TECHBRIEF Crosswalk Marking 

Field Visibility Study 

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-10-067.

FHWA Contact: Ann Do, HRDS-07, (202) 493-3319, 

ann.do@dot.gov.

This document is a technical summary of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) report, Crosswalk Marking Field 

Visibility Study, FHWA-HRT-10-068.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the relative 

daytime and nighttime visibility of three crosswalk marking 

patterns: transverse lines, continental, and bar pairs. 

Background

Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians 

crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on 

approaches. These markings are used in conjunction with 

signs and other measures to alert road users to a designated 

pedestrian crossing point. Part 3 of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) contains basic information 

about crosswalk markings.(1) Because some States adopt 

their own supplement or manual on traffic control devices 

and some develop policies and practices for subjects not discussed in the MUTCD, differences in markings occur among 

States, cities, and other jurisdictions. 

While greater emphasis has recently been placed on researching pedestrian treatments, there is insufficient research to 

identify the relative visibility and driver behavior effects of 

the many different styles and patterns of crosswalk markings 

being used in the United States and abroad. Previous studies focused on whether the presence of the markings (rather 

than a specific pattern) was effective.(2–4) The lack of knowledge of the relative visibility of different marking patterns has 

inhibited the development of a consensus on whether more 

uniformity is needed in the form of tighter MUTCD standards 

or more comprehensive guidance on crosswalk markings. 

Research, Development, and 

Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

www.tfhrc.gov
2

Study Approach

In this study, participants drove an instrumented 

vehicle on a route through the Texas A&M 

University campus in College Station, TX. The 

route provided an open road environment that 

included portions in a typical college setting 

(e.g., sidewalks, buildings, basketball arena) and 

roads through the agricultural area of the campus, which were more rural in feel. Roadway 

lighting was present at each of the crosswalk 

locations. The study vehicle was equipped with 

instrumentation that allowed the researchers 

to measure and record various driving performance data. However, the vehicle operated and 

drove like a normal vehicle. 

The 78 participants were divided almost evenly 

between groups of male and female participants 

and between groups of younger (younger than 

55 years old) and older (55 years old or older) 

participants. 

Existing markings (six intersection and two 

midblock locations) and new markings installed 

for this study (nine midblock locations) were 

tested. Figure 1 shows an example of the bar 

pairs installed for this study, figure 2 shows 

a continental example, and figure 3 shows a 

transverse marking example.

Once the participant was comfortable in the 

instrumented vehicle and had arrived in a parking lot near the start of the route, he or she was 

reminded to indicate when one of the following 

items was seen: crosswalk markings, two-way 

left-turn arrows, and speed limit signs. The 

arrows and signs were included to ensure that 

the driver utilized a normal eye glance pattern 

and was not exclusively searching for crosswalks. As soon as the driver said “crosswalk,” 

the rear seat experimenter pressed the appropriate button to place a mark indicating detection 

in the computer file. Detection distances were 

adjusted by an experimenter response-time 

factor determined through pretesting. For the 

nine crosswalks installed for this study, the 

adjustments to the participant’s detection distance ranged between 3 and 13 percent.

After completing the initial route, the participant 

was given additional instructions and asked to 

drive the same route again to rate each crosswalk 

marking on how easy it was to see using a scale 

of A (excellent: very easy to see) to F (completely 

unacceptable: I would have missed it if I was not 

looking for it).

Figure 2. Photo. Example of continental markings installed for this study.

Figure 1. Photo. Example of bar pairs markings 

installed for this study.
3

Results 

The primary objective of this research was to 

study the visibility of crosswalk markings by 

determining detection distance and identifying 

the variables that affect this distance. The differences in detection distances were evaluated with 

consideration of variables in the following classes:

• Light (day or night).

• Site characteristics.

o Marking type (transverse, continental, and 

bar pairs). 

o Location (study, existing intersection, existing midblock). 

o Street characteristics (crossing width, 

posted speed limit, sidewalk presence, 

rural or urban feel).

o Retroreflectivity.

• Traffic characteristics. 

o Traffic presence that could affect detection 

distance.

o Pedestrian or bicyclist presence. 

o Driver speed.

• Vehicle type (sedan or SUV).

