of those cases, the crashes after were fewer than before; in three cases, crashes were more

numerous, and in two cases there was no change. The sheer number of projects that experienced safety

benefits is persuasive to a degree, especially when the very nature of the traffic-calming measures was

intended to reduce speeds and in some cases to induce traffic to go elsewhere. However, one cannot

know the study designs used, most notably what factors dictated the particular intervention at the

particular site, and therefore the possible role of regression to the mean.

Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths

The 1992 Uniform Vehicle Code defines a sidewalk as “that portion of a street between the

curblines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines, intended for use by

pedestrians.” 

Figure 47. Pedestrians are safer in areas with sidewalks than in areas without them.

Several types of pedestrian walkways have been defined (Work Zone Traffic Management, 1989; Zegeer

and Zegeer, 1988): 

! Sidewalks: Walkways that are paved (usually concrete) and separated from the street,

generally by a curb and gutter. Sidewalk widening may be used to facilitate pedestrian travel.

! Pathway: Temporary or permanent walkways that may or may not be placed near a roadway

 and are usually made of asphalt or gravel.

! Roadway shoulder: In rural or suburban areas where sidewalks and pathways are not feasible,

gravel or paved highway shoulders provide an area for pedestrians to walk next to the

roadway.

A study by Tobey et. al. (1983) investigated the safety effects of sidewalks. Sites with no

sidewalks or pathways were the most hazardous for pedestrians, with pedestrian hazard scores of +2.6 and
114

a PxV exposure score (i.e., exposure measure equals pedestrian volumes [P] times traffic volume [V]) of

+2.2. This indicates that crashes at sites without sidewalks are more than twice as likely to occur than 

expected. Sites with sidewalks on one side of the road had pedestrian volume and PxV hazard scores of

+1.2 and +1.1, compared with scores of -1.2 and -1.2 for sites with sidewalks on both sides of the road. 

Thus, sites with no sidewalks were the most hazardous to pedestrians, and sites where sidewalks were

present on both sides of the road were least hazardous. A later study by Knoblauch et al. (1987)

developed guidelines for sidewalk installation separately for new and existing streets.

A variety of factors are widely acknowledged to have an impact on the risk of pedestrian motor

vehicle injuries. Those most extensively researched are geometric characteristics of the road, including

the presence of sidewalks. However, until recently, factors relating to demographics and neighborhood

characteristics have been mentioned but not sufficiently researched. To address that problem, McMahon,

et al. (2000) used a case-control methodology and applied conditional and binary logistic models to

determine the effects of cross-sectional roadway design attributes and socioeconomic and other census

block group data on the likelihood that a site is a crash site. A total of 47 crash sites and 94 comparison

sites were analyzed. Physical design factors found to be associated with significantly higher likelihood of

being a crash site are higher speed limit, the lack of wide grassy walkable areas, and the absence of

sidewalks. When these roadway factors are controlled for, non-geometric factors associated with

significantly higher likelihood of being a crash site are high levels of unemployment, older housing stock, 

and more single parents. This information suggest that some neighborhoods may, due to increased

exposure or specific types of exposure, be especially appropriate sites for pedestrian safety measures such

as sidewalks, lower speed roadway designs, and the addition of wide grassy shoulders. That FHWA

study also developed guidelines and priorities for installing sidewalks and walkways, as shown in table

31.

Table 31. Recommended guidelines for new sidewalk/walkway installation.

Roadway Classification/Land Use Sidewalk/Walkway Requirements Future Phasing

Rural highways (<400 average daily

traffic [ADT])

Shoulders preferred, with a minimum width

of 0.9 m (3 ft)

Secure/preserve right-of-way

(ROW) for future sidewalks.

Rural highways

(400 to 2000 ADT)

1.5-m (5-ft) shoulders preferred, and

minimum of 1.2-m (4-ft) shoulders required.

Secure/preserve ROW for future

sidewalks.

Rural/suburban highway

(ADT >2,000 and less than 1 

dwelling unit (d.u.)/.4 hectares (ha) 

Sidewalks or side paths preferred; minimum

of 1.8-m (6-ft) shoulders required.

Secure/preserve ROW for future

sidewalks.

Suburban highway (1 to 4 d.u/.4 ha) Sidewalks on both sides required.

Major arterial (residential) Sidewalks on both sides required.

Urban collector and minor

arterial (residential)

Sidewalks on both sides required.

Urban local street

(residential—less than 1 d.u /.4 ha)

Sidewalks on both sides preferred; minimum

of 1.5-m (5-ft) shoulders required.

Secure/preserve (ROW) for future

sidewalks.

Urban local street

(residential—1 to 4 d.u./.4 ha)

Sidewalks on both sides preferred. Both sides required if density 

becomes greater than 4 d.u./ .4 ha (4

d.u./acre) or if schools, bus stops,

etc. are nearby.

Local street

(residential—more than 4 d.u./.4 ha)

Sidewalks on both sides required.

All commercial urban streets

(commercial areas)

Sidewalks on both sides required.

All streets in industrial areas Sidewalks on both sides preferred; minimum

of 1.5-m (5-ft) shoulders required.
115

Figure 48. “Looking behavior” is encouraged

in pedestrian education programs.

Education Countermeasures

Numerous studies have evaluated efforts of educational programs on pedestrian behavior. For

example, the NHTSA film on “Willie Whistle” is aimed at grades kindergarten through 3, and teaches

children the safe way to cross streets (Blomberg et al., 1983). It is 7 minutes long and contains live action

plus animation. It is directed at reducing midblock dart-out or dash crashes by teaching children always

to stop at the curb and look left-right-left before entering the street. After extensive testing in Los

Angeles, Columbus, and Milwaukee, the film was reported to reduce dart and dash crashes by more than

30 percent among 4- to 6-year old children, as illustrated in figure 49. 

Non-midblock pedestrian crashes were used as a control group, since they were not considered to

be affected by the “Willie Whistle” program. Crashes in this group remained relatively unchanged,

suggesting that the drop in midblock pedestrian crashes was the result of the educational messages and

not a general decline in pedestrian crashes. 

A 15-minute follow-up educational film called “And Keep On Looking” (Preusser and Lund,

1988) was later developed by NHTSA to convey street-crossing advice to older children (grades 4-7),

such as crossing busy streets, safety in parking lots, and crossing at signalized locations. The

effectiveness of this film was examined through testing in Connecticut, Seattle, and Milwaukee. In a 2-

year test in Milwaukee of the film's effects, the number of 9- to 12-year olds involved in pedestrian

crashes decreased by more than 20 percent. Positive results were also found in Seattle in terms of

children's observed behavior and in Connecticut through retained information after viewing the film. 

Other less formal evaluations of pedestrian educational programs have been conducted in the past

20 years, including:

! Pittsburgh, PA. A short film was shown and discussed with grade school students; it

improved "looking behavior" but no significant improvement in slowing or stopping before

crossing (Blomberg and Preusser, 1975).
116

Figure 49. Effects of “Willie Whistle” educational campaign on pedestrian crashes.

 Source: Blomberg et al, 1983. 
117

Figure 50. Preschool and elementary school children

are the target of many pedestrian education programs.

! Stamford, CT. When informed through a question-and-answer pamphlet of correct crossing

behavior, adults showed a small improvement in stopping and searching behavior at

crossings. They stopped more often at intersections than at midblock, but looked less often at

the intersections (Blomberg and Preusser, 1975).

! New York City. A recorded message in buses advised passengers not to cross in front of the

bus when leaving. The message had little effect. Passengers based crossing behavior on the

observed degree of hazard without regard to the message (Blomberg and Preusser, 1975).

! Salt Lake City, UT. Public awareness was developed through radio, television, and print

information (newspapers). A pedestrian safety contest was begun. Following classroom

instruction, students in a primary school who were observed crossing safely were rewarded

with praise and a good pedestrian certificate. Correct crossings increased from 20 percent

before to 80 percent after instruction (Reading, 1973).

! England. The Tufty Club, organized by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Crashes in

England, initiated in 1961, included 2 million children as members by 1971. The Tufty

educational program taught crossing safety through graphic aids and stories featuring Tufty, a

safety-minded squirrel who does the right thing in dangerous situations. Improved crossing

instructions, called the Green Cross-Code, were introduced in 1974. Over a 3-month period, 

the pedestrian crash rate declined 11 percent. The greatest reduction in crashes was observed

between the ages of 5 and 9, the target audience (Firth, 1975; Sargent and Sheppard, 1974).