• Driver characteristics.

o Driver eye height 

o Gender. 

o Age group (younger than 55 years old or

55 years old and older).

Initially, the statistical model examined contained all main effects and possible two-way 

interactions (termed the “extended” model). Not 

all variables could be included in the extended 

model due to exact linear dependency issues for 

some of the factors (i.e., a linear combination of 

one or more factors’ values can exactly duplicate 

another factor’s values). Next, several models 

with a subset of variables in the extended model 

were explored to determine the best model for 

identifying the variables that influence detection distance (termed the “reduced” model). 

Interactions were dropped from the reduced 

models when the p-value was less than 0.05 

(they were not statistically significant). 

The evaluations were conducted separately for 

the study sites (where new markings were 

installed at midblock locations) and the existing 

sites (where markings were already present at an 

intersection or were already present midblock 

and had pedestrian warning signs). The preliminary evaluations clearly showed a difference

in detection distance for day and night. Because 

the nighttime condition had the additional variable 

retroreflectivity to consider and because some 

variables were expected to have different effects 

during the night (such as marking type, vehicle 

type, and driver eye height), separate analyses 

were done for daytime and nighttime conditions. 

In all combinations, daytime detection distances 

were longer than nighttime detection distances.

For the study sites, the marking type (bar pairs, 

continental, or transverse) was statistically 

significant. The detection distances to bar pairs 

Figure 3. Photo. Example of transverse markings installed for this study.
4

and continental markings were statistically 

similar, and they were both statistically different 

from the detection distance to the transverse 

markings both during the day and at night (see 

figure 4). 

The presence of traffic had an impact on detection distance at the study sites, in most cases 

limiting the ability to see the markings farther 

upstream, as expected (see figure 5). The impact 

of traffic on the transverse markings was minimal 

as the detection distances to these markings 

were already small compared to the detection 

distances for bar pairs or continental. Overall, 

shorter detection distances were associated 

with higher operating speeds; however, in most 

cases the detection distances were only slightly 

shorter. The characteristics of the streets also 

influenced the detection of the crosswalk markings. An unexpected result was that the street 

group with a posted speed limit of 45 mi/h had 

longer nighttime adjusted detection distances 

than the 30 mi/h roadway sections. This finding 

was opposite the finding for daytime conditions. 

Daytime adjusted detection distances were 

slightly shorter for higher speeds. 

Age (younger versus older) was only a significant factor during the day for the existing sites. 

However, the size of this difference was quite 

small and was not considered to be of practical significance. Variables that included gender, 

driver eye height, and vehicle type as part of an 

interaction term were found to be statistically 

significant, but closer examination found them 

to not be of practical significance.

For the existing sites, marking type had a 

significant effect on detection distance during 

the daytime at midblock crosswalks (as shown 

in figure  6) and at nighttime. There were no 

existing sites with bar pairs markings, hence 

only continental and transverse markings 

were compared. During the day, the detection 

distances to the continental and transverse 

markings at intersections were not significantly 

different. The detection distance to midblock 

continental was statistically different (longer) 

from the detection distance to midblock 

transverse markings. 

During nighttime conditions at existing sites, 

variables in addition to marking type had an 

effect on detection distances, such as location 

(midblock or intersection) and driver speed. 

Driver speeds had mixed effects on detection 

distance depending on location (intersection or 

midblock) and light level (day or night). For 

intersections, an increase in driver speed was 

0

200

400

600

Day Night

LS Mean, Adjusted 

Detection Distance (ft)

Light Level

 Continental Bar Pairs Transverse

Figure 4. Graph. Least square mean detection distance 

by marking type and light level for study sites.

0

200

400

600

Traffic Present Traffic Present

LS Mean, Daytime 

Adjusted Detection 

Distance (ft)

Traffic

Continental Bar Pairs Transverse

0

200

400

600

800

Intersection Midblock

LS Mean, Daytime 

Adjusted Detection 

Distance (ft)

Crosswalk Type

Continental

Transverse

Figure 6. Graph. Least square mean daytime 

adjusted detection distance by marking type and 

location at existing sites.

Figure 5. Graph. Least square mean daytime 

adjusted detection distance by marking type and 

traffic presence at study sites.
5

associated with longer detection distances for 

both the daytime and nighttime conditions. 

All of the intersections included in this project 

were either stop-controlled or signal-controlled. 

Several drivers appeared to be more focused 

on the stopping maneuver than the detection 

task and would not call out the recognition of a 

crosswalk until close to the stop bar. 

For midblock (uncontrolled) approaches, the 

finding was dependent on light level. Nighttime 

detection distance at midblock was similar to 

intersections—longer detection distances 

were associated with the higher speeds. For 

daytime, the opposite occurred—higher driver 

speeds were associated with shorter detection 

distances at the midblock crosswalks. While 

the higher driver speeds were associated with 

shorter detection distances, the differences 

were small and would not be considered of 

practical significance. 

The subjective ratings of visibility using the 

letter-grade system were compared for all the 

groups/variables identified in the preceding 

analysis. The ratings for continental and bar 

pairs were consistent over various comparison 

groups, with better ratings for bar pairs and 

continental markings than for transverse markings. Figure 7 shows the overall rating received 

by each marking type for study sites.

Conclusions

The conclusions from this study are as follows:

• The detection distances to continental and bar 

pairs are statistically similar. The detection 

distances to continental and bar pairs are 

statistically different from transverse markings.

• For the existing midblock locations, a general 

observation is that the continental marking 

was detected at about twice the distance 

upstream as the transverse marking during 

daytime conditions. This increase in distance 

reflects 8 s of increased awareness of the 

crossing for a 30-mi/h operating speed.

• The results of the appearance ratings of the 

markings on a scale of A to F mirrored the findings from the detection distance evaluation. 

Participants preferred the continental and bar 

pairs markings over the transverse markings. 

• Participants gave the continental and bar pairs 

markings similar ratings during both the day 

and night. However, the transverse marking ratings differed based on the light level. The participants gave slightly better ratings, although still 

worse than continental or bar pairs markings, 

for transverse markings during the nighttime as 

compared to the daytime. The lower ratings during daylight conditions could be due to sun glare 

or shadow issues mentioned by the participants.

Transverse

Continental

Bar Pairs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

A B C

D

F

Proportion of Participants

Crosswalk Rating

Figure 7. Graph. Rating by marking type for study sites.
6

Researchers—This study was performed by Kay Fitzpatrick, Susan T. Chrysler, Vichika Iragavarapu, 

and Eun Sug Park, all of the Texas Transportation Institute, a member agency of the Texas A&M 

University System.

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct 

distribution is being made to the Divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by email to 

report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at http://www.tfhrc.

gov/safety.

Key Words—Crosswalk marking types, Driver preference of marking types, and Unsignalized 

intersection.

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 the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because 

they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high 

quality information to serve the Government, industry, and public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

October 2010 FHWA-HRT-10-067

HRDS-07/10-10(2M)E

Recommendations

Based on the findings from this research, the 

researchers recommend that consideration be 

given to revising the MUTCD as follows: 

• Add bar pairs as a usable crosswalk pattern. 

• Provide typical dimensions for the marking 

patterns including spacing that will assist in 

avoiding wheel paths.

• Consider making bar pairs or continental the 

“default” for all crosswalks across uncontrolled 

approaches (i.e., not controlled by signals or 

stop signs), with exceptions allowing transverse 

lines where engineering judgment determines 

that such markings would be adequate, such 

as a location with low-speed residential streets.

References

1. Federal Highway Administration. (2009). 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

for Streets and Highways, 2009 Ed. Obtained 

from: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm. 

Site last accessed March 5, 2010.

2. Knoblauch, R.L., Tustin, B.H., Smith, S.A., 

and Pietrucha, M.T. (1988). Investigation of 

Exposure-Based Pedestrian Accident Areas: 

Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets and Major 

Arterials, Report No. FHWA-RD-87-038, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

3. Knoblauch, R.L., and Raymond, P.D. (2000). 

The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle 

Speeds in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona, 

Report No. FHWA-RD-00-101, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

4. Knoblauch, R. L., Nitzburg, M., and Seifert, R.F. 

(2001). Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: 

Sacramento, California; Richmond, Virginia; 

Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota, 

Report No. FHWA-RD-00-103, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington DC.