! Sweden. On the basis of an elaborate program of developmental and educational research in

safety-relevant behavior, the researcher found that children of pre- and primary-school age do

not have the perceptual, motivational, and judgmental maturity to learn and meet the demands

of modern traffic (Sandels, 1975).

In recent years, a number of other pedestrian educational programs have been developed in the

U.S. and abroad, although no formal evaluations are available for many of these. Most were directed at

helping various pedestrian age groups, but a few were intended for either the parents or teachers of young

children. As discussed in the WALK ALERT Program Guide, some of these pedestrian educational

materials include the following (National Safety Council, 1988):
118

! For preschool children, various programs are directed at children, their parents, and/or

teachers regarding the need to recognize and avoid streets and traffic hazards. The programs

include:

- Walking in Traffic Safely (WITS)

- Watchful Willie

- “Children in Traffic—Why Are They Different?” (a West German film)

- Child and Traffic

- Parents, Children and Traffic

! Elementary children (grades kindergarten to 3) represent the age group most at risk, and more

than half of all pedestrian deaths and injuries to children ages 5 to 9 involve crossing or

entering residential streets. These educational programs emphasize safe street crossing

behavior and include:

- Willie Whistle Safe Street Crossing Program (discussed earlier)

- I'm No Fool As a Pedestrian

- Walk Safely

- AAA Poster Contest

! Elementary children (grades 4-6) need more complex safety messages, such as crossing at

signalized intersections, multiple threat situations, right turn on red, walking in parking lots,

and others. Examples of educational programs include:

- And Keep on Looking (discussed earlier)

- Walk Safely

- Safety on Streets and Sidewalks

- The National Student Traffic Safety Test

- Guidelines for a K-12 Traffic Safety Educational Curriculum

! Junior high and high school students should also be taught about more complex street

situations, but also about being seen at night, dangers of alcohol use and walking, recreational

walking, commercial bus stops, and others. Examples of programs include:

- Guidelines for a K-12 Traffic Safety Educational Curriculum

- WALK ALERT—A Pedestrian Safety Booklet for Junior High Students

- Driver Education

- Substance Abuse Programs

- Teaching About the Child

! Adult (including older adults) educational programs are more commonly in the form of:

- Walking tours led by traffic safety officers or civic leaders

- Public service announcements

- Print media

- Work place programs

- Hospitals and health-related print material

Since driver education is also an important component of pedestrian safety, numerous programs

directed at drivers are also available, including:

! AAA's School's Open Drive Carefully
119

! Parents Can Be Serious Traffic Hazards

! About Children and Traffic

! Give Older Pedestrians a Break at Crossings

Education is certainly an essential ingredient of pedestrian safety programs along with

engineering and enforcement. Cities that historically have had a low incidence of pedestrian crashes have

typically had active pedestrian-education programs. More information on various educational programs

for pedestrian safety and specific messages is available (National Safety Council, 1988; Preusser, 1988).

Media campaigns are one form of education, and they are sometimes accompanied by the promise

of intensified law enforcement. Two studies carried out in Canada are illustrative. In one, a multimedia

campaign targeted left turns, aimed at increasing the proportion of drivers who yield to pedestrians

(Koenig and Wu, 1994). No enforcement emphasis was mentioned. Failure to yield was 25 percent

before and 17 percent after. No change was seen in right-turn behavior, which was not targeted.

Another study, in Seattle, reported little success (Britt et al., 1995). These authors evaluated a 4-

year study in Seattle. Driver behavior at crosswalks was observed; compliance with the yield law was not

great (15 to 20 percent). A media campaign accompanied the enforcement effort, but it is not clear

whether the intensity of either was maintained during the full 4-year period. Enforcement seemed to

produce a slight improvement in compliance, but the authors said they were “ . . . unable to demonstrate

that law enforcement efforts directed at motorists’ violations of crosswalk laws significantly or

consistently increase drivers’ willingness to stop for pedestrians.” (p. 166)

It seems reasonable to believe that many pedestrian collisions are the result of poor behavior on

the part of pedestrians and drivers. This would indicate that educational countermeasures could improve

pedestrian safety. Many public information and education campaigns have been conducted to improve

pedestrian and driver behavior. However, there is a clear need for further development and widespread

use of effective pedestrian-safety programs that are targeted at children of various ages, parents, and

drivers.

Enforcement and Regulations

In addition to engineering and education, enforcement of traffic laws and regulations is another

important element in safe pedestrian activity. This means curtailing dangerous motorist actions that relate

to pedestrians. Motorists who exceed the speed limit, fail to yield the right of way to pedestrians when

turning, run a red light or stop sign, and/or drink and drive can place pedestrians in jeopardy. Strong

police enforcement programs are needed to help reduce these violations (National Safety Council, 1988). 

Giving citations to pedestrians (for jaywalking, etc.) has not been shown to be effective in improving

behavior, and can create a public-relations problem for local police departments.

Unfortunately, no quantitative studies could be found that determined the specific effects of

various types of police enforcement on pedestrian crashes and injuries. However, many U.S. cities with

exemplary pedestrian safety achievements (such as Milwaukee, Seattle, and San Diego) have maintained

active enforcement programs along with other pedestrian safety measures (National Safety Council,

1988). The effect of enforcement alone is difficult to quantify because so many factors affect pedestrian

crash experience over a given time period. 

Several model pedestrian ordinances have been developed by NHTSA that have the potential to

reduce certain types of pedestrian crashes. These include the following (National Safety Council, 1988; 
120

Development of Model Regulations, 1974; Model Ice Cream Truck Ordinance, 1979, EnforcementPolicing Pedestrian Protection, 1988):

! Model ice cream truck ordinance: This type of regulation is needed in many areas to deal

with the problem of children who walk or run into the street to or from ice cream or other

vending trucks. This ordinance has several components, including: (1) requiring drivers to

stop before overtaking a vending truck, (2) requiring "stop then go if safe" swing arms and

alternately flashing lights on vendor trucks, and (3) restricting the locations where vending

trucks are allowed. According to a 1979 NHTSA study, such an ordinance went into effect in

Detroit in June, 1976. During the first partial vending season, related crashes dropped 54

percent. In the first full vending season, related child crashes declined 77 percent (from a 3-

year average of 48.7 crashes per year to 11 in 1977) (Model Ice Cream Truck Ordinance,

1979).

! Model bus stop ordinance: This measure requires that bus stops be relocated from the near

side to the far side of an intersection. It also prohibits pedestrians from crossing in front of a

stopped bus unless allowed to do so by a traffic control device or police officer. This

ordinance can increase the visibility between an approaching motorist and crossing

pedestrians and thus decrease bus-related pedestrian crashes.

! Multiple vehicle-overtaking ordinance: One of the common types of pedestrian crashes on

multi-lane roadways is termed a "multiple-threat" crash, which involves pedestrians who step

into a traffic lane, often in a crosswalk, in front of a stopped vehicle and then into the

adjacent lane without looking and are struck by an oncoming vehicle. This ordinance would

require drivers to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and to stop before passing a vehicle

stopped at a crosswalk.

! Disabled vehicle ordinance: To reduce pedestrian crashes on freeways, this ordinance

requires that motorists move their vehicle as far as possible off the road and place a warning

device behind it. Reflective materials must also be carried in the vehicle for occupants to

wear when walking along access-controlled roads at night. It also prohibits standing in

roadways during vehicle repairs.

! Parking near intersections or crosswalks ordinance: This ordinance provides that vehicles

should not park within 15 m (50 ft) of a marked crosswalk or within 18 m (60 ft) of an

intersection without a marked crosswalk on that approach. Access ramps and other provisions

for people with disabilities are included. This ordinance should help drivers approaching an

intersection to see pedestrians more easily and will give pedestrians a better view of

approaching motorists.

The above ordinances can help reduce pedestrian crashes when implemented and followed by

local jurisdictions. Effective police enforcement may be needed to help ensure reasonably high

compliance with these and other ordinances. Enforcement efforts have been most effective when they are

long term and consistent, have strong support from top management, and are upheld by the local judicial

system (National Safety Council, 1988).
121

PART 4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This synthesis report reviewed existing pedestrian research, particularly as it relates to pedestrian

crash characteristics and the effects of various engineering and roadway safety treatments (much less

attention was given to educational and enforcement measures related to pedestrians). Emphasis was

placed on pedestrian research conducted in the past 10 years. 

In addition to reviewing research published in U.S. literature, this report features a limited

number of research studies from other countries, and authors in five other countries were hired to conduct

similar summaries of pedestrian research in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and

Sweden. This process resulted in the consideration of non-English articles and reports from those

countries, with key results given in the research summary. These summaries are provided as separate

attachments to this report and are found at the following Web site:

http://www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm

Introduction

Part 1 of this report provides an introduction to the pedestrian safety problem. Guides and model

pedestrian programs developed in the U.S. in recent years are also discussed, along with illustrations of

some of the major pedestrian crash types and countermeasures.

It is clear that pedestrian safety has emerged in recent years as a topic of growing interest and

concern. As far back as the 1920s, pedestrian collisions resulted in about 40 percent of all traffic

fatalities, annually reaching more than 15,000 pedestrian deaths in the 1930s.

As motorization advanced, that proportion fell, and pedestrian deaths now annually number

approximately 5,000 to 6,000 and represent approximately 12-15 percent of traffic deaths each year. This

decline is presumably the product of: increased attention to pedestrian control and safety measures and

pedestrian safety education; and a change in exposure factors on trips that formerly would have been

made on foot that came to be made in a motor vehicle. Other factors also may play a role. Detailed

pedestrian exposure data are not available that illuminate pedestrian trip choices and amount of walking

on a nationwide basis.

Pedestrian Crash Experience

Part 2 of this report deals with pedestrian crash characteristics. Research since the 1970s of

pedestrian crash databases has given us a better understanding of crash causes and related factors. For

example, night conditions greatly increase pedestrian crash risk, and, while pedestrian collisions primarily

occur in urban areas, higher speed rural collisions more often result in pedestrian deaths. Fridays and

Saturdays are the most common days for pedestrian collisions, perhaps because of increased drinking by

pedestrians and motorists and more walking exposure on these days.

We know that children are over-involved in pedestrian collisions per population. This is

particularly true for males age 5-9. Older pedestrians (particularly above age 65) are much more likely to

be killed as pedestrians, possibly because of their increased frailty. Alcohol consumption by the

pedestrian is a factor in 40 percent or more of pedestrian deaths, and is a particular factor for male

pedestrians age 25-44.

The most common pedestrian crash types include dart-outs, intersection dash, and turning-vehicle

collisions. Pedestrians are cited as being solely at fault 43.2 percent of the time, compared with 
122

34.8 percent solely motorist fault. Of course, the assignment of fault depends to an extent on the

judgment and biases of the reporting police officers.

Overview of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures and Safety Programs

The U.S. is the most motorized nation on earth (motor vehicles per capita), and priorities have

skewed in favor of the motorist and against the pedestrian. In recent years, however, some attempts have

been made to give more consideration to pedestrians. Sometimes this is addressed directly in terms of

increased safety for pedestrians accomplished through a variety of traffic calming and other measures. 

Sometimes the effort is framed as creating a more pedestrian-friendly walking environment in the interest

of an improved quality of life, but increased safety is clearly a benefit.

Traffic professionals have had to proceed with less comprehensive knowledge than is desirable

about the effectiveness of some measures. While many evaluation results are reported in the literature, it

is not always possible to know with sufficient confidence what works and what does not, particularly

under specific traffic and roadway situations, because of difficulties in conducting crash evaluations of

pedestrian treatments. Low crash samples and threats of regression to the mean, among other difficulties,

confound firm conclusions. Thus, when reviewing dozens of published articles and papers on pedestrian

research for this report, efforts were made to summarize the results of the best available information and

studies. 

Many studies were excluded from this synthesis because of questionable research methods or 

insufficient sample sizes, or because they did not specifically address the safety effects of pedestrian

treatments. While this does not imply that every study mentioned in this report is of the highest possible

quality, there is a considerable amount of valuable information on the effectiveness of roadway and other

treatments for pedestrians. In addition to pedestrian crash data, numerous studies use pedestrian and

motorist behavior, vehicle speeds, conflicts, and other measures when analyzing the effects of different

pedestrian treatments. 

Some major findings are:

! There is evidence that substantially improved nighttime lighting can enhance pedestrian

safety in certain situations.

! At uncontrolled crosswalks (i.e., no stop sign or traffic signal on the approach roadway)

on a two-lane road, the presence of a marked crosswalk is associated with no difference

in pedestrian crash rate, compared to an unmarked crosswalk. On multi-lane roads with

traffic volumes above 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone, without

other substantial improvements, is associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate (after

controlling for other site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk. More substantial

improvements are recommended to provide for safer pedestrian crossings at many such

pedestrian crossings, such as adding traffic signals with pedestrian signals when

warranted, providing raised medians, initiating speed-reducing measures, and/or others. 

! Providing raised medians on multi-lane roads can substantially reduce pedestrian crash

risk and can help pedestrians cross the street.

! At intersections with traffic signals, adding a WALK/DON’T WALK signal with a

standard timing scheme (i.e., motorists move parallel to pedestrians and may turn right or

left on a green light across pedestrians’ path) has no significant effect on pedestrian

crashes. Providing an exclusive pedestrian interval (i.e., motorists are stopped in all
123

Figure 51. Undivided highways had the highest

crash risk for pedestrians.

directions during the same interval each cycle while pedestrians cross in any direction)

reduces pedestrian collisions by half. However, exclusive timing schemes can increase

pedestrian and motorist delay and are most appropriate at downtown intersections with a

combination of heavy pedestrian volumes, good pedestrian compliance, and low vehicle

volumes.

! Allowing vehicles to make a RTOR maneuver appears to result in a small but clear safety

problem for pedestrians. In fact, 21 percent of motorists violate NTOR signs if given the

opportunity, and 23 percent of RTOR violations result in a conflict with a pedestrian. 

Countermeasures that have been effective in reducing pedestrian risks related to RTOR

include illuminated NTOR signs, offset stop bars at intersections where RTOR is allowed

(i.e., motorists are more likely to make a full stop often), variations in NTOR signs, and

others.

! Various innovative pedestrian and motorist warning signs have been found to reduce

vehicle speeds or conflicts between pedestrians and motorists. These devices include the

“strong yellow green” pedestrian warning sign, YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS WHEN

TURNING sign, PEDESTRIANS WATCH FOR TURNING VEHICLES sign, threesection WALK WITH CARE signal head, a DON’T START display to replace the

flashing DON’T WALK display, and others.

! Curb medians provide a safer environment for pedestrians compared with two-way leftturn lanes (TWLTLs). Undivided highways present the highest crash risk for pedestrians.

! Numerous treatments can address the needs of pedestrians with disabilities: textured

pavements, audible and vibrating pedestrian signals, larger signs and pedestrian signals,

wheelchair ramps, and others. While formal safety studies are very difficult to conduct

on such treatments, certain benefits may result from such devices, depending on site

conditions and pedestrian needs.
124

Figure 52. Textured pavements

at crosswalks may help visionimpaired pedestrians to cross

streets.

! Careful placement of bus stops can affect pedestrian safety. It is clearly beneficial to put 

bus stops on the far side of an intersection and at locations with good sight distance and

alignment (e.g., not on steep grades or on horizontal curves).

! School trip safety can be enhanced by sidewalks and proper signalization, but also by

well-trained adult crossing guards and selective police enforcement. Certain warning

signs (e.g., flashing school speed limit signs) and markings (e.g., school crosswalks) are

also appropriate and beneficial to pedestrians in many school zones.

! Pedestrian safety and mobility are enhanced by sidewalks and walkways. This is a

critical component of a pedestrian transportation network in urban and suburban areas. 

Rural roads should have shoulders for pedestrian travel.

! Overpasses and underpasses can substantially improve safety for pedestrians needing to

cross freeways or busy arterial streets at certain locations. However, such facilities must

be carefully planned and designed to encourage pedestrians to use the facilities and not

continue to cross at street level.

! Pedestrians can make themselves more visible by using a flashlight, jogger’s vest, dangle

tags, and rings (retroreflective material on the head band, wrist bands, belt, and ankle

band). Such measures can increase a pedestrian’s visibility distance up to 397 m (1300

ft), compared with about 61 m (200 ft) for a “base pedestrian” wearing blue jeans and a

white t-shirt.

! Several studies have shown that converting from two-way to one-way streets can

substantially reduce pedestrian collisions. However, converting from two-way to oneway streets may not be solely justified by pedestrian safety considerations. More often,

several concerns such as capacity, traffic circulation, and overall traffic safety are major
125

considerations. One-way streets can greatly simplify the task of crossing a street,

particularly if the one-way street conversion does not result in increased vehicle speeds.

! While traffic-calming measures are primarily intended for neighborhood streets to reduce

vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through vehicle traffic, such measures as street closures,

speed humps, chicanes, traffic curbs, diverters, and others are in use in various U.S.

cities. While controversial, many of these measures have been found to be effective in

improving safety for pedestrians and/or traffic as a whole based on reductions in crashes,

vehicle speeds, and/or reductions in cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets.

! Education for pedestrians has been found in a few studies to reduce crashes involving

child pedestrians. However, most U.S. educational programs were found to have

received little if any formal evaluations or to have had only limited measurable effects.

! Enforcement of traffic laws and regulations represents another important element in safe

pedestrian activity in a roadway environment. This includes not only enforcing

pedestrian regulations (e.g., jaywalking, crossing against the signal) but also motorist

actions related to pedestrians (e.g., speeding, yielding to pedestrians when turning, drunk

driving). While a number of U.S. cities (e.g., Seattle, Milwaukee, San Diego) have had

active police enforcement programs in recent years, no quantitative studies are known

that have determined the specific effects of police enforcement on pedestrian crashes and

injuries. Further, such a study would be very difficult to conduct because of the many

other contributing crash factors in a city.

Summary reports of pedestrian research are provided at http://www.walkinginfo.org/rd/

international.htm for the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Australia. While

much has been learned from pedestrian research over the past two or three decades, there is still much to

discover about measures that might affect safety and mobility for those who choose to walk.
126
127

Annotated Bibliography on Traffic Calming Measures

Several sources exist with extensive text, illustrations, etc. Some are listed here:

! Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, FHWA, Report RD-99-135, August, 1999, Ewing,

R.H.

This report looks at the design, impact, and other considerations surrounding traffic-calming

measures in the U.S. and Canada. It covers information on traffic-calming in different contexts from

urban residential areas to areas where high-speed rural highways transition into rural communities. The

report is based on detailed information collected on traffic-calming programs in 20 featured communities,

another 30 communities surveyed less extensively, and a parallel Canadian effort by the Canadian ITE

(CITE) and the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC). 

! Traffic Calming in Practice, County Surveyors Society, Landor Publishing Limited,

Quadrant House, London, SE11 5RD, November, 1994.

With a considerable list of references and lavishly illustrated, this report claims to be “an

authoritative source book with 85 case studies.” Among the 85 case studies are 18 different types of

interventions. Each case study is laid out in a two-page spread with photos, schematics, speed and crash

data, etc. In 72 of the 85 cases, before- and after-crash data are presented, and in 69 of the 72, crashes are

lower in the after period than they were before. However, this is not a research document; what might be

the nature or strength of the study designs cannot readily be ascertained from the discussions. 

! Towards Traffic Calming: A Practitioner’s Manual, Hawkey, L., Henson C., Hulse, A., and

Brindle, R., Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, Australia, August, 1992.

This manual shows numerous methods of slowing down vehicular traffic, the presumed

beneficiaries being pedestrians and bicyclists, and cites the need for evaluation of effectiveness and lack

thereof. It contains good visuals and descriptions: humps, narrowing, mini-roundabouts. There is a

section on international references.

! National Bicycle and Walking Study: Case Study 19: Traffic Calming, FHWA, Report PD93-028, January, 1994, Clarke, A. And Dornfield, M.

This report contains a discussion of pros and cons of the “Woonerven” (the Netherlands). 

Several efforts produced good results: less speed, fewer crashes, lower volume (though of course less

speed and volume are good for some and bad for others). This report also addresses U.S. traffic-calming

initiatives: speed humps, mini-roundabouts, chicanes, bike boulevards, channelization changes, slow

streets, traffic diverters, and corner treatments.

! FHWA Study Tour for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany, and the

Netherlands, October 1994, FHWA, DOT, Zegeer, C., Cynecki, M., Fegan, J., Gilleran, B.,

Lagerway, P., Tan, C, and Works, B.

Countermeasures discussed include: 

England: chicanes, narrowing, humps, roundabouts (humps are sometimes designed to allow wide

trucks, buses, or emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded. City dwellers like the restrictions, and country

people want to retain the diminished access. 
128

Netherlands: low speed limits, diverters, narrowing, block through-access

Germany: self-enforcing speed control, road narrowing

! “Traffic Calming, 1995,” Traffic Engineering Committee Workshop, Proceedings from 21

papers, Ontario Traffic Conference, 20 Carlton Street, Toronto, M5B 2H5, November, 1995.

This compilation of papers describes a number of traffic-calming initiatives installed in various

cities and towns in Canada. The nature of the interventions is described and, in a number of instances,

before-and after-data are presented. Drawings and photographs illustrate the installations.

! Slow Down You're Going Too Fast: The Community Guide to Traffic Calming, Public

Technology, Inc., 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, 1998.

This guide contains 25 case studies designed to meet local government and community

demands for information on traffic calming to provide a better quality of life for residents.

! “Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines,” Prepared by ITE

Transportation Planning Council Committee 5P-8, A Proposed Recommended Practice of the

ITE, 525 School St. NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC, June 1997.

This document presents a discussion of the concepts of traditional neighborhood development, 

also referred to as "The New Urbanism," as they relate to the role of streets in traditional neighborhood

development communities. The document also includes a discussion of community design guidelines,

specific guidance on geometric street design, and an appendix that summarizes some of the recent

findings on the relationship between urban design and travel demand.

! “Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, A Recommended Practice of the

Institute of Traffic Engineers,” ITE Traffic Engineering Council Speed Humps Task Force

TENC-5TF-01, Douglas W. Wiersig, Chair, 525 School St. NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC,

1997.

This document provides information on the recommended practice for the guidelines for using

speed humps, community relations and administrative procedures, design and construction considerations,

monitoring and evaluation of speed humps over time, and other considerations, such as liability,

aesthetics, maintenance and enforcement needs. An extensive listing of source materials is also included.
129

REFERENCES

AAA Pedestrian Safety Report or Special Survey on Pedestrian Deaths and Injuries for Ages 0 through

29. American Automobile Association, No. 7, February, 1984. Also 1977 edition.

AAA Special Study of School Child Pedestrian Accidents. AAA Pedestrian Safety Report, American

Automobile Association, June 1968.

Accident Facts. 1988 Edition, National Safety Council, (and earlier editions), 1988.

Accident Facts. 1994 Edition, National Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1994

Accident Facts. 1995 Edition, National Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1995.

Accident Facts. 1996 Edition, National Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1996.

Accident Facts. 1997 Edition, National Safety Council, Chicago, IL, 1997.

Accident Prevention Effects of Road Safety Devices - Annual Report. Japan Road Association, 1969.

Alcohol Fatality Facts 1990, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, July 1990.

Allen, M.J., R.D. Hazlett, H.L. Tacker, and B.V. Graham. “Actual Pedestrian Visibility and the

Pedestrian's Estimate of His Own Visibility,” Conference Proceedings, American Association for

Automotive Medicine, October 1969.

Antonakos, C.L. Nonmotor Vehicle Travel in the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,

Transportation Research Record 1502: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,

Washington, DC, p. 75, 1995.

Atkins, C. and M. Coleman. “The Influence of Traffic Calming on Emergency Response Times,” ITE

Journal, August 1997, pp. 42-46.

Axelson, P.W., D.A. Chesney, D.V. Galvan, J.B. Kirschbaum, P.E. Longmuir, C. Lyons, and K.M.

Wong. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines and

Practices, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA HEP-99-006, July 1999.

Bartholomew, W.M. “Pedestrian Accidents in Service Areas of Selected City Recreation Facilities,”

Traffic Safety Research Review, Vol. II, No. 4, December 1967.

Berger, W.G. Urban Pedestrian Accident Countermeasures Experimental Evaluation Studies. Vol. I--

Behavioral Evaluation Studies. Vol. II-Accident Studies. Vol. III -Appendix A, Report Nos. DOT-HS-801-

346, 347, and 348, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 1975.

Blomberg, R.D. and D.F. Preusser. Identification and Test of Pedestrian Safety Messages for Public

Education Programs, Report No. ED-74-3, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1975.

Blomberg, R.D., D.F. Preusser, A. Hale, and W.A. Leaf. Experimental Field Test of Proposed Pedestrian

Safety Messages, NHTSA, Nov. 1983.
130

Blomberg, R.D., A. Hale, and D.F. Preusser. Conspicuity for Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Definition of

the Problem. Development and Test of Countermeasures, NHTSA, April, 1984.

Bowman, B.L., J.J. Fruin, and C.V. Zegeer. Handbook on Planning, Design, and Maintenance of

Pedestrian Facilities, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA IP-88-019, March 1989.

Bowman, B.L. and R.L. Vecellio. “Effects of Urban and Suburban Median Types on Both Vehicular and

Pedestrian Safety,” Transportation Research Record 1445: Cross Section and Alignment Design Issues,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, p.169, 1994A.

Bowman, B.L. and R.L. Vecellio. “Assessment of Current Practice in Selection and Design of Urban

Medians to Benefit Pedestrians,” Transportation Research Record 1445: Cross Section and Alignment

Design Issues, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, p. 180,

1994b.

Braaksma, J.P. A Survey of Special Crosswalks in Canada, Report No. TP981 CR7708, Canadian

Department of Transportation, The Directorate of Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety, September

1976.

Brindle, R. “Traffic Calming in Australia: More than Neighborhood Traffic Management,” ITE Journal,

July 1997, pp. 26-33.

Britt, J.W., A.B. Bergman and J. Moffatt. “Law Enforcement, Pedestrian Safety, and Driver Compliance

with Crosswalk Laws: Evaluation of a Four-year Campaign in Seattle,” Transportation Research Record

1485: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1995.

Brownfield, D.J. “Environmental Areas—Interim Report on a Before-After Accident Study,” Traffic

Engineering and Control, Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1980.

Burritt, B.E., R.C. Buchanan, and E.I. Kalidova. “School Zone Flashers—Do They Really Slow Traffic?” 

ITE Manual, pp. 29-31, January 1990.

Cagley, C. “The Urban Setting of Juvenile Pedestrian Injuries: a Study of Behavioral Ecology and

Social Disadvantage,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 673-678, 1992.

Campbell, B.J. Unpublished tabulation of North Carolina accident data prepared for this report, 1996.

Chalis, L.A. and Associates, Pty., Ltd. “Development of an Audio Tactile Signal to Assist the Blind at

Pedestrian Crossings,” Melbourne, Australia, 1976.

Choueiri, E.M., R. Lamm, G.M. Choueiri, and B.M. Choueiri. “Pedestrian Accidents: A 15-year survey

from the United States and Western Europe,” ITE Journal, July, 1993, pp. 36-42.

Christoffel, K.K., M. Donovan, J. Schofer, K. Wills, and J.V. Lavinnge, Psychosocial Factors in

Childhood Pedestrian Injury: A Matched Case-Control Study. Pediatrics, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 33-42, Jan.

1996.

Clark, K.L., J.E. Hummer, and N. Dutt. “Field Evaluation of Fluorescent Strong Yellow-green

Pedestrian Warning Signs,” Transportation Research Record 1538, Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council, Washington, DC, p. 39, 1996.
131

Clarke, A. and M.J. Dornfeld. Traffic Calming, Auto-Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management

Techniques - Their Effects on Bicycling and Pedestrians, Case Study No. 19, National Bicycling and 

Walking Study, Publication No. FHWA-PD-93-028, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,

January 1994.

Clarke, A. and M. Dornfield., National Bicycle and Walking Study: Case Study No. 19: Traffic Calming,

FHWA, Report PD-93-028, January, 1994.

Cline, E. "Design of Speed Humps...Or ‘The Kinder, Gentler Speed Hump,” Presented at the 45th

California Symposium on Transportation Issues, May 12-14, 1993.

Compton, R.P. and E.V. Milton. “Safety Impact of Permitting Right-Turn-On-Red: a Report to Congress

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,”US DOT, December 1994.

Cove, L. “Pedestrian Accident Characteristics,” Federal Highway Administration, 1990.

Crook, A.D. “Effect on Accidents of Area Traffic Control in West London,” Traffic Engineering and

Control, Vol. 12, No. 1, May 1970.

Cynecki, M.J. Personal communication, April 1998.

Cynecki, M.J., J.W. Sparks, and J.L. Grote. “Rumble Strips and Pedestrian Safety,” ITE Journal, August,

1993, p. 18. 

Cynecki, M.J. “Development of a Conflicts' Analysis Technique for Pedestrian Crossings,”

Transportation Research Board, Record No. 743, TRB, 1980.

Davis, R.A. and D.F. Huelke. “Pedestrian Fatalities,” Highway Safety Research Institute, University of

Michigan, 1969.

Davis, S.E., H.D. Robertson, and L.E. King. “Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts: An Accident Prediction

Model,” Transportation Publication Report No. 6, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1989.

Development of Model Regulations for Pedestrian Safety. U.S. Department of Transportation, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, Report No. DOT-HS-801-287, Nov. 1974.

Dickman, F.B. and W.S. Cope. “Drug Related Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Injuries,” Transportation

Research Circular 397, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC,

May 1992.

Dunne, R.G., K.N. Asher, and F.P. Rivara. “Behavior and Parental Expectations of Child Pedestrians,”

Pediatrics, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 486-490, March 1992.

Earnhart, G. and L. Simon. Accessibility for Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians-A Manual for Cities,

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1987.

Edminster, R. and D. Koffman. Streets for Pedestrians and Transit: An Evaluation of Three Transit

Malls in the United States, Report No. UMTA-MA-06-00049-79-1, Urban Mass Transportation

Administration, February 1979.
132

Ekman, L. Fotgargares risker pa markerat overgangsstalle jamfort med andra korsningspunkter. Bulletin

76. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1988.

“Enforcement-Policing Pedestrian Protection,” Traffic Safety Magazine, National Safety Council, Vol.

88, No. 1, Jan./Feb., 1988.

Engel, U. and Lars K. Thomsen. “Safety Effects of Speed Reducing Measures in Danish Residential

Area,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 1, February 1992, pp. 17-28.

Evans. L. “Factors Influencing Pedestrian and Motorcyclist Fatality Risk,” Journal of Traffic Medicine,

Vol. 19, No. 2, 1991.

Ewing, R.H. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA

RD-99-135, August 1999.

Ewing, R. and C. Kooshian. “U.S. Experience with Traffic Calming,” ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 28-

33.

Fatal Accident Reporting System 1989 - A Decade of Progress. National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 1990.

Ferguson, S.A., A.K. Lund, P.L. Zador, and R.G. Ulmer. “Daylight Saving Time and Motor Vehicle

Crashes: the Reduction of Pedestrian and Vehicle Occupant Fatalities,” American Journal of Public

Health, January 1995. 

Firth, D.E. Roads and Road Safety: Descriptions Given by Four Hundred Children, Report SR 138 UC,

Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1975.

Fleig, P.H. and D.G. Duffy. “A Study of Pedestrian Safety Behavior Using Activity Sampling,” Traffic

Safety Research Review, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1967.

Frederick, M. “Yoeman’s Road” in “Traffic Calming, 1995,” Traffic Engineering Committee Workshop,

Proceedings from 21 papers, Ontario Traffic Conference, 20 Carlton Street, Toronto, M5B 2H5,

November 1995.

Freedman, M., M.S. Janoff, B.W. Koth, and W. McCunney. Fixed Illumination for Pedestrian

Protection, Report No. FHWA-RD-76-8, Federal Highway Administration, December 1975.

Fruin, J.J. “Pedestrian Accident Characteristics in a One-Way Grid,” Highway Research Record 436,

Highway Research Board, 1973.

Gallon, C., P. Oxley, and B. Simms. “Tactile footway surfaces for the blind,” Transport Research

Laboratory (report 257), Crowthorne, England, 1991.

Gallon, C., “Tactile surfaces in the pedestrian environment: Experiments in Wolverhampton,” Transport

Research Laboratory (report 317), Crowthorne, England, 1992.

General Estimates System 1989—A Review of Information On Police-Reported Traffic Crashes in the

United States, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1990.
133

Gibby, A.R., J.L. Stites, G.S. Thurgood, and T.C. Ferrara. “Evaluation of Marked and Unmarked

Crosswalks at Intersections in California,” Chico State University, Report Number FHWA/CA/TO-94/1,

June 1994.

Goodwin, P.W. and T.P. Hutchinson. “The Risk of Walking,” Transportation (The Netherlands), Vol. 6,

No. 3, September 1977.

Gurnett, G. “Marked Crosswalk Removal Before and After Study,” Los Angeles County Road

Department, November 1974.

Habib, P.A. “Pedestrians Safety: The Hazards of Left-Turning Vehicles,” ITE Journal, Institute of

Transportation Engineers, April 1980.

Harrell, W.A. “Driver Response to a Disabled Pedestrian Using a Dangerous Crosswalk,” Journal of

Environmental Psychology, Vol.12, pp. 345-354, 1992.

Hauck, J. “Well-Marked Crosswalks are a Pedestrian's Best Friend,” Rural and Urban Roads, Vol. 17,

No. 3, March 1979.

Hawkey, L., C. Henson, A. Hulse, and R. Brindle. “Towards Traffic Calming: a Practitioners Manual,”

Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, Australia, August 1992.

Hawkins, A.F. Priority Accessible Network for the Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians in New

Orleans, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-TS-84-206, June 1984.

Hawley, L., Colin Henson, Andrew Hulse, and Ray Brindle. Towards Traffic Calming: A Practitioners'

Manual of Implemented Local Area Traffic Management and Blackspot Devices, Publication No. CR

126, Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, August 1992.

Hazlett, R.D. and M.J. Allen. “The Ability to See A Pedestrian at Night: The Effects of Clothing

Reflectorization, and Driver Intoxication,” American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1968.

Herget, H. “Willowbrook Road Traffic Calming Project,” Frederick, M., in “Traffic Calming, 1995,”

Traffic Engineering Committee Workshop, Proceedings from 21 papers, Ontario Traffic Conference, 20

Carlton Street, Toronto, M5B 2H5, November 1995.

Herms, B. “Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks,” City of San

Diego Traffic Engineering Study, Project pp-69-2-001, 1970.

Herms, B. “Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks,” Highway

Research Record Number 406 Pedestrian Protection, Highway Research Board, pp. 1-13, Washington

DC, 1972. 

Herms, B., et al. “Guidestrips for Visually Handicapped Pedestrians,” Proceedings, Seminar on

Planning, Design, and Implementation of Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities, Institute of Transportation and

Traffic Engineering, University of California, May 1975.

Huang, H. and C. Zegeer. “An Evaluation of Pedestrian Countdown Signals,” Report No. FHWA

DTFH61-92-R-00138. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC,

1999.
134

Huang, H. An Evaluation of Illuminated Pedestrian Push Buttons, Report No. FHWA DTFH61-92-R00138, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC, 1999.

Huang, H.F. and C.V. Zegeer, “An Evaluation of Illuminated Pedestrian Push Buttons in Windsor,

Ontario,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-102, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center,

Chapel Hill, NC, August 2000.

Huang, H.F. and M.J. Cynecki. “The Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Pedestrian and Motorist

Behavior,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-104, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research

Center, Chapel Hill, NC & City of Phoenix, Street Transportation Dept., Phoenix, AZ, August 2000.

Huang, H., C. Zegeer, R. Nassi, and B. Fairfax. “The Effects of Innovative Pedestrian Signs at

Unsignalized Locations: A Tale of Three Treatments,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-098, University of

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC & City of Tucson, Department of

Transport, Tucson, AZ, August 2000.

Hughes, R., H. Huang, M. Cynecki, and C. Zegeer. “Automated Pedestrian Detection Used in

Conjunction with Standard Pedestrian Push Buttons at Signalized Intersections,” Report No. FHWA

DTFH61-92-R-00138, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC,

March 1999.

Hughes, R., H. Huang, C. Zegeer, and M. Cynecki, “Evaluation of Automated Pedestrian Detection at

Signalized Intersections.” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-097, University of North Carolina Highway Safety

Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC & City of Phoenix, Street Transportation Dept., Phoenix, AZ, August

2000.

Hulscher, F.R. “Traffic Signal Facilities for Blind Pedestrians,” Preliminary Report, New South Wales

Department of Motor Transport, Australia, January 1975.

Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, and C. Cox. “Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s,”

February 1995, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Contract number

FHWA-RD 95-163, 1996.

Husband, P. and I. Sobey. Factors Contributing to Pedestrian Involvement in Road Crashes, Joint

ARRB/DOT Pedestrian Conference, Australian Road Research Board, 1978.

ITE Technical Council Task Force on Speed Humps. Guidelines for the Design and Application of

Speed Humps, ITE Journal, Vol. 63, No. 5, May 1993, pp. 11-17.

Jacobs, G.D. “Pedestrian Behavior on a Length of Road Containing Guard Rails,” Traffic Engineering

and Control, January 1966.

Jacobs, G.D., S.J. Older, and D.G. Wilson. A Comparison of Road User Behavior at X-Way and Other

Pedestrian Crossings; Report TRRL 145, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,

England, 1968A.

Jacobs, G.D. The Effect of Vehicle Lighting on Pedestrian Movement in Well-Lighted Streets, Report 214,

Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1968B.

Katz, A., D. Zaidel, and A. Elgrishi. “An Experimental Study of Driver and Pedestrian Interaction During

the Crossing Conflict,” Human Factors, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 514-527, 1975.
135

Katz, A. Designing Safety and Comfort into the Environment, Joint ARRB/DOT Pedestrian Safety

Conference, Australian Road Research Board, Sydney, Australia, November 1978.

Kemper, B. and P. Fernandez. “Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities,” ITE Technical Committee

5A-5, December 1994. 

Kirschbaum, J.B., P.W. Axelson, P.E. Longmuir, K.M. Mispagel, J.A. Stein, and D.A. Yamada. 

Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide, Federal Highway

Administration, Report No. FHWA EP-01-027, September 2001.

Klik, M. and Ardeshir Faghri. “A Comparative Evaluation of Speed Humps and Deviations,” 

Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, July 1993, pp. 457-469.

Kloeckner, J.H., R. Lamm, E.M. Choueiri, and T. Mailaender. “Traffic Accidents Involving

Accompanied and Unaccompanied Children in the Federal Republic of Germany,” Transportation

Research Record 1210, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC,

1989.

Knoblauch, R.L., “Urban Pedestrian Accident Countermeasures Experimental Evaluation, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-801-347, February 1975.

Knoblauch, R., "The Effect of Crosswalk markings on Vehicle Speeds in Maryland, Virginia, and

Arizona", Center for Applied Research, Inc., Great falls, VA, FHWA Contract DTFH61-92-C-00138,

July 1998.

Knoblauch, R.L, M.T. Pietrucha, and M. Nitzburg. “Field Studies of Pedestrian Walking Speed and

Start-Up Time,” Transportation Research Record 1538: Pedestrian and Bicycle Research, Transportation

Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, p. 27, 1996.

Knoblauch, R.L. Causative Factors and Countermeasures for Rural and Suburban Pedestrian Accidents:

Accident Data Collection and Analysis, Report No. DOT-HS-802-266, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, June 1977.

Knoblauch, R.L., W. Moore, Jr., and P.R. Schmitz. Pedestrian Accidents Occurring on Freeways: An

Investigation of Causative Factors. Accident Data Collection and Analysis, Report Nos. FHWA-RD-78-

169/171, Federal Highway Administration, 1978.

Knoblauch, R., M. Nitzburg, and R. Seifert. “Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Sacramento,

California; Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York, Stillwater, Minnesota,” Center for Applied

Research, Inc., Great falls, VA, FHWA Contract DTFH61-92-C-00138, March 1999.

Knoblauch, R.L., B.H. Tustin, S.A. Smith, and M.T. Pietrucha. Investigation of Exposure Based

Pedestrian Accident Areas: Crosswalks. Sidewalks. Local Streets and Major Arterials, Federal Highway

Administration, Report No. FHWA/RD-87-038, February 1987.

Knoblauch, R.L. and P.D. Raymond, “The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle Speeds in Maryland,

Virginia, and Arizona,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-101, Center for Applied Research, Inc., Great Falls,

VA, August 2000.
136

Knoblauch, R.L., M. Nitzburg, and R.F. Seifurt. “Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Sacramento,

California; Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-

103, Center for Applied Research, Inc., Great Falls, VA, August 2000.

Koenig, D.J. and Z. Wu. “The Impact of a Media Campaign in the Reduction of Risk-Taking Behavior on

the Part of Drivers,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 26, pp. 625-633, 1994. 

Kraay, J.H. “Strategies in Pedestrian Road Safety Research,” Reprinted in Voice of the Pedestrian,

International Federation of Pedestrians, Autumn 1976.

Lalani, N. “Road Safety at Pedestrian Refuges,” Transportation Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 9, September

1976.

Larsen, C.A. Priority Accessible Network for the Elderly and Handicapped in Seattle, Federal Highway

Administration, Report No. FHWA-TS-84-205, June 1984.

Lea, N.D. and Associates. A Study of Measures to Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Report No. TP

1004, Canadian Department of Transport, 1978.

Leonard, J. and J. Davis. “Urban Traffic Calming Treatments: Performance Measures and Design

Conformance,” ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 34-39.

Lockwood, I. “ITE traffic calming definition,” ITE Journal, July 1997, pp. 22-24.

Lord, D. “Analysis of Pedestrian Conflicts with Left Turning Traffic,” Transportation Research Record

1538: Pedestrian and Bicycle Research, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,

Washington, DC, p. 61, 1996. 

Los Angeles County Road Department. “Marked Crosswalks at Non-Signalized Intersections,” Traffic

and Lighting Division, July 1967. 

Lovemark, O. “Pedestrians in Town Centers—A Summary of Some Research Project,” Pedestrian Safety

Project Report No. 27, North American Treaty Organization Committee on the Challenge of Modern

Society, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 1974.

Macbeth, A. “Balliol Street,” in Traffic Calming, 1995, Traffic Engineering Committee Workshop,

Proceedings from 21 papers, Ontario Traffic Conference, 20 Carlton Street, Toronto, M5B 2H5,

November 1995.

Mackie, A.M. and S.J. Older. “Study of Pedestrian Risk in Crossing Busy Roads in London Inner

Suburbs,” Traffic Engineering and Control, October 1965.

Malefant, L. and R. Van Houten. “Increasing the Percentage of Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians in Three

Canadian Cities with a Multifaceted Safety Program,” Health Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.

275-279, 1989.

Malo, A.F., A. Freed, D.E. Cleveland, J.V. Arthungal, and C. Jorgenson. An Innovative Pedestrian

Crosswalk Safety Device Demonstration, Report TRS-8, Highway Safety Research Institute, 1971.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Federal Highway Administration,

1988.
137

Matthias, J.S., and A. Stonex. Pedestrian Accidents in Arizona: An Investigation of Causative Factors

and Recommendations for Safety Improvements. Report No. FHWA/AZ-84/210. Arizona Department of

Transportation, 1985.

McDonald, P.E., and J.R. Jarvis. The Use of Road Humps on Residential Streets in the Shire of Corio,

ARRB Internal Report, AIR 335-2, Australian Road Research Board, 1981.

McMahon, P.J., A.J. Khattak, C. Duncan, J.R. Stewart, & C.V. Zegeer. “An Analysis of Factors

Contributing to “Walking Along Roadway” Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and

Walkways.” Report No. FHWA-RD-01-101. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research

Center, Chapel Hill, NC, November 2000.

Miles-Doan, R. “Alcohol Use Among Pedestrians and the Odds of Surviving an Injury: Evidence From

Florida Law Enforcement Data,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 23-31, 1996.

Model Pedestrian Safety Program. User's Manual Report No. FHWA-IP-78-6, Federal Highway

Administration, 1977 and 1987 editions.

Model Ice Cream Truck Ordinance, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, Report No. DOT-HS-804829, August 1979.

Moore, R.L. and S.J. Older. “Pedestrians and Motor Vehicles are Compatible in Today's World,” Traffic

Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 12, Sept. 1965.

Morrall, J.F., L.L. Ratnayake, and P.N. Seneviratne. “Comparison of CBD Pedestrian Characteristics in

Canada and Sri Lanka,” Transportation Research Record 1294: Non-Motorized transportation,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1991.

Mortimer, R.G. “Behavioral Evaluation of Pedestrian Signals,” Traffic Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 2,

1973.

National Safety Council. Walk Alert - National Pedestrian Safety Program 1988 Program Guide,

National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1988.

Nitzbgurg, M. and R. L. Knoblaugh, “An Evaluation of High Visibility Crosswalk Treatments,” Report

No. FHWA DTFH61-92-R-00138, Center for Applied Research, Great Falls, VA, 1999.

Nitzburg, M. and R.L. Knoblauch. “An Evaluation of High-Visibility Crosswalk Treatment - Clearwater,

Florida,” Report No. FHWA-RD-00-105, Center for Applied Research, Inc., Great Falls, VA, August

2000.

Nizlek, M.C. “Pedestrian Traffic Accident Characteristics, Tucson, Arizona,” 23rd Annual Arizona

Conference on Roads and Streets, April 18, 1984.

North Carolina Traffic Accident Facts - 1989. Division of Motor Vehicles, North Carolina DOT, 1990.

Owens, D.A. and R.J. Antonoff. “Biological Motion and Nighttime Pedestrian Conspicuity,” Human

Factors, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 718-732, 1994. 
138

O’Leary, A.A., P.B. Lockwood, and R.V. Taylor. “Evaluation of Detectable Warning Surfaces for

Sidewalk Curb Ramps,” Transportation Research Record 1538, Pedestrian and Bicycle Research,

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, p. 47, 1996.

Palamarthy, S., H.S. Mahmassani, and R.B. Machemehl. “Models of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at

Signalized Intersections,” Report 1296-1, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at

Austin, January 1994.

Parent, A. “Heritage Drive” in “Traffic Calming, 1995,” Traffic Engineering Committee Workshop,

Proceedings from 21 papers, Ontario Traffic Conference, 20 Carlton Street, Toronto, M5B 2H5,

November 1995.

Pegrum, B.V. “The Application of Certain Traffic Management Techniques and Their Effect on Road

Safety,” National Road Safety Symposium, March 1972.

Petzold, R.G. Urban Intersection Improvements for Pedestrian Safety. Vol. I-Executive Summary,

Report No. FHWA-RD-77-142, Federal Highway Administration, December 1977.

Pfefer, R.C., A. Sorton, J. Fegan, and M.J. Rosenbaum. “Pedestrian Ways-Chapter 16, Synthesis of

Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements,” Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC, December 1982.

Planning Community Pedestrian Safety Programs - An Agenda for Action. National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration Report No. DOT-HS-807-578, June 1980.

Pless, I.B. , H.G. Taylor, and L. Arsenault. “The Relationship Between Vigilance Deficits and Traffic

Injuries Involving Children,” Pediatrics, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 219-224, February 1995.

Polus, A. and A. Katz. “An Analysis of Nighttime Pedestrian Accidents at Specially Illuminated

Crosswalks,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 1978.

Preusser, D. “Education: Training Walkers to Watch,” Traffic Safety Magazine, National Safety

Council, Vol. 88, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 1988.

Preusser, D.F. and A.K. Lund. “And Keep on Looking: A Film to Reduce Pedestrian Crashes Among 9

to 12 Year Olds,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 19, 1988.

Preusser, D.F., W.A. Leaf, K.B. Debartla, and R.D. Blomberg. The Effects of Right-Turn-On-Red on

Pedestrians and Bicycle Accidents, NHTSA-DOT/HS-806/182, Dunlap and Associates, Inc., Darien, CT,

October 1981.

Public Works. “To Paint or Not to Paint,” April 1969, pp. 70-72.

Reading, J.B. “Pedestrian Protection Through Behavior Modification,” Traffic Engineering, Vol. 43, No.

10, July 1973.

Reclaiming Our Streets: A Community Action Plan, Portland Bureau of Traffic Management, Portland,

Oregon, February 1993.

Rehabilitation Alcohol Test, Evaluation, and Retrieval System - 1989 Annual Report. North Carolina

Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicle, Drivers License Section, 1990.
139

Reiss, M. School Trip Safety and Play Areas. Vol. I—Executive Summary, Report No. FHWA-RD-75-

104, Federal Highway Administration, November 1975A.

Reiss, M. Guidelines for the Location and Operation of Urban Play Streets, Vol. VII, Report No.

FHWA-RD-75-ll0, Federal Highway Administration, November 1975B.

Replogle, M. Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies and Programs in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Case

Study 17, National Bicycling and Walking Study. Report No. FHWA-PD-93-016. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, April 1992.

Retting, R.A., B.N. Persaud, P.E. Garder, and D. Lord. “Crash and injury reduction following

installation of roundabouts in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, 2001, pp.

628-31. 

Richardson, E., and J.R. Jarvis. The Use of Road Humps on Residential Streets in the City of Stirling,

Western Australia. ARRB Internal Report, AIR 335-3, Australian Road Research Board, 1981.

Road Safety Division. “Fact Sheet - Road Humps,” Department of Transport, London, United Kingdom,

August 1993.

Roberts, D.C. “Pedestrian Needs: Insights From a Pilot Survey of Blind and Deaf Individuals,”

Highway Research Record 403, Highway Research Board, 1972.

Robertson, H.D. and E.C. Carter. “The Safety, Operational, and Cost Impacts of Pedestrian Indications

at Signalized Intersections,” Record No. 959, TRB, 1984.

Rumar, K. “Night Driving: Visibility of Pedestrians,” Seventh International Road Safety Congress,

London, England, September 1966.

San Diego Association of Governments. Evaluation of Audible Pedestrian Traffic Signals, December

1988.

Sandels, S. Children in Traffic. Paul Elek, London, 1975.

Sandels, S. “The Skandia Report III, Unprotected Road Users, A Behavioral Study,” Skandia Insurance

Co., 1979.

Sargent, K.J. and D. Sheppard, The Development of the Green Cross Code, Report LR 605, Transport and

Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1974.

Sarker, S. “Evaluation of Different Types of Pedestrian-vehicle Separations,” Transportation Research

Record 1502: Bicycle and Pedestrian Research, Transportation Research Board, National Research

Council, Washington, DC, p. 83, 1995.

Sarker, S., J. Nederveen, and A. Pols. “Role of Traffic Calming in Improving Pedestrian Safety,” August

1996, unpublished.

Schalbbach, K. “Traffic calming in Europe,” ITE Journal, July 1997, pp. 38-40.

Skene, M., G. Chartier, D. Erickson, G. Mack, and R. Drdul, “Developing a Canadian Guide to Traffic

Calming,” ITE Journal, July 1997, pp. 34-36.
140

Smeed, R.J. “Some Aspects of Pedestrian Safety,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 2,

No. 3, September 1968.

Smith, S.A., et al. Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural

Areas, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 294A, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC, June 1987.

Snyder, M.B. and R.L. Knoblauch. Pedestrian Safety: The Identification of Precipitating Factors and

Possible Countermeasures, Report No. DOT-HS-800-403, 2 Vols., National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, January 1971.

Solnick, S.J. and D. Hemenway. “The Hit and run in Fatal Pedestrian Accidents: Victims,

Circumstances, and Drivers,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 643-649, 1995.

“Speed Control Humps.” Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/90, Department of Transport, London, United

Kingdom, October 1990.

Spielberg, P. “Traffic Engineering for Neotraditional Neighborhood Design,” ITE Technical

Committee, 5P-8, February 1994, ITE, Washington, DC

Sterling, C.F. “An Analysis of Pedestrian Reaction to the Flashing WALK Indication,” Traffic

Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 14, November 1974.

Swan, S. “Treatments of Overpasses and Undercrossing for the Disabled: Early Report on the State-ofthe Art,” Transportation Research Record 683, Transportation Research Board, 1978.

Szplett, D. And L. Sale. “Some Challenges in Developing Neotraditional Neighborhood Designs,” ITE

Journal, July 1997, pp. 42-45.

Tan, C.H. and C.Z. Zegeer. “European Practices and Innovations for Pedestrian Crossings,” ITE

Journal, pp. 24-31, November 1995.

Tanaboriboon., Y. and J.A. Guyano. “Analysis of Pedestrian Movements in Bangkok,” Transportation

Research Record 1294: Non-Motorized Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, Washington, DC, 1991.

Templer, J., et al. Development of Priority Accessible Networks - An Implementation Manual -

Provisions for the Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians, Report No. FHWA/IP80/8, Federal Highway

Administration, Washington, DC., 1980.

Templer, J. Provisions for Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians, Report Nos. FHWA-RD-79-l, 2, and 3,

Federal Highway Administration, January 1979.

Tidwell, J.E. and D.P. Doyle. “Driver and Pedestrian Comprehension of Pedestrian Law and Traffic

Control Devices,” Transportation Research Record 1502, Title, Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, Washington, DC, p. 119, 1995. 

Tobey, H.N., E.M. Shunamen, and R.L. Knoblauch. Pedestrian Trip Making Characteristics and

Exposure Measures, DTFH61-81-C-00020, Federal Highway Administration, 1983.
141

“Traffic Calming in Practice,” County Surveyors Society, Landor Publishing Limited, Quadrant House,

London, SE11 5RD, November 1994.

Traffic Safety Facts; 1994. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the US Department of

Transportation, August 1995.

Traffic Safety Facts, 1997. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US Department of

Transportation, November 1998 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/index.html).

Transportation in an Aging Society: Improving Mobility and Safety for Older Pedestrians, Special

Report No. 218, Vol.1, Transportation Research Board, 1988.

“Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance, Revised 1992,” National Committee on Uniform

Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, IL 60201. 

Vallette, G.R. and J.A. McDivitt. Pedestrian Safety Programs - A Review of the Literature and

Operational Experience, Report No. FHWA/RD-80/190, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,

DC, January 1981.

Van Houten, R. “The Influence of Signs Prompting Motorists to Yield Before Marked Crosswalks on

Motor Vehicle-pedestrian Conflicts at Crosswalks with Flashing Amber,” Accident Analysis and

Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 217-225, 1992.

Van der Does, V.1. “Crossing the Road in Japan,” Reprinted in Voice of the Pedestrian, International

Federation of Pedestrians, Autumn 1976.

Varhelyi, A. “Driver’s Speed Behavior at a Zebra Crossing,” Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,

Sweden, 1996.

Walter, E. “Suburban Residential Traffic Calming,” ITE Journal, Vol. 65, No. 9, pp. 44-48, September

1995.

West, J. and A. Lowe. “Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning Through Residential Street

Design,” ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 48-51.

Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, “Evaluation of an In-Pavement Flashing Lights Crosswalk

Warning System,” Report No. FHWA DTFH61-92-R-00138, University of North Carolina Highway

Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, March 1999.

Williams, A.F. and A.K. Lund. “Alcohol Impaired Driving and Crashes Involving Alcohol in the United

States During the 1970s and 1980s,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs

and Traffic Safety, Chicago, Illinois, National Safety Council, 1990.

Work Zone Traffic Management Synthesis: Work Zone Pedestrian Protection, Federal Highway

Administration, 1989.

Yagar, S. “Safety Impacts of Installing Pedestrian Crosswalks,” Proceedings of the Conference

Effectiveness of Highway Safety Improvements, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY,

March 1985.
142

Zaidel, D., A.S. Hakkert, and A.H. Pistiner. “The Use of Road Humps for Moderating Speeds on Urban

Streets,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 24, No. 1, February 1992, pp. 45-56.

Zaidel, D.M. and I. Hocherman. “Safety of Pedestrian Crossings at Signalized Intersections,” Record No.

1141, Transportation Research Board, 1987.

Zegeer, C., P.A. Lagerwey, M. Cynecki, A. Ross, and M. Ronkin. “Providing Places for Pedestrians to

Walk Along Streets and Highways,” Report No. FHWA DTFH61-92-R-00138, University of North

Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, 1999.

Zegeer, C., M. Cynecki, J. Fegan, B. Gilleran, P. Lagerway, C. Tan, and B. Works. “FHWA Study Tour

for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany, and the Netherlands,” FHWA, DOT, October

1994.

Zegeer, C.V. Synthesis of Safety Research: Pedestrians, Report No. FHWA-SA-91-034, U.S. Department

of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, August 1991.

Zegeer, C., J. Stutts, H. Huang, M. Zhou, and E. Rodgman. “Analysis of Elderly Pedestrian Crashes and

Recommended Countermeasures,” Transportation Research Board, January 1993.

Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer. “Providing Safer Urban Streets for Elderly and Handicapped

Pedestrians,” Paper Presented at the Fifth International Conference on “Mobility and Transport for

Elderly and Handicapped Pedestrians,” Stockholm, Sweden, May 1989.

Zegeer, C.V. and M.J. Cynecki. Methods of Increasing Pedestrian Safety at Right-Turn-On-Red

Intersections, Final Report, Report No. FHWA/IP-86/l0, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1986.

Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer. Pedestrians and Traffic Control Measures. Synthesis of Current Practice,

Synthesis Report No. 139. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1988.

Zegeer, C. and R. Deen. “Speed Reductions in School Zones,” Transportation Research Record 597,

Transportation Research Board, 1978.

Zegeer, C.V., D.A. Randolph, M.A. Flak, and R.K. Bhatacharya. “Use of Pedestrian Conflict Analyses

for Hazard Assessment in School Zones,” Record No. 743, Transportation Research Board, 1980.

Zegeer, C.V., K.S. Opiela, and M.J. Cynecki. “Effect of Pedestrian Signals and Signal Timing on

Pedestrian Accidents,” in Transportation Research Record 847, Analysis of Highway Accidents.

Pedestrian Behavior and Bicycle Program Implementation, Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, Washington, DC, 1982, pp. 62-72.

Zegeer, C.V., K.S. Opiela, and M.J. Cynecki. Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives, Report No.

FHWA/RD-83/102, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,

DC, 1983.

Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, and H. Huang. “Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at

Uncontrolled Locations: Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes in 30 Cities.” University of North Carolina

Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC. Submitted to Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC, November 2000.
APPENDIX A

REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIA, 

CANADA, THE NETHERLANDS, SWEDEN, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM 

(Appendix A reports may be found at www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm)