SYNTHESIS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING
 

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST EXPOSURE TO RISK
 

AT AREAWIDE LEVELS AND ON SPECIFIC
 

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
 

January 2017 

Publication No. FHWA-SA-17-041 
 

 

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 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 this 

document. 

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or 

regulation. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT
 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the 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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-17-041 

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

4. Title and Subtitle 

Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure 

to Risk at Areawide Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities 

5. Report Date 

January 2017 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Shawn Turner, Ipek Sener, Michael Martin, Subasish Das, Eva Shipp, 

Robert Hampshire, Kay Fitzpatrick, Lisa Molnar, Ravi Wijesundera, 

Mike Colety, Stewart Robinson 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX 77843-3135 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DFTH6116D00004, TTI Task 

Order #2 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Task 3 Synthesis: 

Aug. 2016 - Jan. 2017 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

16. Abstract 

This report summarizes the variety of methods used to estimate and evaluate exposure to risk in 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety analyses. In the literature, the most common definition of risk was a 

measure of the probability of a crash to occur given exposure to potential crash events. There was also 

consensus on a theoretical definition of exposure as a measure of the number of potential opportunities 

for a crash to occur. However, there is wide divergence on operational definitions of exposure, and an 

even wider range of exposure measures being used in practice. Geographic scale is a critical element in 

most exposure analyses, and most analyses reviewed could be grouped into one of four scales: 1) 

regional (e.g., city, county, state); 2) network (e.g., traffic analysis zone, Census tract, Census block 

group); 3) road segment; and, 4) point (e.g., mid-block or intersection street crossing). This report 

summarizes numerous examples of exposure estimation methods at these different geographic scales, 

and discusses the data sources and analytic methods used to estimate exposure in these different 

geographic scales. Other pedestrian and bicyclist risk factors besides exposure also are cataloged. 

17. Key Word 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk, exposure 

scale, risk factors, pedestrian and bicyclist counts, 

demand estimation 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

91 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................... iv
 

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................. iv
 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... v
 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................................. vi
 

GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................... vii
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. ix
 

Background .............................................................................................................................................. ix
 

Overall Project and Task 3 Objectives...................................................................................................... ix
 

Definitions and Concepts......................................................................................................................... ix
 

Exposure Analysis at Areawide Levels ....................................................................................................xiii
 

Exposure Analysis on Specific Transportation Facilities ......................................................................... xv
 

Risk Factors Other than Exposure...........................................................................................................xvi
 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................xvi
 

Next Steps ..............................................................................................................................................xvii
 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
 

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Overall Project Objectives......................................................................................................................... 1
 

Task 3 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 2
 

Report Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 2
 

CHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS ................................................................................................... 3
 

Defining Risk.............................................................................................................................................. 3
 

Relationship of Risk to Exposure............................................................................................................... 3
 

Defining Exposure ..................................................................................................................................... 4
 

Public Health and Epidemiological Approaches to Estimate Exposure .................................................... 5
 

Importance of Geographic Scale in Exposure Analysis ............................................................................. 7
 

When and Where Does Exposure Occur for Pedestrians and Bicyclists? ...............................................12
 

CHAPTER 3. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AT AREAWIDE LEVELS ...........................................................................13
 

Summary of Practice...............................................................................................................................13
 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods ................................................................................................15
 

Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................................20
 

CHAPTER 4. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS ON SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES..........................................21
 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Practice...............................................................................................................................21
 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods: Direct Measurement.............................................................27
 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods: Estimation.............................................................................29
 

Innovative Methods to Estimate Facility-Specific Exposure...................................................................34
 

Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................................38
 

CHAPTER 5. RISK FACTORS OTHER THAN EXPOSURE .................................................................................40
 

Other Risk Factors...................................................................................................................................40
 

Feature Type ...........................................................................................................................................41
 

Segment ..................................................................................................................................................42
 

Intersection.............................................................................................................................................44
 

Vehicle related ........................................................................................................................................45
 

Driver related..........................................................................................................................................46
 

Pedestrian/Bicyclist Related ...................................................................................................................46
 

Aggregate Level.......................................................................................................................................48
 

Traffic Volume Related ...........................................................................................................................49
 

Land Use Characteristics.........................................................................................................................49
 

Demographics .........................................................................................................................................51
 

Proxy variables, Exposure, and Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes.................................................................52
 

Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................................53
 

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................57
 

Importance of Geographic Scale in Exposure Analysis...........................................................................57
 

Inconsistent Areawide Exposure Measures Despite Similar Travel Survey Data ...................................57
 

Use of Counts in Combination with Models to Estimate Facility-Specific Exposure ..............................58
 

Next Steps ...............................................................................................................................................58
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................60
 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES
 

Figure ES-1. Areawide Scales (Regional and Network) in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Literature ......... xi
 

Figure ES-2. Facility-Specific Scales (Segment and Point) in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Literature.... xii
 

Figure 1. HCM Standard Definitions of Roadway System Elements (Scale) ................................................. 9
 

Figure 2. U.S. Census Bureau Standard Definitions of Areawide Geography .............................................10
 

Figure 3. Visual Comparison of TAZs and Census Block Groups in Austin, Texas.......................................11
 

Figure 4. NTPP Model Framework ..............................................................................................................18
 

Figure 5. Estimation Methods That Have or Could Be Used For Exposure Analysis...................................29
 

Figure 6. Division of Risk Factors Other Than Exposure for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes ..................40
 

LIST OF TABLES
 

Table 1. Examples of Exposure Analysis at Areawide Levels......................................................................14
 

Table 2. Examples of Exposure Analysis on Specific Transportation Facilities ...........................................22
 

Table 3. Exposure Based on Volumes/Counts ............................................................................................24
 

Table 4. Exposure Based on Distance .........................................................................................................24
 

Table 5. Exposure Based on Time ...............................................................................................................25
 

Table 6. Exposure Based on Trips ...............................................................................................................25
 

Table 7. Exposure Based on Population......................................................................................................26
 

Table 8. List of Studies on Facility Condition ..............................................................................................41
 

Table 9. List of Studies on Individual Level Risk Factors.............................................................................45
 

Table 10. List of Studies on Traffic Characteristics .....................................................................................49
 

Table 11. List of Studies on Adjacent Land Use ..........................................................................................50
 

Table 12. List of Studies on Demographics.................................................................................................52
 

Table 13. Impact of the Risk Factors at Disaggregate Level........................................................................55
 

Table 14. Impact of the Risk Factors at Aggregate Level ............................................................................56
 

iv 
 

 

 

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ACS American Community Survey 

BAC Blood Alcohol Concentration 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GIS geographic information system 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 

MoPeD Model of Pedestrian Demand 

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials 

NBPD National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project 

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NCIPC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

NCSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis 

NDS Naturalistic Driving Study 

NHTS National Household Travel Survey 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NTPP Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program 

ScRAM Scalable Risk Assessment Methodology 

SHRP 2 Strategic Highway Research Program 2 

TAZ traffic analysis zone 

TMG Traffic Monitoring Guide 

TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

VMT vehicle miles of travel 

v 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors also acknowledge this project’s Expert Panel members, who provided feedback and 

comments on a draft of this report: 

• Jennifer Boldry, People for Bikes. 

• David Henderson, Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

• Betsy Jacobsen, Colorado Department of Transportation. 

• Greg Krykewycz, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia). 

• Greg Lindsey, University of Minnesota. 

• Krista Nordback, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. 

• Michael Medina, El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

• Jamie Parks, San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 

• Bob Schneider, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLOSSARY
 

Term Definition Source 

Areas Areas consist of an interconnected set of transportation facilities 

serving movements within a specified geographic space, as well as 

movements to and from adjoining areas. The primary factor 

distinguishing areas from corridors is that the facilities within an area 

need not be parallel to each other. 

2010 HCM 

Areawide Generic term that includes all geographic scales that are not facilityspecific, such as neighborhood, network, system, region, city, state, etc. Research 

Team 

Census 

block 

The smallest entity for which the Census Bureau collects and tabulates 

decennial census information; bounded on all sides by visible and 

nonvisible features shown on Census Bureau maps. 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 

Census 

block group 

A combination of Census blocks that is a subdivision of a census tract. U.S. Census 

Bureau 

Census tract A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county in a 

metropolitan area or a selected nonmetropolitan county. Census tract 

boundaries normally follow visible features, but may follow 

governmental unit boundaries and other nonvisible features in some 

instances; they always nest within counties. Designed to be relatively 

homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, 

economic status, and living conditions, census tracts usually contain 

between 2,500 and 8,000 inhabitants. 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 

Corridors Corridors are generally a set of parallel transportation facilities 

designed to move people between two locations. For example, a 

corridor may consist of a freeway facility and one or more parallel 

urban facilities. 

2010 HCM 

Direct 

demand 

model 

A statistical model that estimates facility-specific pedestrian and 

bicyclist volumes based on observed volumes (at a sample of locations) 

and nearby context (such as land use and form, street type, etc.). Direct 

demand models are often based on regression analysis. 

NCHRP 

Report 770, 

Research 

Team 

Exposure Measure of the number of potential opportunities for a crash to occur. 

This theoretical definition has been quantified or estimated many 

different ways in practice. 

Research 

Team 

Exposure 

scale 

The most granular geographic level for which an exposure measure is 

desired. 

Research 

Team 

Facilities Facilities are lengths of roadways, bicycle paths, and pedestrian 

walkways composed of a connected series of points and segments. The 

HCM defines freeway facilities, multilane highway facilities, two-lane 

highway facilities, urban street facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle 

facilities. 

2010 HCM 

Network A geographic scale (mentioned in the original FHWA Statement of 

Work) that is most comparable to the term Area as defined in the 2010 

HCM. 

Research 

Team 

vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Term Definition Source 

Points Points are places along a facility where (a) conflicting traffic streams 

cross, merge, or diverge; (b) a single traffic stream is regulated by a 

traffic control device; or (c) there is a significant change in the segment 

capacity (e.g., lane drop, lane addition, narrow bride, significant 

upgrade, start or end of a ramp influence area). 

2010 HCM 

Region A geographic scale (mentioned in the original FHWA Statement of 

Work) that is most comparable to the term System as defined in the 

2010 HCM. 

Research 

Team 

Risk Measure of the probability of a crash to occur given exposure to 

potential crash events. This theoretical definition has been quantified 

or estimated by dividing the expected or measured number of crashes 

by exposure. 

Research 

Team 

Risk factor Any attribute or characteristic that increases the likelihood of a 

negative safety outcome (e.g., crash or fatality). 

Research 

Team 

Segment A segment is the length of roadway between two points. Traffic 

volumes and physical characteristics generally remain the same over 

the length of a segment, although small variations may occur (e.g., 

changes in traffic volumes on a segment resulting from a low-volume 

driveway). 

2010 HCM 

Sketch 

planning 

Methods to estimate existing or future demand that are simpler 

alternatives to developing complex travel demand models. Often, 

these methods are implemented in spreadsheets or geographic 

information systems using existing travel survey and other data. 

Research 

Team 

System Systems are composed of all the transportation facilities and modes 

within a particular region. 

2010 HCM 

Traffic 

analysis 

zone (TAZ) 

A common areawide geography that are defined by metropolitan 

planning organizations for use in their travel demand forecasting 

models. TAZs are typically composed of multiple Census blocks. 

Research 

Team 

Travel 

demand 

model 

A computerized process that estimates existing and future travel 

demand (often on a citywide or regional basis) given numerous inputs, 

such as the transportation network, population and demographic 

characteristics, and trip-making behavior. The end result of a travel 

demand model is traffic volume estimates on individual transportation 

network links. 

Research 

Team 

Travel 

survey 

A systematic effort to collect information about individual travel 

behavior. Travel surveys are typically collected from a statistical sample 

of travelers for a specified day or days (not an entire month or year), 

and typically gather aggregate trip information (travel mode, trip 

purpose, trip start and end location, trip length or time, etc.). 

Research 

Team 

Work trip Travel from home to work (also known as commuting). In their Journey 

to Work surveys, the U.S. Census Bureau collects trip information for 

only work trips. Trips that have a non-work purpose are collected by 

FHWA’s National Household Travel Survey and other regional 

household travel surveys (when administered). 

Research 

Team 

viii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

Background 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other federal agencies routinely work with state and 

local agencies to improve the safety and connectivity of bicycling and walking networks. Part of this 

effort has been to promote a data-driven approach to identifying and mitigating safety problems. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk is often mentioned as a missing piece of the puzzle. The lack of 

readily-available pedestrian and bicyclist exposure data often make it difficult to accurately identify and 

then prioritize high-crash (or high-risk) locations or interpret year-to-year trends in citywide, state, or 

national crash statistics. Even when pedestrian or bicyclist exposure data are used, inconsistency can be 

present in the formulation and calculation of exposure measures between regions. Exposure has been 

defined based on direct counts, population, hours of travel, miles of travel, and others. Having diverse 

measures and definitions make direct comparisons difficult, if not impossible. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure is also a critical element in better understanding pedestrian and 

bicyclist crash causation. For example, exposure is a key variable in developing pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety performance functions, which are used to identify those factors that best predict when and 

where crashes are likely to occur. If exposure is not included, then the effects of other factors may be 

biased or overstated due to the omission of a key variable (exposure). 

Overall Project and Task 3 Objectives 

In May 2016, the FHWA’s Office of Safety initiated this project to develop a standardized approach to 

estimate pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk in the form of a Scalable Risk Assessment 

Methodology (ScRAM). This approach will make it easier to assess pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to 

risk and inform project priorities and funding decisions, and will include several methods according to 

the scale of the needed exposure estimate. The project objectives are three-fold: 

1.	 Synthesize and document existing technical resources. 

2.	 Develop scalable risk assessment methods for practitioners to use to calculate pedestrian and 

bicyclist exposure to risk that can be applied to a facility, corridor, network/system, or regional 

level. 

3.	 Widely promote the use of these risk assessment methods through outreach, training, and 

technical assistance. 

This report documents the findings of Task 3, which sought to review and synthesize the variety of 

methods used to estimate and evaluate exposure in pedestrian and bicyclist safety analyses (i.e., first 

objective in bullet list above). Later tasks in this project will develop and promote the risk and exposure 

assessment methods (i.e., second and third objectives in bullet list above). 

Definitions and Concepts 

Chapter 2 summarizes basic definitions and concepts for risk and exposure, and then discusses these 

terms in the context of pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis. It is important to define these terms and 

related concepts in the early stages, such that subsequent development work in this project has a clear 

and unambiguous foundation. 

ix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitions of Risk and Exposure in Transportation Safety 

In the literature, most authors agree on the theoretical definition of risk as a measure of the probability 

of a crash to occur given exposure to potential crash events. The relationship between risk and exposure 

is implied in some definitions, but more explicit in others; exposure is a normalization factor (i.e., 

denominator) to equalize for differences in the quantity of potential crash events in different road 

environments. There is also general agreement in the literature on this relationship between risk and 

exposure: 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooo mmEEmmRRmmooEEEE EEoommRRhEERR, bbbb RRRRkkEE mmkkEE RREEssEEooRREEbb RRRRRRRR = EEEEEEooRRmmooEE

Most theoretical definitions of exposure in the literature are similar, in that exposure is a measure of the 

number of potential opportunities for a crash to occur. However, there is wide divergence on 

operational definitions of exposure, and an even wider range of exposure measures being used in 

practice. For example, exposure measures in the literature have been quantified in terms of: 

• Pedestrian or bicyclist volume. 

• Sum of entering flows (motorized and nonmotorized) at intersection. 

• Product of pedestrian or bicyclist volume (P or B) and motor vehicle volume (V), (P or B) × V. 

• Square root of the above product, ඥ[PP oooo BB] × VV. 

• Estimated number of streets or travel lanes crossed. 

• Estimated total travel distance, in person-miles of travel. 

• Estimated total travel time, in person-hours of travel. 

• Total number of pedestrian or bicyclist trips made (from travel survey). 

• Overall census population. 

• Proportion of census population who report regular walking or bicycling (from travel survey). 

Several key factors may explain this wide divergence in exposure measures used: 

• Scale of exposure analysis (e.g., specific street segments or areawide). 

• Data availability and accuracy at application scale. 

• Varying application judgment based on the above 2 factors. 

Definitions of Risk and Exposure in Public Health 

Much similarity exists between how risk is conceptualized and estimated between the fields of public 

health and transportation safety. There are many examples in the literature of epidemiological studies 

that use similar methods for estimating time at-risk or some other metric needed to compute risk or 

rates. Differences between the two fields exist for terminology such as relative risk, which needs to be 

considered when interpreting and comparing findings across the two fields. 

Importance of Geographic Scale in Exposure Analysis 

Many articles in the literature emphasize the importance of geographic scale in estimating exposure. 

Different data sources and methods are available or feasible at different geographic scales, and this is 

likely to explain some of the wide divergence in the exposure measures used in pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety analyses. In this report, exposure scale is defined as the geographic level for which an exposure 

measure is desired. The literature review indicated that most exposure analyses could be grouped into 

one of these four scales (see Figures ES-1 and ES-2): 

1. Regional (like city, county, metropolitan statistical area, or state). 

x 
2.	 Network for various area definitions (like traffic analysis zone, Census tract, or Census block 

group). 

3.	 Road segment (typically between major intersections or nodes). 

4.	 Point or street crossing (intersection or mid-block). 

Figure ES-1. Areawide Scales (Regional and Network) in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Literature 

xi 
Figure ES-2. Facility-Specific Scales (Segment and Point) in Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Literature 

xii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Future methodological development in this project could benefit from the use of clear, unambiguous 

terms for various scales. For example, the Highway Capacity Manual is widely used for street and 

highway analysis and provides clearly-defined terms for various roadway system elements, such as 

points, segments, facilities, corridors, areas, and systems. Similarly, the United States Census Bureau 

has defined several different area geographies, including Census tracts, block groups, and blocks. Also, 

some metropolitan planning organizations define traffic analysis zones for use in their travel demand 

models. Traffic analysis zones are typically composed of multiple Census blocks, but sometimes deviate 

from Census geography units to accommodate local conditions. 

When and Where Does Exposure Occur for Pedestrians and Bicyclists? 

Most theoretical definitions of pedestrian and bicyclist exposure include references to contact with 

harmful vehicular traffic or opportunities for a pedestrian or bicyclist crash. For pedestrians, this occurs 

most explicitly during a street crossing. But several authors in the literature have posed a series of 

questions about when and where pedestrians or bicyclists can be considered exposed. For example, are 

pedestrians exposed while walking along a sidewalk that is separated from motor vehicle traffic? Are 

bicyclists exposed when they travel in a bike lane immediately adjacent to a motor vehicle travel lane, 

but then not exposed if they are riding in a separated bikeway? 

In most cases, the feasibility and practicality of data collection has been used to operationalize the 

theoretical definition of exposure. Data cannot be collected on all pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor 

vehicle movements at all locations at all times. Therefore, most operational definitions of exposure have 

been based on pedestrian and bicyclist activity data that are already available (e.g., from travel surveys) 

or can be feasibly measured or estimated (e.g., from direct counts or models). 

Exposure Analysis at Areawide Levels 

Chapter 3 summarizes many examples of exposure analyses that were conducted at areawide levels. In 

this report, areawide is a generic term that includes all geographic scales that are not facility-specific. 

The term areawide in this chapter includes geographic scales (some not explicitly defined) such as 

networks, systems, regional, city, state, etc. 

The areawide exposure analyses in the literature were most often performed to quantify big picture 

trends in pedestrian and bicyclist safety. For example (see Chapter 3 for more details): 

•	 FHWA Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program spent $28 million in each of four pilot 

communities on pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure and other initiatives (e.g., outreach, 

marketing, education). Areawide exposure was used as a normalization factor in evaluating 

community-wide safety improvements in these four communities over a 10-year period. 

•	 The Alliance for Bicycling and Walking Benchmarking Report publishes many performance 

indicators (including pedestrian and bicyclist safety) every two years in an extensive national 

report. The Benchmarking Report uses areawide exposure to normalize reported pedestrian and 

bicyclist fatalities and injuries for all 50 states and the 50 most populous cities in the U.S. 

Data Sources and Methods 

Most of the exposure analyses at areawide levels have used travel survey data from one or more of 

these sources: 

•	 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS): A national survey of daily and long-distance travel 

that is conducted every five to seven years from a sample of U.S. households by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. The survey provides estimates of trips and miles by travel mode 

xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(including walking and bicycling), trip purpose, and other household attributes and 

demographics. 

•	 American Community Survey (ACS): A national ongoing survey of a sample of U.S. households 

by the U.S. Census Bureau that gathers a wide variety of information (e.g., demographic, social, 

economic, housing) in addition to their primary travel mode from home to work. Therefore, the 

ACS does not have trip information for non-commute trips (whereas NHTS does, but on a fiveto seven-year cycle). Because the ACS only asks about the primary travel mode, it does not 

include modes of travel that may be considered secondary (such as walk trips to public transit). 

•	 Regional household travel survey: A travel survey typically conducted by a metropolitan 

planning organization for the purpose of developing a regional travel demand forecasting 

model. The frequency of these surveys varies from city to city, with some planning agencies 

conducting household travel surveys every eight to ten years or longer. 

Most methodologies for areawide exposure analyses fall into the category of sketch planning, which is 

defined as methods to estimate existing or future demand that are simpler alternatives to developing 

complex travel demand models. Often, sketch planning methods are implemented in spreadsheets or 

geographic information systems using existing travel survey and other data. In some cases, the results 

from multiple surveys are combined to provide a more complete picture of pedestrian and bicyclist 

activity. In a few analyses, ACS data (which includes only primary journey-to-work trips) was combined 

with NHTS data (which includes all trips) to provide an accounting of all pedestrian and bicyclist trips. 

Also, locally collected survey data (from either regional household travel surveys or other localized data 

collection) has been used to supplement the federally collected ACS and NHTS data. For example, 

Chapter 3 summarizes an analysis for the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program that uses 

spreadsheet-based calculations to combine ACS, NHTS, and locally collected count data to derive 

areawide exposure estimates. Chapter 3 contains several other similar examples whereby data from one 

or more travel surveys were used to develop areawide exposure estimates. 

Exposure Measures 

The units used in areawide exposure measures varied widely. Since the primary data source for 

areawide exposure analyses were travel surveys, and most travel surveys gather data on specific trips, 

many analyses used the number of pedestrian and/or bicyclist trips. However, some analyses focused on 

only journey-to-work trips (directly from ACS data), whereas other analyses included total trips (from 

NHTS data or combining ACS and NHTS data). In other analyses, the pedestrian and bicyclist trips were 

converted to pedestrian and bicyclist miles of travel using estimated trip length data. A limited number 

of analyses estimated pedestrian and bicyclist hours of travel using the number of trips and estimated 

trip times. 

The geographic scale of available travel surveys is an obvious limiting factor in the scale and choice of 

exposure measures. The most common types of travel survey data do not have facility-specific trip 

information (although emerging crowdsource methods may address this in five to ten years), so 

exposure measures are limited to the areawide geography defined in the travel survey data that are 

being used. Travel surveys also do not include any data about nonmotorized traffic interactions with 

motorized vehicles, such that certain exposure measures (such as the product of pedestrian or bicyclist 

volume and motorized vehicle volume, (P or B) × V) cannot easily be estimated. These limitations 

notwithstanding, travel survey data can be a useful input to areawide exposure analyses when big 

picture exposure trends are desired for more aggregate geography and time intervals. 

xiv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exposure Analysis on Specific Transportation Facilities 

Chapter 4 summarizes many examples of exposure analyses that were conducted on specific 

transportation facilities. In some cases, exposure estimates are calculated for specific facilities, but also 

aggregated to various areawide geographies. 

The facility-specific exposure analyses were most often used to identify high-priority locations for 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements and were typically conducted for an entire city. In some 

cases, the facility-specific information was also aggregated to provide overall trends for certain road 

types or for subareas within a city. 

Data Sources and Methods 

Most of the facility-specific exposure analyses used pedestrian and bicyclist count data from one or both 

of these sources: 

•	 Direct measurement: Many cities are now directly collecting pedestrian and bicyclist count data 

on an annual basis, just like motorized vehicle counts. However, these counts are collected at a 

very limited number of locations, and often at the locations with the most pedestrian and 

bicyclist activity in the city. 

•	 Estimation and models: Because directly-measured counts are typically collected at a limited 

number of locations, various estimation and modeling methods are often used to provide count 

estimates for all locations within a city or other defined area. In many cases, the sample of direct 

counts is used in the development and calibration of these estimation models. 

For direct measurement of pedestrian and bicyclist counts, much progress has been made in the past 

ten years. Several companies now offer automated count equipment that helps to make pedestrian and 

bicyclist counting more efficient and cost-effective. The National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation 

Project provided early guidance and helped to promote count data collection. Since then, FHWA has 

included a chapter specifically devoted to nonmotorized traffic monitoring in their 2013 edition of the 

Traffic Monitoring Guide. In 2014, NCHRP Report 797: Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume 

Data Collection was published and is a comprehensive resource on pedestrian and bicycle count data 

collection. This direct measurement approach (calculating exposure from systematic traffic monitoring 

programs) is the current state-of-the-practice for motor vehicle exposure estimation. 

For estimating pedestrian and bicyclist counts, direct demand models have been the most widely used 

models for facility-specific exposure estimation thus far, and typically use regression analysis to relate 

directly measured counts to other measured attributes of the adjacent environment (e.g., land use and 

form, street type, etc.). Assuming that these measured attributes are available citywide, the regression 

model allows one to extend the sample of facility-specific counts to all facilities citywide. Chapter 4 

provides details on other types of modeling approaches that have been used on a limited basis or could 

be used for facility-specific exposure estimation. These approaches include regional travel demand 

models, geographic information system (GIS)-based models, trip generation and flow models, network 

analysis models, discrete choice models, and simulation-based traffic models. 

Exposure Measures 

Similar to the areawide exposure analyses, the units used in facility-specific exposure measures varied 

widely. Since the primary data source was pedestrian and bicyclist count data (rather than surveyed trip 

data in areawide exposure analyses), the units of exposure typically were a volume count for specified 

time period or a distance traveled (calculated by multiplying a count by a street crossing width or road 

xv 
 

 

 

Risk Factors Other than Exposure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

segment length). In a few cases where the exposure values were very high, the exposure was given in 

units of 1 million or 10 million (e.g., 1 million pedestrian miles traveled, 10 million pedestrian crossings). 

Unlike areawide exposure analyses, several of the facility-specific exposure analyses did account for the 

interaction of nonmotorized and motorized traffic in their exposure measure. Several analyses 

computed the product of pedestrian or bicyclist traffic and motorized traffic ((P or B) × V) at 

intersections or other street crossings. A few other analyses used exposure measures such as pedestrian 

crossings (or pedestrian miles) per entering motorized vehicle. Thus, having more granular exposure 

data on specific facilities does provide a better opportunity to quantify the level of interaction between 

pedestrian or bicyclist traffic and motorized vehicle traffic. 

Chapter 5 summarizes many risk factors (other than exposure) for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

Findings from most of these studies indicate association, not causation, between potential risk factors 

and crash outcomes. The risk factors were categorized into two basic groups: 

1.	 Disaggregate risk factors are facility-specific (e.g., facility quality or condition) or individualspecific attributes (e.g., age, socioeconomic, behavioral). 

2.	 Aggregate risk factors are associated with areawide geography (e.g., land use, urban form). 

For disaggregate risk factors, many studies have shown that poor facility conditions (e.g., no or 

inadequately designed pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure) are a significant risk factor, as well as 

facilities where high-speed, high-volume motorized traffic routinely interacts with pedestrian and 

bicyclist traffic. Significant risk factors for individuals are age (i.e., children and seniors), intoxication, 

nighttime visibility, and distracted behavior. 

For aggregate risk factors, many studies have documented the effects of land use (in particular, 

population density) on pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Several studies have also found that 

neighborhoods with lower-income and minority communities have a higher risk for pedestrian and 

bicyclist crashes. 

Conclusions 

The project team reviewed and synthesized over 280 research and technical documents (see 

Bibliography) on pedestrian and bicyclist risk and exposure and developed these key conclusions: 

•	 Geographic scale is a key parameter in exposure analyses: Detailed exposure data cannot be 

collected on all pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle movements at all locations at all times. 

Therefore, the scale(s) for which exposure is required will determine what data source and 

methods are practical and feasible. Future methodological development in this project could 

benefit from the use of clear, unambiguous terms for various scales. To encourage widespread 

consistency and adoption by practitioners, existing terms and definitions should be drawn from 

widely used manuals, guidebooks, or references. The U.S. Census provides standardized terms 

and definitions for several different areawide geography scales. Similarly, the Highway Capacity 

Manual provides terms and definitions for various scales of roadway system elements. 

•	 Areawide exposure measures are inconsistent despite similar travel survey data: The units 

used in areawide exposure measures varied widely, despite many analyses using the same two 

xvi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps 

 

 

 

 

national travel surveys (i.e., ACS and NHTS) as their base data source. If areawide exposure 

measures use the same base travel survey data, one might expect an emerging consensus on 

the best approach for using the same or similar trip data to calculate areawide exposure 

measures. The number of pedestrian and bicyclist trips was a common exposure measure, but 

even with this measure, some analyses reported only on work trips whereas some reported on 

all trips. Even if consensus on a single areawide exposure measure cannot be achieved, future 

methodological development in this project should focus on identifying a few good measures 

that are designated as a best practice for estimating areawide exposure. 

•	 Facility-specific exposure analyses often use counts in combination with models: One of the 

most common approaches to estimate facility-specific exposure has been to combine pedestrian 

and bicyclist counts with estimation models, such that exposure can be estimated for all 

facilities within a defined geographic area (typically citywide). Given the wide variety of 

estimation models in use, it may be difficult to single out a single best practice for future 

methodological development in this project. This project could focus on providing additional 

guidance on the most common estimation model (i.e., direct demand model), while still 

acknowledging and providing high-level details on other estimation model approaches. 

Similar to areawide exposure measures, the units used in facility-specific exposure measures 

varied widely. This is also despite the fact that direct measurement and estimation models both 

produce the same basic data item: counts of pedestrians and/or bicyclists at a point or along a 

street segment for a defined time interval. As with areawide exposure measures, it may be 

difficult to achieve consensus on a single facility-specific exposure measure. However, there 

would be value in defining a few good measures that are designated as a best practice for 

estimating facility-specific exposure. 

Based on the findings and conclusions in this Task 3 report, the TTI-led project team will develop a 

conceptual framework and design for risk exposure estimation at several different geographic scales 

(Task 4.A. of this project). The conceptual framework will be based on best practices as identified in this 

report, as well as other practices and processes that may be in development (such as those from NCHRP 

17-73, Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analyses). The first draft of the conceptual framework will be 

available for review in May 2017. 

xvii 
Background 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has designated improved pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

as a top priority. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other federal agencies routinely work 

with state and local agencies to provide technical resources, develop analytical approaches, and 

highlight best practices to improve the safety and connectivity of bicycling and walking networks. Part of 

this effort has been to promote a data-driven approach to identifying and mitigating safety problems. 

Various data sets and analytic approaches have been developed to improve the quality and analysis of 

pedestrian and bicyclist crash data. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk is often mentioned as a missing piece of the puzzle. The lack of 

readily-available pedestrian and bicyclist exposure data often make it difficult to accurately identify and 

then prioritize high-crash (or high-risk) locations or interpret year-to-year trends in citywide, state, or 

national crash statistics. Even when pedestrian or bicyclist exposure data are used, inconsistency can be 

present in the formulation and calculation of exposure measures between regions. Exposure has been 

defined based on direct counts, population, hours of travel, miles of travel, and others. Having different 

exposure measures and definitions make direct comparisons difficult, if not impossible. If pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety analyses were to use a consistent exposure measure (such as the number of street 

crossings or the number of pedestrian or bicyclist trips), then direct comparisons among studies and 

analyses would be much easier and meaningful. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure is also a critical element in better understanding pedestrian and 

bicyclist crash causation. For example, exposure is a key variable in developing pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety performance functions, which are used to identify those factors that best predict when and 

where crashes are likely to occur. If exposure is not included, then the effects of other factors may be 

biased or overstated due to the omission of a key variable (exposure). 

In early 2016, FWHA published the Final Rule on the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and 

Safety Performance Management Measures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/). The Final Rule does 

require that state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) report five safety management 

performance measures, one of which is the number of non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized 

serious injuries. Since two of the motorized safety performance measures include exposure (i.e., 100 

million vehicle miles traveled), there was consideration about whether to include exposure in the nonmotorized measure. However, several comments on the Draft Rule expressed concern about the lack of 

suitable non-motorized exposure data, and therefore the Final Rule does not include exposure in the 

non-motorized safety performance measure. 

Overall Project Objectives 

In May 2016, the FHWA’s Office of Safety initiated this project to develop a standardized approach to 

estimate pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk in the form of a Scalable Risk Assessment 

Methodology (ScRAM). This approach will make it easier to assess pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to 

risk and inform project priorities and funding decisions, and will include several methods according to 

the scale of the needed exposure estimate. The project objectives are three-fold: 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.	 Synthesize and document existing resources that agencies can use to assess pedestrian and 

bicyclist exposure to risk. 

2.	 Develop scalable risk assessment methods for practitioners to use to calculate pedestrian and 

bicyclist exposure to risk that can be applied to a facility, corridor, network/system, or regional 

level. The risk assessment methods are likely to include separate but parallel modules for 

estimating pedestrian and bicyclist exposure. 

3.	 Widely promote the use of these risk assessment methods through outreach, training, and 

technical assistance. 

Task 3 Objectives 

This report documents the findings of Task 3, which sought to review and synthesize the variety of 

methods used to estimate and evaluate exposure in pedestrian and bicyclist safety analyses (i.e., first 

objective in bullet list above). Later tasks in this project will develop and promote the risk and exposure 

assessment methods (i.e., second and third objectives in bullet list above). This report differentiates 

between exposure on a network or regional basis and exposure on specific transportation facilities (e.g., 

a street crossing or mid-block link). 

Report Overview 

This report includes the following chapters: 

•	 Chapter 1. Introduction: Summarizes the need for risk exposure measures and outlines the 

overall project objectives and the specific objective of Task 3. 

•	 Chapter 2. Definitions and Concepts: Outlines basic definitions and concepts for risk and 

exposure, and then discusses these terms in the context of pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

analysis. 

•	 Chapter 3. Exposure Analysis at Areawide Levels: Summarizes the use of exposure measures at 

areawide levels, and describes the data sources and methods that could be used for exposure 

measures at these more aggregate analysis levels. 

•	 Chapter 4. Exposure Analysis on Specific Transportation Facilities: Summarizes the use of 

exposure measures on specific transportation facilities (e.g., street crossings, street segments) 

and describes the data sources and methods that could be used for exposure measures at these 

more granular analysis levels. 

•	 Chapter 5. Risk Factors Other Than Exposure: Outlines the variety of risk factors (other than 

exposure) that affect pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

•	 Chapter 6. Conclusions: Develops and summarizes conclusions based on the findings of the 

synthesis of practice and literature review. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
 

This chapter summarizes basic definitions and concepts for risk and exposure, and then discusses these 

terms in the context of pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis. It is important to define these terms and 

related concepts in the early stages, such that subsequent development work in this project has a clear 

and unambiguous foundation. 

The following discussion draws from key research articles and papers written about risk and exposure in 

the past 40 years. The published literature on risk and exposure is vast and extensive, as Hauer indicates 

in his discussion to a published article (Molino 2009): 

“The number of papers and books written about the concept of exposure can fill a large 

bookcase. It is an elusive and controversial concept.” 

Defining Risk 

In the literature, risk and exposure are fundamentally related but have specific individual meanings. 

Also, several authors provide theoretical definitions of risk or exposure that are challenging to put into 

practice. In some cases, these or other authors have provided an operational or working definition to 

complement the theoretical definition. The following discussion will differentiate between theoretical 

and operational definitions. 

Most authors agree on the theoretical definition of risk as a measure of the probability of a crash to 

occur given exposure to potential crash events. Specifically, risk has been defined as: 

•	 “...conditional probability that an accident occurs given the opportunity for one.” (Chapman 

1973) 

•	 “...a measure of the probability of a potential accident event resulting in an accident.” (Cameron 

1979) 

•	 “... the probability (chance) of accident occurrences in a trial”, where a trial corresponds to a 

unit of exposure, such as a defined time spent walking or a defined number of street crossings. 

(Hauer 1982) 

•	 “...probability of an accident happening in a particular road environment.” (Bly et al. 1999) 

•	 “...the probability that a pedestrian-vehicle collision will occur, based on the rate of exposure.” 

(Raford and Ragland 2004) 

•	 “Probability of collision/injury/fatality per unit of exposure.” (Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Relationship of Risk to Exposure 

The relationship between risk and exposure is implied in some definitions, but more explicit in others; 

exposure is a normalization factor (i.e., denominator) to equalize for differences in the quantity of 

potential crash events in different road environments. There is general agreement in the literature on 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

Defining Exposure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this relationship between risk and exposure. For example, consider the following (most of which are 

operational definitions of risk): 

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPaaaaPPPPPPPPPPPP •	 RRRRRRRR = (Cameron 1982) PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPaaaaPPPPPPPPPP PPeeeeeePPeePPPP

EEeeeePPaaPPPPPP PPeennnnPPPP eeoo PPaaaaPPPPPPPPPPPP nnbb PPPPssPPPPPPPPbb •	 RRRRRRRR = (Hauer 1982) EEeeeeeePPeePPPP

NNeennnnPPPP eeoo aaPPPPeePPccPPPPPPPP •	 RRRRRRRR = (Keall 1995) EEeeeeeePPeePPPP

CCPPPPPPhPPPP •	 RRRRRRRR = (Molino et al. 2009) EEeeeeeePPeePPPP

In the literature, most theoretical definitions of exposure are similar, in that exposure is a measure of 

the number of potential opportunities for a crash to occur. Specifically, exposure has been defined as: 

•	 “...number of opportunities for accidents of a certain type in a given time in a given area...” 

(Chapman 1973) 

•	 “...number of potential accident events, i.e., an event involving a pedestrian and a vehicle which 

is a pre-condition of a collision between them, but does not necessarily result in such.” 

(Cameron 1982) 

•	 “...a [probabilistic] trial... the results of such a trial is the occurrence or non-occurrence of an 

accident (by type, severity, etc.).” (Hauer 1982) 

•	 “...being in a situation which has some risk of involvement in a road traffic accident, a risk which 

theoretically can be measured for both active and passive elements of the traffic system.” 

(Wolfe 1982) 

•	 “...a condition which must be present in order to have an accident.” (Tobey et al. 1983) 

•	 “...measure of the opportunity for accidents to occur...” (Bly 1999) 

•	 “...rate of contact with potentially harmful vehicular traffic.” (Raford and Ragland 2004) 

•	 “Contact or amount of contact with potentially harmful situation.” (Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Despite the consensus on a theoretical exposure definition, there is wide divergence on operational 

definitions of exposure, and an even wider range of exposure measures being used in practice. For 

example, exposure measures in the literature have been quantified in terms of: 

•	 Pedestrian or bicyclist volume. 

•	 Sum of entering flows (motorized and nonmotorized) at intersection. 

•	 Product of pedestrian or bicyclist volume (P or B) and motor vehicle volume (V), (P or B) × V. 

•	 Square root of the above product, ඥ(PP oooo BB) × VV. 

•	 Estimated number of streets or travel lanes crossed. 

•	 Estimated total travel distance, in person-miles of travel. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

Public Health and Epidemiological Approaches to Estimate Exposure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Estimated total travel time, in person-hours of travel. 

•	 Total number of pedestrian or bicyclist trips made (from travel survey). 

•	 Overall census population. 

•	 Proportion of census population who report regular walking or bicycling (from travel survey). 

Chapters 3 and 4 provide more detail on the use of these various exposure measures. All of these 

exposure measures were intended to represent the same theoretical construct of pedestrian or bicyclist 

contact with potentially harmful traffic situations (i.e., exposure). However, several key factors are likely 

to explain the wide divergence in exposure measures used: 

•	 Exposure scale: For example, is an exposure measure sought for individual intersection 

crossings and/or road segments? Or for aggregate zones or user groups in an entire city? 

•	 Data availability and accuracy at application scale: For example, what data could be feasibly 

gathered at that application scale for a jurisdiction, and how accurate are those data? 

•	 Varying application judgment: For example, there are differing opinions on the best approach 

to operationalize the theoretical definition of exposure for different applications. 

Within the broad field of public health, quantifying the risk of injury or other health condition or disease 

is a focus of the discipline of epidemiology. The goal is to compare the risk in exposed groups to 

unexposed groups in order to identify risk factors or factors that cause a health condition such as injury. 

Ideally, the identified risk factors are then targeted for intervention in order to prevent injury or lessen 

its negative impact on health and well-being. Epidemiologists define risk as the “probability of an event 

during a specified period of time” (Rothman, Greenland, and Lash 2008). This is similar to the theoretical 

definitions provided by Hauer (1982) and others earlier in this chapter. 

For how risk is computed, the basic equation is similar when comparing applications in transportation 

safety versus epidemiology. However, the terminology differs in how the denominator is described and 

how the term exposure is used. In addition, epidemiologists place an emphasis on defining the 

population and the time period for estimates of risk. Ideally, the estimates of risk can be generalized to a 

population larger than the sample upon which the estimate is based. Two common measures of risk in 

epidemiology are frequently referred to as cumulative incidence and incidence density. These are 

computed as follows: 

NNeennnnPPPP eeoo PPssPPPPPPPP (PP.gg.,PPPPiieePPPPPP eePPeeeeccPP) •	 CCmmmmmmCCmmEERRssEE IIkkEERREEEEkkEEEE = (Gordis 2014) NNeennnnPPPP eeoo eePPeeeeccPP PPPP−PPPPPPrr

NNeennnnPPPP eeoo PPssPPPPPPPP (PP.gg.,PPPPiieePPPPPP eePPeeeeccPP) •	 IIkkEERREEEEkkEEEE DDEEkkRRRREEbb = (Gordis 2014) AAnneeeePPPP eeoo PPPPnnPP PPPP−PPPPPPrr

The key difference between these two measures is the denominator. In the first, the denominator is 

number of people at-risk of developing the injury or other health outcome. In the second, the 

denominator is the amount of time at-risk which is often expressed in terms of person-years, personhours, or person-days, as examples. Epidemiological studies that focus on transportation populations 

often use vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the denominator for person-time at-risk of sustaining an injury 

or being involved in a crash. Since these measures of risk focus on the frequency of events such as injury 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

during a specified time period, they are often referred to as rates. This is especially true when the 

denominator is based on the amount of person-time at-risk (i.e., incidence density) rather than simply 

the number of people at-risk (i.e., cumulative incidence). 

Although different terminology may be used, these equations and the conceptual underpinning behind 

them are very similar to those presented earlier in this chapter for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The 

main difference is how the denominators are described and how the term exposure is used. In 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, exposure tends to refer to the denominator, which is quantified in many 

ways including person-hours of travel or person-miles of travel. In epidemiology, the term exposure 

tends to be used within the context of identifying specific factors that cause or contribute to injury or 

some other health outcome. Examples include lack of restraint use or helmet use and its role in the 

occurrence of fatal injury. As described above, the denominator refers to the people at-risk or amount 

of time at-risk. 

The basic method for determining whether or not an exposure is associated with injury is to compare 

the risk of injury in the exposed versus the unexposed group. As an example, a study of the efficacy of 

bicycle helmets could involve comparing the risk of death due to brain injury among bicyclists not 

wearing a helmet to the risk of death due to brain injury among bicyclists wearing a helmet. This 

comparison is accomplished by computing a measure known as relative risk. Relative risk that is 

computed based on cumulative incidence is called a risk ratio whereas relative risk computed based on 

incidence density is called a rate ratio. The basic equations are below: 

RRPPPPrr PPPP PPeeeeeePPPPPP • RRRRRRRR oommEERRoo = (Gordis 2014) RRPPPPrr PPPP eePPPPeeeeeePPPPPP

RRPPPPPP PPPP PPeeeeeePPPPPP • RRmmEEEE oommEERRoo = (Gordis 2014) RRPPPPPP PPPP eePPPPeeeeeePPPPPP

Their interpretation is similar. A relative risk value equal to 1.0 is indicative that the exposure did not 

contribute to injury or other outcome. A relative risk value greater than 1.0 is interpreted as the 

exposure increasing the risk of sustaining an injury. A relative risk value less than 1.0 is indicative that 

the exposure decreases the risk of sustaining an injury. Although this is the more typical use of the term 

exposure in epidemiology, the term also is used when referring to person-time at-risk of sustaining an 

injury. This could be expanded to include person-distance traveled or other similar metrics. In this 

context, it could be used as the amount of time exposed to a potential hazard such as the roadway. This 

use is in line with the definitions provided earlier in this chapter. While the computations provided here 

illustrate the basic concepts of risk and exposure in epidemiology, a wide array of statistical methods are 

used in epidemiology. These range from simplistic computations such as those illustrated above to 

complex modeling. 

In the published literature, there is much overlap between risk and exposure studies in the fields of 

traffic safety and epidemiology. Greene-Roesel et al. (2007) provide definitions and descriptions for 

pedestrian exposure that are nearly identical to textbooks in epidemiology. This includes the elements 

of risk discussed above along with in-depth discussions of target populations and methods for sampling 

larger populations. This is beneficial so that inferences can be drawn from a sample to a larger 

population, which is often more cost-effective and efficient. There are many other examples of 

individual epidemiological studies of pedestrian and bicycle safety where risk and relative risk are 

estimated based on quantified exposure. Recent examples include a study from North Carolina wherein 

pedestrian and bicycle crash-related injury rates were computed (Kerr et al. 2013). For risk or rate 

estimates, the numerator was nonfatal and fatal injury while the denominator was the number of trips 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at-risk. In this study exposure or time at-risk was estimated using methods from traffic safety (Durham 

Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan 2006). DiMaggio et al. (2015), in their evaluation of the Safe 

Routes to School program in Texas, estimated the risk of pedestrian and bicyclist injury in school-age 

children. They used population for the denominator in their estimates of risk over time. Both of these 

studies used more complex statistical modelling to compute relative risk measures or assess program 

impact. In addition, others have used more complex methods for estimating crash and injury risk such as 

decomposition methods (Dellinger et al. 2001). These were implemented in a recent Spanish study of 

pedestrian traffic-related fatalities (Onieva-Garcia et al. 2016). 

Some reports may use the same terminology, but use markedly different equations to calculate 

measures such as relative risk. For example, Raford and Ragland (2004) present an equation for relative 

risk that, in an epidemiological context, fits better with the definition of a risk or rate. A similar 

discrepancy can be found in the report by Bly et al. (1999) in their comparison of child pedestrian safety 

in three European countries. To contrast, the United States Road Assessment Program (Harwood et al. 

2010) employs equations for relative risk that are more in line with traditional epidemiological 

computations. 

In summary, there is much similarity in how risk is conceptualized and estimated between the fields of 

public health and transportation safety. There are many examples in the literature of epidemiological 

studies that use similar methods for estimating time at-risk or some other metric needed to compute 

risk or rates. Differences between the two fields exist in terminology such as relative risk, and these 

differences need to be considered when interpreting and comparing findings across the two fields. 

Importance of Geographic Scale in Exposure Analysis 

Many articles in the literature emphasize the importance of scale in estimating exposure. Similarly, scale 

has already been mentioned several times in this chapter when discussing how the theoretical definition 

of exposure can be operationalized in a practical way. In this report, exposure scale is defined as the 

most granular geographic level for which an exposure measure is desired. For example, is an exposure 

measure sought for a selected number of individual street crossings? Is an exposure measure sought for 

certain roadway segments? Or is an exposure measure sought for a defined areawide geography, such 

as traffic analysis zones (TAZs), Census tracts, or Census block groups? 

There is a need to differentiate between scale and coverage when discussing exposure estimation: 

• Scale is the geographic level of the desired exposure estimation. 

• Coverage denotes the total geographic area that is included in an exposure analysis. 

For example, consider an exposure estimation approach that uses a travel demand forecasting model to 

estimate segment-based pedestrian and bicyclist volumes and exposure for the entire region. In this 

example, the scale is at a segment level, since that is the most granular geographic level for travel 

demand models. The coverage of the travel demand model is for the entire region. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The original statement of work for this project referenced four different scale levels: 

1. Facility. 

2. Corridor. 

3. Network/system. 

4. Regional. 

The literature review indicated that most exposure analyses were more closely aligned to these four 

scales: 

1. Street crossing (intersection or mid-block). 

2. Road segment (typically between major intersections or nodes). 

3. Network for various area definitions (such as a TAZ, Census tract, or Census block group). 

4. Regional (such as city, county, metropolitan statistical area, or state). 

Chapters 3 and 4 provide additional details on the scale and coverage of exposure analyses that were 

documented in this literature review. 

Future methodological development in this project could benefit from the use of clear, unambiguous 

terms for various scales. In particular, the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is widely used for 

street and highway analysis and provides clearly-defined terms for various roadway system elements, 

such as points, segments, facilities, corridors, areas, and systems. Figure 1 shows HCM roadway system 

elements to provide context and their relative scales to one another. These HCM roadway elements 

were chosen as scale classifications in Chapter 4 since they are widely accepted and are easily 

understandable to practitioners attempting to conduct an exposure assessment. 

For the network/system and regional scales, standardized terms and definitions do exist for areawide 

geography. The U.S. Census Bureau has defined several different area geographies, including Census 

tracts, block groups, and blocks (Figure 2). These area geographies are regularly used in collecting and 

reporting travel survey data (e.g., the number of pedestrian and bicyclist trips) have been used in many 

areawide exposure analyses (see Chapter 3). 

TAZs are another common areawide geography that are defined by metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) for use in their travel demand forecasting models (see polygons with blue outlines in Figure 3). 

TAZs are typically composed of multiple Census blocks, since the demographic information in travel 

demand models is typically populated by aggregating Census data. However, there are cases where a 

TAZ definition may deviate from Census geography units to accommodate local conditions. 

To provide a visual comparison example of TAZs to Census geography, Figure 3 also shows Census block 

groups (see polygons with red outline). In Figure 3, the following can be seen from this comparison 

example: 1) although individual zone sizes vary, TAZs are somewhat comparable in size to Census block 

groups; and 2) TAZ boundaries can deviate from Census geography boundaries when necessary to better 

account for traffic conditions. 

8
 
 

(Source: 2010 HCM Volume I, Exhibit 2-1) 

Figure 1. HCM Standard Definitions of Roadway System Elements (Scale) 

9
 
(Source: Created by TTI using 2010 U.S. Census Data) 

Figure 2. U.S. Census Bureau Standard Definitions of Areawide Geography 

10
 
Figure 3. Visual Comparison of TAZs and Census Block Groups in Austin, Texas 

11
 
 

 

 

 

When and Where Does Exposure Occur for Pedestrians and Bicyclists? 

Most theoretical definitions of pedestrian and bicyclist exposure include references to contact with 

harmful vehicular traffic or opportunities for a pedestrian or bicyclist crash. For pedestrians, this occurs 

most explicitly during a street crossing. But several authors in the literature (Goodwin and Hutchinson 

1977; Cameron 1982; Hauer 1982, Molino 2009; Elvik 2015) have posed a series of questions about 

when and where pedestrians or bicyclists can be considered “exposed”. For example, are pedestrians 

“exposed” while walking along a sidewalk that is separated from motor vehicle traffic? Are pedestrians 

“exposed” if they cross the street but no motor vehicles are present at the time of their crossing? Are 

bicyclists “exposed” when they travel in a bike lane immediately adjacent to a motor vehicle travel lane, 

but then “not exposed” if they are riding in a separated bikeway? However, aren’t bicyclists “exposed” 

in a separated bikeway when they cross intersecting streets and driveways? 

In most cases, the feasibility and practicality of data collection has been used to operationalize this 

theoretical definition of exposure. Data cannot be collected on all pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor 

vehicle movements at all locations at all times. Therefore, most operational definitions of exposure have 

been based on pedestrian and bicyclist activity data that are already available (e.g., from travel surveys) 

or can be feasibly measured or estimated (e.g., from direct counts or models). Chapters 3 and 4 provide 

more detail on how various exposure analyses have constructed operational definitions of exposure 

based on the feasibility and practicality of data collection. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AT AREAWIDE LEVELS
 

Pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to risk can be estimated and analyzed at numerous geographic scales. 

This chapter summarizes examples of exposure analysis conducted at areawide levels. In this chapter, 

areawide is a generic term that includes all geographic scales that are not facility-specific. The term 

areawide in this chapter includes several area scales, such as networks, neighborhoods, systems, 

regional, city, and state. 

Exposure at areawide levels is usually measured or estimated at a macro-level. This is different than the 

facility-based exposure for an entire area, which is generally based on the micro-level point or segment 

data (e.g., pedestrian counts collected at intersections), but then aggregated to the wider area. This 

chapter focuses on areawide exposure analyses used in pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis. 

Summary of Practice 

Table 1 provides examples of exposure analysis at areawide levels with the following information: 

• Reference: Citation of each report or research paper. 

• Coverage: The geographic size of each example’s study area. 

• Development Scale: The initial scale at which exposure is computed. 

• Data Sources: The data used for exposure analysis. 

• Methods: The methodology used for exposure analysis. 

• Unit of Exposure: The definition of exposure as it relates to risk. 

As can be seen from Table 1, studies varied in terms of their scales of exposure estimation, geographic 

coverage, data and methodologies as well as the units of exposure. While all studies were conducted at 

an aggregate level, some focused on a national level and some others performed their analysis for 

specific regions or communities. If a smaller scale area-level is used for the analysis, it is possible to 

apply the end result to a wider scale enlarging the analysis coverage. For example, Salon (2016) used 

Census tracts (a smaller scale than city or region) for her analysis, but then converted the estimates to a 

neighborhood level. This approach provided relatively more accurate estimates. 

All the studies listed in the table have been eventually used in pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis 

(e.g., estimating crash and/or injury rates). This was achieved by developing a variety of exposure 

measures in a given area, which can be mainly categorized as follows: 

• Population: e.g., number of residents. 

• Travelers: e.g., number of pedestrians. 

• Trips: e.g., number of bike commuters. 

• Distance: e.g., average miles walked. 

• Time: e.g., total time traveled by a cyclist. 

13
 
 

 

Table 1. Examples of Exposure Analysis at Areawide Levels 

Reference Coverage Development 

Scale Data Sources Methods Unit of Exposure 

Chu 2003; 

Chu 2009 

United States Country NHTS Sketch planning Population, 

number of 

hours traveled 

Jacobson 

2003 

California cities, 

Danish towns, 

European counties, 

United Kingdom, 

Netherlands 

City, county, 

country 

Survey data - five 

different data sets for 

different areas (three 

population level and two 

time series); U.S. Census 

Journey to Work data 

(for California cities) 

Sketch planning 

(including least 

squares analysis) 

Kilometers 

walked/bike, 

portion journey 

to work trips for 

walk and bike 

Blaizot et al. 

2013 

Rhône County, 

France 

County Regional and national 

household travel surveys 

Sketch planning Number of trips, 

distance 

traveled, time 

spent traveling 

Rasmussen et 

al. 2013; 

Lyons et al. 

2014 

Columbia, MO; 

Marin County, CA; 

Minneapolis Area, 

MN; Sheboygan 

County, WI 

Metropolitan 

statistical area, 

community 

NHTS, ACS, annual count 

data for pedestrians and 

bicyclists 

Sketch planning Number of trips 

per mode, mode 

share, VMT 

National 

Complete 

Streets 

Coalition 

2014 

United States Metropolitan 

areas 

NHTS, ACS Sketch planning Population, 

number or 

percent of 

people 

commuting by 

walk 

Schneider et 

al. 2015 

State of Wisconsin State ACS, State Intercensal 

estimates, and annual 

estimate of resident 

population, VMT 

Sketch planning Population, 

VMT, number of 

walk & bike 

commuters 

Alluri et al. 

2015 

State of Florida State NHTS Sketch planning Population, 

number of walk 

trips 

Retting and 

Rothenberg 

2015 

United States State, country U.S. Census Population Sketch planning Population 

Salon 2016 State of California Census tracts NHTS, California 

household travel survey 

Sketch planning 

(including cluster 

analysis) 

Miles walked 

and biked 

Alliance for 

Biking and 

Walking 2016 

United States State, country ACS Sketch planning Population, 

number of walk 

& bike 

commuters 

NACTO 2016 Multiple large US 

cities 

City ACS Sketch planning Number of 

cyclists 

Guler and 

Grembek 

2016 

10 counties in 

California 

County Regional household 

travel surveys 

Sketch planning Total time 

traveled in 

million hours, 

total number of 

trips in millions 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Household Travel Survey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greene-Roesel et al. (2007) and Molino et al. 2012 provided an extensive discussion on these exposure 

measures. As discussed by Greene-Roesel et al. (2007), choosing an appropriate measure depends on 

various factors including study purpose, methodology used, and location focused. For example, in his 

study, Chu (2003) suggested a time-based comparative approach to examine the fatality risk of walking. 

The results of this study indicated improvement when a time-based exposure measure is used instead of 

using only population-based measures. However, there were also limitations, such as the time-spent 

walking can be over-estimated in the surveys since “....people may perceive time spent on walking 

longer than it actually is...” (Chu 2003). A third factor to be considered is the availability of resources. 

While some measures might be more advantageous (or appropriate) to use than others, one might not 

have enough budget or time to collect or process more complex exposure estimates. 

Guler and Grembek (2016) used two household travel surveys to estimate exposure by mode for ten 

counties in California in terms of: total time traveled in million hours and total number of trips in 

millions. The authors concluded that a time-based metric is more capable of capturing the different 

travel risk characteristics of different modes by comparing to a trip-based metric for each of the ten 

counties. 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods 

Data Sources 

The main source of information for areawide exposure analysis is survey data, which facilitate the 

development of a variety of exposure measures described above (e.g., population). Given that most 

surveys used are able to provide detailed information on the characteristics of individuals and their 

trips, these exposure measures are also often studied by different characteristics, such as demographics 

(age, gender, etc.). In addition to regional travel surveys, in the United States, the two commonly used 

datasets for areawide exposure analysis include NHTS and ACS (described below). This section also 

describes a survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that is 

primarily focused on pedestrian and bicyclist attitudes, but also includes trip information. 

Being the nation’s inventory of daily travel, the NHTS is periodically conducted and provides detailed 

information to examine travel behavior of American public. The most recent published NHTS survey was 

conducted in 2009 and included 25,000 households representing all U.S. States and the District and 

Columbia (Santos et al. 2011). The data can be used to compute several different exposure measures 

(e.g. population, miles traveled) nationally or by major Census division. Additional add-on samples are 

also made available to the States and regional agencies for purchase. For example, “with the aim of 

supporting modeling efforts and examining travel behavior in Texas, the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT) purchased an additional sample of 20,000 households in Texas for the TxDOT 

NHTS Add-On Program in 2009 to go along with the sample of 2,255 households collected from the 

national survey” (Dai et al. 2014).These add-on samples provide the opportunity to populate different 

exposure measures at a finer geographic level and to develop more robust safety analysis, as also 

discussed in Edwards et al. (2012). 

However, it is also important to recognize the limitations of the NHTS data that have been 

acknowledged by many researchers and practitioners in the field (see, for example Clifton and Krizek 

2004; Sharp and Murakami 2005; Pucher et al. 2011; Salon and Handy 2014). While providing a rich 

national sample, the NHTS sample sizes might have sparse coverage at fine geographic scales 

particularly critical in the context of the current study. In their 2014 report, Salon and Handy (2014) 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emphasized the difficulty of estimating bicycle and pedestrian activity due to lack of data coverage and 

indicated that “at the geographic resolution of the census tract, there are more than 2500 tracts that are 

not sampled at all by the NHTS, and only 15 of the sampled tracts include more than 30 household 

observations”. According to the feedback received by the task force on Understanding New Directions 

for the National Household Travel Survey Transportation Research Board (TRB 2013), “the number of 

bicycle trips recorded is so low as to preclude almost any analysis”. It was noted that several users 

requested a more representative sample of this special population to develop statistically reliable 

analyses. This and several other limitations have been discussed by the expert panel for the upcoming 

NHTS, which could help improve the current data issues (NHTS 2015, TRB 2016). 

American Community Survey 

While geographically covering the entire states, the ACS data differ from the NHTS as it provides 

information only pertaining to primary work commute trips (and for individuals aged 16+). ACS data are 

the replacement of the U.S. Census Journey to Work data, with improved sample design and data 

collection frequency. The ACS is an ongoing survey process, and the estimates are released each year 

based on the aggregated responses in 1-year, 3-years, or 5-years estimates. While the yearly estimates 

are available for areas of at least 65,000 people, the 3-year estimates are available for areas of at least 

20,000. Starting with 2010, the 5-year estimates have begun to be available for all areas at smaller 

geographic scales including census tract and block group levels (the latter is the smallest geographic 

level available). As also demonstrated in McKenzie (2014), the ACS survey data provide several measures 

that can be used in an areawide exposure analysis for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, such as walking 

and bicycling commuting rates across cities in the nation. 

The ACS provides an easy access to a regularly collected and nationally comparable measure of walking 

and bicycling data, but it is not without limitations as acknowledged by various earlier studies in the 

literature. As noted earlier, ACS data do not include all trips but instead it covers only work-related trips. 

This might become particularly problematic for exposure studies conducted in areas where nonmotorized work trips do not provide a representative sample of overall biking and walking behavior. 

Another important limitation is related to the sampling such that ACS data might have high margin of 

error in areas where the number of surveys is low. Spielman et al. (2014) indicated that “the margins of 

error on ACS census tract-level data are on average 75 percent larger than those of the corresponding 

2000 long-form estimate”, while the initial expectations were 33 percent (Navarro 2012). This loss of 

precision led to significant difficulties in using the data (Spielman et al. 2014), which is likely be more of 

a concern for bicycle and pedestrian studies. Although aggregation of the data helps improve margin of 

error due to larger sample sizes, this approach may not be practical especially for local studies with 

smaller geographic areas. 

While the uncertainty in ACS data has been frequently acknowledged, there has not been much effort to 

develop methodologies to overcome this limitation. Spielman and Folch (2014) developed “a spatial 

optimization algorithm that is capable of reducing the margins of error in survey data via the creation of 

new composite geographies, a process called regionalization”. Spielman and Singleton (2015) suggested 

a “shift from a variable-based mode of inquiry to one that emphasizes a composite multivariate picture 

of census tracts”, and applied this concept through a geodemographic typology across all census tracts 

in the United States. Bradley et al. (2016) developed a Bayesian approach to combine various surveys 

(including ACS) to “account for different margins of error and leverage dependencies to produce 

estimates of every variable considered at every spatial location and every time point”. Wei et al. (2016) 

developed a classification method “to explicitly integrate errors of estimation in the assessment of 

16
 
 

NHTSA Attitudes and Behavior Survey 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

within-class variation and the associated groupings”. Future research will greatly benefit to develop best 

practices and guidelines in accounting for large margin of error problems for smaller areas. 

Over the last fifteen years, NHTSA has administered two surveys that have been focused on better 

understanding bicyclist and pedestrian attitudes and behaviors. While providing valuable insights, these 

surveys have not been utilized for exposure analysis. The 2002 National Survey of Bicyclist and 

Pedestrian Attitudes and Behaviors included a representative sample of 9,616 U.S. residents aged 16 

years or older, and it was conducted between June 11 and August 20, 2002 (Royal and Miller-Steiger, 

2008). For the 2012 National Survey, a total of 7,509 interviews were conducted with residents aged 16 

years or older between July 12 and November 18, 2012 (Schroeder and Wilbur, 2013a). 

In general, both surveys included various questions related to the perceptions, attitudes and behaviors 

of bicyclists and pedestrians, and knowledge of infrastructure as well as the laws related to bicyclists and 

pedestrians. In addition, the surveys compiled several questions on bicycle and pedestrian trips focusing 

on the most recent date respondents bicycled and walked within the last 30 days (and over the summer 

months due to the timing of the survey). The 2012 survey also assessed the changes in bicycling and 

walking behavior and attitudes since 2002 (Schroeder and Wilbur, 2013b). Both surveys used a similar 

questionnaire for consistency and comparability (Schroeder and Wilbur, 2013c), and aimed at 

developing a better understanding on the attitudes and behaviors of bicyclists and pedestrian activities. 

However, “these data cannot be used to project year-round bicycling and walking behaviors” since it is 

generally a “reflection of biking and walking activity in the summer months” (Royal and Miller-Steiger, 

2008). 

Exposure analysis at areawide levels is usually conducted through different versions of sketch planning 

methods to estimate nonmotorized activity/travel in an area. In most cases, sketch planning methods 

include simple computations and rules of thumb for quick estimations of population and travel behavior. 

These methods mostly depend on the available data (such as nationally collected survey data) and 

require little effort in terms of data collection and no specialized expertise. While the results are mostly 

in the form of aggregate level estimates with relatively low accuracy, they lead to simple and practical 

solutions especially when the resources (time, budget, staff, data, etc.) are limited. 

Aggregate demand models also fall into areawide sketch planning methods as they are used to explain 

areawide activity levels of walking and bicycling based on aggregate characteristics (e.g. population 

density, employment density, median household income, land use diversity, etc.). These models are very 

similar to the direct demand models (described in Chapter 4 in details), and typically use regression 

models to quantify the relationship between overall bicycling or walking demand and the significant 

factors influencing that demand at a large spatial level. See for instance Barnes and Krizek (2005) for a 

bicycle demand model at a metropolitan statistical area level, and Ann and Chen (2007) for a 

nonmotorized demand model at a census block group level. 

As part of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP), Rasmussen et al. (2013) developed 

and applied a community-wide assessment method to examine the travel behavior changes with 

improved walking and biking infrastructure. As seen in Figure 4, their model was based on nationally 

collected data, including NHTS and ACS data, as well as annual counts for the community, and was used 

to estimate mode share changes and avoided VMT in the pilot communities. The model results were 

17
 
 

 

 

(Source: Rasmussen et al. 2012) 

Figure 4. NTPP Model Framework 

also used to evaluate the safety implications by estimating the motorist-involved pedestrian and bicycle 

crash fatalities and reported injuries between 2002 and 2012 for pilot communities (Lyons et al. 2014). 

Jacobson (2003) used five different datasets to compute the amount of walking and bicycling and 

explore the collisions involving a motorist and a bicyclist or a pedestrian. His exposure analysis included 

different areas, including 68 California cities, 47 Danish towns, 14 European counties, United Kingdom, 

and Netherlands based on the following exposure measures: 

• California Cities: 

o Portion journey to work trips on foot 

o Portion journey to work trips on bicycle 

• Danish Towns: 

o Kilometers walked/capita/day 

o Kilometers bicycled/capita/day 

• European countries: 

o Kilometers bicycled/capita/day 

o Trips on foot/capita/day 

o Trips on bicycle/capita/day 

• United Kingdom and Netherlands: 

o Billion kilometers ridden annually 

Using these exposure measures, he computed injury or fatality rates (based on the data available). For 

instance, for California cities, “injury incidence rates were calculated using the U.S. census population 

estimates as adjusted by the State of California’s Department of Finance for year 2000”. 

The other studies exemplified in Table 1 also used regional or national surveys to estimate exposure 

measures at areawide levels using similar sketch planning tools. For example, Blaizot et al. 2013 used a 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

regional household travel survey data as the primary data to estimate exposure measures including 

number of trips, distance traveled and time spent traveling. Since the data were collected between 

November 2005 and April 2006, during the analysis stage, the seasonality of the regional data were 

corrected using the NHTS that covered an entire year. The injury rates were estimated for different road 

users by “dividing the number of injuries by the exposure measurement, and scaled per 1 million trips, 

kilometers or hours”. These rates were also disaggregated by demographic characteristics (gender and 

age groups) and location characteristics (dense areas and non-dense areas). 

In another study, Schneider et al. (2015) used simple computations to estimate pedestrian and bicycle 

crash rates in the state of Wisconsin (e.g. crashes per 100,000 people, crashes per 1,000 walk 

commuters, etc.) based on state level mileage and VMT data as well as national data, including US 

Census State Intercensal Estimates, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population and ACS. Similarly, 

Retting and Rothenberg (2015) used the U.S. Census population data as an exposure measure to 

compute pedestrian fatality rates (per 100,000 population) in all states of the United States. Alluri et al. 

(2015) used exposure measures of population (i.e. crashes per million) and number of walk trips (i.e. 

crashes per million walk trips) to compute crash rates (by age) in the state of Florida using the 2009 

NHTS data. Using the 2001 NHTS data, Chu (2003) computed the nationwide fatality rates based on 

population (i.e. number of deaths per 100,000 population), and time spent walking (i.e. number of 

deaths per 10 million hours). Using the same NHTS dataset, Chu (2009) used time-based exposure 

measures for walking (time spent on access to or egress from another mode, time spent waiting for 

transit vehicles as exposure for walking) and computed the expected injury costs averaged over $2.00 

per hour of exposure for walking and motoring. 

In addition, in their analysis, National Complete Streets Coalition (2014) used both NHTS and ACS data to 

develop population-based exposure measures (e.g. number of commute walkers), which were used to 

evaluate pedestrian fatalities for various metropolitan areas. Likewise, Salon (2016) also used both the 

2009 NHTS and 2010–2012 regional household travel survey data as a primary source of exposure data 

in California. Different than the previous studies described, she adopted relatively more advanced 

sketch planning methodology based on a small area estimation method as an improvement on per 

capita estimates at the regional or statewide levels. In her study, the production scale was census tracts, 

which were then used to develop cluster-based neighborhoods. She computed several exposure 

measures, including average walking and biking per different demographics (age and gender) and 

neighborhood types, and used category averages to estimate walking and biking by census tracts. These 

measures were then used to explore the crash rates at a more detailed geography. 

Similar exposure measures have also been adapted in two recent reports. In their most recent 

benchmarking report, Alliance for Biking and Walking (2016) used ACS data and calculated pedestrian 

and bicyclist fatality rates for the states and the nation based on population-based exposure measures. 

These included fatality rates per million population (also categorized by age) and per 10,000 walking or 

bicycling commuters in the United States. The National Association of City Transportation Officials 

(NACTO) (2016) also used ACS data (i.e. number of cyclists) to compute risk of injury or death to cyclists. 

The exposure analysis was conducted citywide for seven cities, including Chicago, Minneapolis, New 

York City, Philadelphia, Portland, OR, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. 

19
 
 

 

Summary and Conclusions 

Exposure analysis at areawide levels is conducted at a larger scale (e.g. regional, statewide, or citywide) 

and adopts aggregate-level exposure measures (e.g. total number of people walking in a city). The 

choice of an appropriate exposure measure depends on various factors: study purpose, methodology, 

location of the analysis, and available resources. The main data source used for these types of analyses 

is the survey data. In addition to the local regional travel surveys, the NHTS and ACS have been used as 

key input for areawide exposure analysis. In pedestrian and bicyclist safety literature, areawide 

exposure analyses are mainly based on sketch planning method including aggregate demand models. 

These methods are composed of simple computations, do not require specific software or expertise, and 

are based on available data. Therefore, they provide practical and easy-to-apply solutions but with 

relatively low level of accuracy. 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4. EXPOSURE ANALYSIS ON SPECIFIC 

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
 

This chapter summarizes examples of exposure analyses conducted on specific transportation facilities. 

In some cases, exposure estimates are calculated for specific facilities, but also aggregated to various 

areawide geographies. For the purposes of this report, the examples of exposure analysis have been 

included in either Chapter 3 or 4 according to the most granular scale at which exposure estimates are 

produced. 

Summary of Practice 

Increasingly, public agencies are conducting regular counts and intercept surveys as part of routine 

pedestrian and bicyclist monitoring programs to monitor changes in behavior and volume. Over the 

years, there has been an attempt to standardize the collection and reporting of this pedestrian and 

bicyclist count data, first through Alta/ITE’s National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project, 

FWHA’s Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG), NCHRP 797 report, and most recently through the FHWA’s 

Exploring Pedestrian Counting Procedures report. 

These count and direct measurement methods enable communities and regions to quantify exposure at 

a granular scale: points (i.e., intersection or mid-block crossings) and segments. However, pedestrian 

and bicyclist counts are most often conducted as a sampling at a limited number of locations within a 

city, so directly measured counts are not available for network or areawide exposure estimation. The 

limited number of counts could, nevertheless, be used as model inputs for estimating exposure at an 

aggregate scale for an entire area. Therefore, counts of pedestrian and bicyclist volumes can play the 

following roles in the development of exposure estimates: 

•	 Directly measuring exposure on specific facilities. 

•	 Calibrating network and regional models that estimate exposure at various geographic scales, 

ranging from specific facilities to various areawide geographies. 

Table 2 provides a summary review of existing and proposed methods of directly measuring and 

estimating exposure on specific transportation facilities. Table 2 provides the following information for 

each example: 

•	 Reference: Citation of each report or research paper. 

•	 Development Scale: The initial scale at which exposure is directly quantified. 

•	 Coverage: The geographic size of each example’s study area. 

•	 Data Sources: The data collected to either directly measure or estimate exposure. 

•	 Methods: The type of model used to estimate exposure at various scales. 

•	 Unit of Exposure: The definition of exposure as it relates to risk. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

Table 2. Examples of Exposure Analysis on Specific Transportation Facilities 

Reference Development 

Scales Coverage Data Sources Methods Unit of Exposure 

Cameron 1982 Point, 

Segment 

Sydney, 

Australia Manual counts -­ Product of Pedestrian and Vehicle Volumes 

Tobey, Shunamen, and 

Knoblauch 1983 

Point, 

Segment 

Five Standard 

Metropolitan; 

Statistical Areas 

Manual counts & 

vehicle ADT -­

Number of PedestrianVehicle (P x V) 

Interactions 

Qin and Ivan 2001 Point Rural areas in 

Connecticut 

Manual counts, 

population & land use 

data 

Direct Demand 

Model 

Weekly Crossing 

Pedestrian Volume 

Transport Research 

Laboratory 2001 

Point, 

Segment 

National & Local 

Levels within 

Europe 

Regional or national 

travel surveys & direct 

counts 

-­ Million Kilometers of 

Travel 

Raford and Ragland 

2004 Point Oakland, CA Manual counts & census data 

Network 

Analysis Model 

Average Annual 

Pedestrian Volume 

Greene-Roesel, 

Diogenes, and Ragland 

2007 

Point, 

Segment -­ Direct counts, surveys, 

& census data -­

Number of Pedestrians; 

Trips; Distance Traveled; 

Time Spent Traveling 

Molino et al. 2009 

Molino et al. 2012 

Point, 

Segment 

Washington, 

D.C. 

Manual counts & 

crossing distances 

Direct Demand 

Model 

100 Million Miles 

Traveled 

Papadimitriou, Yannis, 

and Golias 2012 Segment Athens CBD, Greece 

Manual field surveys & 

counts 

Discrete Choice 

Model 

Vehicles Volume; 

Encountered While 

Crossing; Product of 

Vehicle; Volume and 

Pedestrian Crossing Time 

Schneider et al. 2012 Point San Francisco, 

CA 

Manual & automated 

counts 

Direct Demand 

Model 10 Million Crossings 

Schneider, Grembek, 

and Braughton 2013 Point 

UC Berkeley 

Campus 

Boundary 

Manual & automated 

counts -­ 10 Million Crossings 

Strauss, MirandaMoreno, and Morency 

2013 

Point Montreal, QC, 

Canada Manual counts Direct Demand 

Model 

Million Cyclists or 

Pedestrians per Unit of 

Time 

Strauss, MirandaMoreno, and Morency 

2014 

Point Montreal, QC, 

Canada Manual counts Direct Demand 

Model 

Million Cyclists or 

Pedestrians per Unit of 

Time 

Hankey and Lindsey 

2016 

Point, 

Segment 

Minneapolis, 

MN 

Manual counts, census 

& land use data 

Direct Demand 

Model 

Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Volumes 

Liggett et al. 2016 Point, 

Segment 

Los Angeles 

County, CA Manual counts -­ Average Number of Riders 

Radwan et al. 2016 Point, 

Segment State of Florida 

Direct counts, 

population, distance 

crossed, vehicle ADT 

Direct Demand 

Model 

Million Pedestrian Miles 

Crossed per Entering 

Vehicle; 100 Million 

Vehicle Miles; Million 

Pedestrian Miles Crossed 

per Entering Vehicle 

Wang, Lindsey, and 

Hankey 2016 

Point, 

Segment 

Minneapolis, 

MN Manual counts Direct Demand Model Bicyclist Volumes 

Note: -- indicates that the item did not pertain to the particular study. 

22
 
Development Scales 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Units of Exposure 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding direct measurement of exposure on specific transportation facilities, it is important to know 

at what spatial scale the measurements were initially developed for a particular application. The 

development scale determines the ultimate application scale at which exposure can be applied or 

estimated for locations without direct measurements. Table 2 offers a summary of the development 

scales for several nonmotorized exposure studies and applications by using the Highway Capacity 

Manual (HCM 2010) roadway system elements as levels of scale: points (i.e., intersections), segments, 

facilities, corridors, areas, and systems. More information on these types of roadway system elements 

can be found in Chapter 2 of this report. 

For the examples listed in Table 2, the exposure development scales varied based upon the type of data 

source and collection method, modelling efforts, and the intended application of the resulting exposure 

measure. However, all of the examples utilized direct measurement of nonmotorized volumes at either 

the point or segment scales as their unit of exposure on specific transportation facilities (Papadimitriou 

et al. 2012; Qin and Ivan 2001; Raford and Ragland 2004; Schneider et al. 2012, 2013, Strauss et al. 2013, 

2014). A majority of the examples used exposure measurements at both the point and segment scales 

since their respective applications accommodated the scales either separately (Liggett et al. 2016; 

Radwan et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2016) or were aggregated (Cameron 1982; Greene-Roesel et al. 2007; 

Hankey and Lindsey 2016; Lyons et al. 2014; Molino et al. 2009, 2012; Rasmussen et al. 2013; Tobey et 

al. 1983; Transport Research Laboratory 2001). 

There is a close connection between the exposure development scale and the data sources used. Direct 

measurement of nonmotorized exposure is typically represented as pedestrian and bicyclist traffic 

volumes recorded through direct counts (manual or automated) at either points or segments. 

Alternatively, a variety of the examples incorporated some form of exposure estimation via a direct 

demand or choice model that use additional data sources other than just counts (Hankey and Lindsey 

2016; Lyons et al. 2014; Molino et al. 2009, 2012; Papadimitriou et al. 2012; Qin and Ivan 2001; Radwan 

et al. 2016; Raford and Ragland 2004; Rasmussen et al. 2013; Schneider et al. 2012; Strauss et al. 2013, 

2014; Wang et al. 2016). Keep in mind that the models still required a representative, random or nonrandom sample of nonmotorized count data for the scale at which exposure was estimated, i.e., 

intersections (i.e., points) and segments. 

Greene-Roesel et al. (2007) states that “there is no single best definition of pedestrian exposure”; the 

same can be said about bicyclist exposure. In epidemiology, a general definition of exposure is contact 

with or proximity to a potentially harmful agent or event (Last et al. 1995). Table 2 shows that, within 

pedestrian and bicyclist exposure can be defined and measured in a variety of ways. 

As illustrated in the previous section on development scale, the components of a safety study or risk 

assessment are closely interrelated and in some cases mutually exclusive. Being that the unit of 

exposure is an important component, it is directly dependent upon other aspects of the study, such as: 

development scale, target population, estimation methods, geographic area, available resources, 

purpose, etc. Therefore, the unit of exposure that best fits the needs and purposes of the study should 

be chosen (Greene-Roesel et al. 2007). 

Tables 3 through 7 were adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. (2007) to help practitioners choose the 

appropriate unit of exposure for nonmotorized travel modes. These tables help to summarize the 

appropriate uses and the pros and cons of each generalized form of exposure related to nonmotorized 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

travel: volume, distance, and time. Note that the population and trips exposure measures are best used 

for aggregate level estimations, such as neighborhoods, cities, regions, etc., which was discussed in 

Chapter 3. 

Table 3. Exposure Based on Volumes/Counts 

(adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Appropriate Uses 

 Estimating pedestrian and bicyclist volume and risk in a specific location. 

 Assessing changes in pedestrian volume or characteristics due to countermeasure 

implementation at that site. 

How Data are 

Gathered 

 Manual or automated counts of bicycles and pedestrians. 

 Typically a daily count, and sometimes an annualized estimate 

Pros 

 Counts are simpler to collect than other measures such as time or distance walked or 

biked. 

 Automated methods for counting number of bicycles and pedestrians are improving. 

Cons 

 Does not account for the amount of time spent walking or biking nor the distance. 

 Not easily adapted to assess exposure over wide areas (for example, a city). 

Common Measures 

 Number of bicycles and/or pedestrians per time period. 

 Number of crossings. 

 Average daily, weekly, or annual volume per point or segment. 

 Product of bicycle or pedestrian and vehicle volumes (interactions). 

Table 4. Exposure Based on Distance 

(adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Appropriate Uses 

 Estimating exposure at the micro or macro level. 

 Estimating whether risk increases in a linear manner with distance traveled. 

 Assessing how crossing distance affects risk. 

How Data are 

Gathered 

 For individual level exposure, through travel surveys. 

 For aggregate level exposure, measurement of the length of the area of interest, 

combined with a manual or automatic count of the number of pedestrians. 

Pros 

 Can be used to measure exposure at the micro and macro levels 

 More detailed than pedestrian volumes or population data 

 Can be used to compare risk between different travel modes 

 Common measure of vehicle exposure 

Cons 

 Does not take into account the speed of travel and thus cannot be reliably used to 

compare risk between different modes (e.g. walking and driving) 

 Assumes risk is equal over the distance walked 

 Must typically assume that each bicycle or pedestrian travels the same distance in a 

crossing, along a sidewalk, street, bike lane, etc. 

Common Measures 

 Miles traveled (total or average) per pedestrian. 

 Miles crossed (total or average). 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Exposure Based on Time 

(adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Appropriate 

Uses 

 Estimating total pedestrian and bicyclist time exposure for specific locations. 

 Comparing risks between different modes of travel (e.g. walking vs. riding in a car). 

 Estimating whether risk increases in a linear manner with walking time. 

 Comparing risk between intersections with different crossing distances and between 

bicycles or individuals with different travel speeds. 

How Data are 

Gathered 

 The number of bicycles or persons passing through an area multiplied by the time 

traveled. 

 Time spent on walking activities reported on surveys. 

Pros 

 Accounts for different walking speeds 

 Allows for accurate comparison between different modes of travel. 

 Can be used to measure exposure at the micro and macro levels 

 More detailed than pedestrian volumes or population data 

Cons 

 Time based measures assume risk is equal over the entire distance of a crossing. Only a 

small portion of time spent walking on roadways represents real exposure to vehicle 

traffic. This portion would include time spent crossing roads, walking on the road surface, 

or possibly walking along the roadside where there are no curved sidewalks (Chu 2003). 

 Time spent on walking can be overestimated in surveys, because people perceive that 

they spend more time walking than they actually do (Chu 2003). 

 Walking may be under-reported in surveys, because people may forget walk trips or may 

purposely choosing not to report. Both of these reasons are related to the fact that 

walking trips are relatively short. These very short trips may not register in the memory of 

respondents or the respondents may think that these short trips are unimportant (Chu 

2003). 

Common 

Measures 

 Amount time traveling (total or average). 

 Amount time crossing an intersection (total or average). 

Table 6. Exposure Based on Trips 

(adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Appropriate 

Uses 

 Assessing pedestrian and bicyclist behavior in large areas, such as cities, states, or 

countries. 

 Examining changes in pedestrian and bicyclist behavior over time. 

 Making comparisons between jurisdictions. 

 Assessing common characteristics of walking trips, such as purpose, route, etc. 

How Data are 

Gathered 

 Data are gathered through use of travel surveys. 

Pros 

 Appropriate for use in large areas. 

 Best metric to assess relationship of walking with trip purpose. 

 Trips can be assessed as a function of person, household and location attributes. 

Cons 

 As with most surveys, a large number of respondents are needed to adequately represent 

the underlying population. 

 Less meaningful at the level of detail needed to assess risk at specific locations. 

 Pedestrian trips are often underreported in surveys (Schwartz and Porter 2000). 

Common 

Measures 

 Number of trips (total or average) possibly by purpose. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Exposure Based on Population 

(adapted from Greene-Roesel et al. 2007) 

Appropriate Uses 

 Used as an alternative to exposure data when cost constraints make collecting 

exposure data impractical. 

 Used to compare jurisdictions over time because population data are available for 

many geographies and time periods. 

How Data are 

Gathered 

 Population data for most cities is available on an annual basis through the ACS. 

Pros 

 Easy and low-cost to obtain; available for most geographies and time periods. 

 Adjusts for differences in the underlying resident population of an area – for example, 

sparsely populated suburbs versus densely populated inner-city areas. 

 Provides a crude adjustment for amount of vehicle traffic on the streets, since areas 

where more people live also tend to be areas where more people drive. 

 May be the only way to represent exposure if direct measurements cannot be taken. 

Cons 

 Does not accurately represent pedestrian and bicyclist exposure. 

 Does not account for the number of people who travel as bicyclists or pedestrians in 

the area. 

 Does not provide information about amount of time or distance that members of the 

population were exposed to traffic. 

Common Measures 

 Number of people in a given area: neighborhood, city, county, state or country. 

 Number of people in a particular demographic group: by age, sex, race, immigrant 

status or socioeconomic status. 

Applications 

The applications of nonmotorized exposure presented in Table 2 are centered on producing relative risk 

metrics (e.g., crash rates) that can help to make sense of pedestrian and bicyclist crash data. Many cities 

and states have pedestrian and bicyclist crash data but no way of understanding whether or not relative 

risk has changed. Numerous examples in Table 2 focused on developing crash rates for segments, 

intersections, or both for particular study areas like a city or county (Liggett et al. 2016; Radwan et al. 

2016; Raford and Ragland 2004; Schneider et al. 2012, 2013, Strauss et al. 2013, 2014; Wang et al. 

2016). Others used nonmotorized exposure to assess risk for other purposes, such as: trends over time 

for an area (Lyons et al. 2014; Rasmussen et al. 2013), before-and-after studies for new 

countermeasures (Molino et al. 2009, 2012), crash rates by time of day (Schneider et al. 2013), and costbenefit analysis of safety measures (Transport Research Laboratory 2001). 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods: Direct Measurement 

The most direct form of measurement or nonmotorized travel exposure are pedestrian and bicyclist 

traffic counts. To help communities develop nonmotorized count programs there has been an attempt 

to standardize the data collection and reporting efforts, first through the Alta and Institute of 

Transportation Engineers (ITE) National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD), FWHA’s 

Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG), NCHRP 797 report, and most recently through the FHWA’s Exploring 

Pedestrian Counting Procedures report. These references are summarized below. This direct 

measurement approach (calculating exposure from systematic traffic monitoring programs) is the 

current state-of-the-practice for motor vehicle exposure estimation. 

The NBPD is a count and survey effort designed to provide a consistent model of data collection and 

ongoing data repository for use by local agencies and organizations. Since 2003, the NBPD objectives 

have been the following (Alta Planning & Design and Institute of Transportation Engineers 2009a): 

•	 Establish a consistent national pedestrian and bicyclist count and survey methodology, building 

on the ‘best practices’ from around the country, and publicize the availability of this free 

material for use by agencies and organizations on-line. 

•	 Establish a national database of pedestrian and bicyclist count information generated by these 

consistent methods and practices. 

•	 Use the count and survey information to begin analysis on the correlations between various 

factors and pedestrian and bicyclist activity. These factors may range from land use to 

demographics to type of new facility. 

The NBPD data collection effort is split into counts and surveys as follows: 

•	 The count effort conducts screen line and crosswalk counts to measure activity levels at the 

same location over time and allows for associative research between variables (such as 

demographics, facility, land use, etc.) and activity volumes (Alta Planning & Design and Institute 

of Transportation Engineers 2009b). 

•	 The survey effort, based on intercept surveys, ask randomly selected people for their trip 

purpose, length, and other information while they are in the middle of making those trips (Alta 

Planning & Design and Institute of Transportation Engineers 2009b). 

The official national count and survey days are Tuesday through Thursday and the following Saturday of 

the second week in September. A description of the facility, location, and methodology should 

accompany any data to allow analysis of the relationship between biking and/or walking rates and 

demographic and/or geographic factors. A variety of materials are offered for download on the NBPD’s 

website. 

In 2006, Caltrans selected the NBPD as the data collection methodology for the Seamless Travel research 

study in San Diego County (Jones et al. 2010). Also in 2006, the FHWA Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center chose the NBPD as an evaluation methodology for the Nonmotorized Transportation 

Pilot Project (Lyons et al. 2014). The 2013 TMG references NBPD guidance for short-duration counts, 

counter positioning, count duration determination, and months/seasons of year for data collection 

(Federal Highway Administration 2013). 

The 2013 TMG includes chapter 4 that is dedicated to nonmotorized traffic monitoring, which 

encompasses bicycles, pedestrians, and other nonmotorized road and trail users (Federal Highway 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration 2013). The chapter emphasizes the challenges of collecting nonmotorized data as 

compared to established motorized data collection efforts, such as: the scale of data collection, higher 

use of lower functional class road and streets, greater amount of error from short duration counts, and 

quickly-evolving technologies and their unestablished error rates (Federal Highway Administration 

2013). Several examples of data collection equipment are provided to help the users understand the 

strengths and limitations of each type of technology and what is appropriate for their situation and 

budget to ensure proper counts. The chapter provides guidance on what to consider when developing a 

nonmotorized traffic data collection program that includes both continuous and short-duration count 

locations. Topics such as data management, site selection, variability, count duration, and factoring 

(correction and expansion) are all summarily discussed. 

The NCHRP 797 Report Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection published in 2014 

is the most comprehensive resource on pedestrian and bicycle volume data collection that is currently 

available (Ryus et al. 2014). The objectives of the guidebook are to help practitioners understand the 

value of nonmotorized data, develop a collection plan, identify the most appropriate method, and how 

to account for error introduced by counting technology (Ryus et al. 2014). The guidebook does not 

cover trip sampling techniques, presence detection, and trip generation estimation, but instead it 

specifically focuses on methods for counting the actual number of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing a 

screenline or intersection. The NCHRP 797 report complements the TMG Chapter 4 by expanding on the 

accuracy of different counting technologies accompanied by real-world examples of counting 

applications. One of the several example applications provided is safety analysis where a measure of 

exposure is necessary to make sense of crash data and assess risk relative to volume(s), i.e., exposure. 

No explicit definition of exposure is provided; however, the report explains that “exposure relates to the 

frequency of a bicyclist or pedestrian being present in a conflict zone with the potential to be involved in 

a crash” (Ryus et al. 2014). 

In May 2016, FHWA published the Exploring Pedestrian Counting Procedures report (Nordback et al. 

2016). This report expands on the existing guidance and best practices listed above to recommend 

strategies for accurate, timely, and feasible measurement of pedestrian travel (Nordback et al. 2016). 

The authors offer five key recommendations based on review of the current practice and webinar and 

interview responses (Nordback et al. 2016): 

1.	 Expand the use of multi-day/multi-week counts to reduce estimation error rates, and rotate 

counts around the network; 

2.	 Validate equipment at installation and regularly thereafter; 

3.	 Tailor quality checks appropriate for low volume versus high volume locations; 

4.	 Compute bias compensation factors (e.g., occlusion adjustment factors) to account for 

limitations related to equipment and locations; and
 

5.	 Conduct both short-duration and continuous counts to fully consider temporal and spatial 

aspects of pedestrian traffic patterns. 

The report goes into great detail in describing the operation and management of pedestrian count data 

collection equipment and the subsequent data management in terms of count duration, validation, 

calibration, purchasing strategies, quality assurance/control, standardization, factoring, accessibility, and 

analysis. This is a key resource for practitioners interested in creating a pedestrian count program. 

El Esawey et al. (2015) is a noteworthy example of direct measurement, in which various short-duration 

bicyclist counts conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia, in various months and years have been 

assembled to provide one of the most compete estimates of bicyclist traffic on a street network in a 

28
 
 

 

 

 

Direct Demand Models 

Figure 5. Estimation Methods That Have or Could Be Used For Exposure Analysis 

 

 

 

major North American city. In particular, the authors indicate that bicyclist risk exposure is a key 

application of their bicyclist count database. The paper by El Esawey et al. illustrates the challenges that 

public agencies face in creating a facility-specific bicyclist and pedestrian count database for an entire 

citywide street network that is based solely on direct measurement. Because of these challenges, some 

exposure analyses have tried to supplement the limited number of direct pedestrian and bicyclist counts 

with model estimates, which is the topic of the next section. 

Summary of Data Sources and Methods: Estimation 

In addition to direct measurement methodologies, exposure analysis at the facility or segment-level can 

be performed using estimation or modeling-based methodologies (see Figure 5). 

Direct (facility) demand models have played a major role in the area of bicycle/pedestrian safety 

whereas the other modeling types have been used infrequently or not at all. An overview of all these 

potential models is provided here for completeness. Given the focus of the pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety analysis, example studies provided in Table 2 are discussed in more details. 

Direct demand models are among the most widely used tools in the literature for pedestrian and 

bicyclist volume estimation modeling (Pulugurtha et al. 2006; Pulugurtha and Repaka 2008; Schneider et 

al. 2009; Griswold et al. 2011; Strauss and Miranda-Moreno 2013; Tabeshian and Kattan 2014; Fragnant 

and Kosckelman 2016; Schmiedeskamp and Zhao 2016). These models have been primarily used to 

develop facility-demand estimations for the local level of community, project, and facility planning. The 

FHWA has released a Non-Motorized Travel Analysis Toolkit, which includes various applications to 

support non-motorized transportation planning and modeling. This Toolkit includes several direct 

demand models to estimate pedestrian and bicycle volumes (FHWA 2016). Direct demand models have 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also served as the primary tools to measure bicyclist and pedestrian exposure for safety analysis. As 

discussed in Chapter 3, aggregate demand models are also similar to direct demand models though the 

analysis is performed at a larger level (e.g., regional level) using aggregate characteristics. 

Direct demand models are generally based on different versions of regression modeling to explain 

“demand levels as recorded in counts as a function of measured characteristics of the adjacent 

environment” (Kuzmyak et al. 2014). For example, researchers from the University of Minnesota 

(Lindsey et al. 2012; Hankey et al. 2012) have developed several count-based pedestrian and bicyclist 

models to estimate nonmotorized traffic in Minneapolis, Minnesota using ordinary least squares and 

negative binomial regression. While neighborhood design and urban form were found to be more 

significant for estimating bicycle traffic, road classification, proximity to amenities and activity centers 

were identified as significant independent variables for pedestrian traffic. As part of Seamless Travel 

Project, Jones et al. (2010) developed pedestrian and bicyclist demand models to estimate volumes at 

intersections during 7 to 9 A.M. periods in San Diego County. These models were constructed using 80 

manual, five automatic machine count locations, and GIS data on land use, demographics, etc. Fehr & 

Peers (2010) also developed similar pedestrian and bicycle models to estimate volumes during 5 to 6 

p.m. peak periods for Santa Monica. 

Direct demand models are appealing due to their simplicity in development and application, and since 

they are generally based on available data. However, they are limited in terms of capturing the 

behavioral structure and also not transferable due to relatively limited sample size and characteristics 

that the models are built on (see also Kuzmyak et al. 2014 for a detailed discussion on the advantages 

and limitations of such models). Schmiedeskamp and Zhao (2016) explained such models as following “a 

similar approach of first proposing a set of explanatory variables, fitting some form of regression model, 

and then interpreting and justifying the results according to the guiding theory”. Several different types 

and forms of explanatory variables have been used in the development of these models. The variables 

included but not limited to transportation system variables, built environment variables, socio-economic 

characteristics, weather and typology. The model variables showed some differences based on the 

mode (i.e. pedestrian model versus bicycle model) as well as the statistical model type. Several of the 

studies reviewed indicated the influential effects of density, accessibility and proximity on pedestrian 

models. In addition to similar neighborhood forms, bicycle models were found to be influenced by some 

other specific infrastructure and system characteristics, such as presence of bicycle lanes and traffic 

volume. The direct demand models have also been used for predicting volumes at locations where the 

count data are not available, extending the study to an areawide level in the application process. While 

several similar works have been developed over the last decades, the studies differ such that 

researchers work on improving the estimation results by developing models that are more meaningful, 

practically more applicable, and statistically more robust. 

The examples discussed in this section are pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis examples that include 

exposure. Schneider et al. (2012) developed and applied a pedestrian intersection volume model for San 

Francisco. A sample of counts at 50 intersections were collected and adjusted to produce annual 

pedestrian crossing estimates at each sampled intersection. Next, the authors developed a log-linear 

regression model to identify the relationship between annual pedestrian volume estimate and various 

different explanatory variables including land use, transportation system, local environment, and 

socioeconomic characteristics near each sampled intersection. The model was then used to evaluate 

pedestrian crossing risk at each intersection based on the exposure measure of the number of 

pedestrian crashes per 10 million crossings. Molino et al. (2009; 2012) also developed a log-linear 

regression model (with Poisson distribution) to estimate pedestrian counts at signalized intersections in 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Travel Demand Models 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C. While 15-min pedestrian counts served as the dependent variable, the independent 

variables of the model included land use variables (e.g. commercial, residential) and characteristics of 

the day (e.g. day of the week, time of the day). Using the parameter estimates of the model and followup adjustment procedures, a total number of miles traveled were estimated “...by multiplying the total 

number of pedestrians by the mean width of all the sampled signalized intersections.” This result was 

then used as an exposure measure in pedestrian crash rate computation. 

Several others have followed similar approach in estimating bicycle or pedestrian volume exposure 

measures using direct demand models. For example, Qin and Ivan (2001) estimated a general linear 

model for rural areas of Connecticut. Their dependent variable was the weekly pedestrian volume 

crossing the street at 32 different sites. The estimated model indicated that the number of lanes, area 

type, and sidewalk system significantly associated with the estimated pedestrian volume, which was 

proposed to be used in analyzing pedestrian fatality and injury rates in a follow-up research. Abasahl 

(2013) developed linear and log-linear models for both pedestrian and bicycle volume estimation. Their 

dependent variables were pedestrian and bicycle volumes collected at 92 (signalized) intersections in 

four Michigan cities. The estimated model volumes were then used as exposure measures in crash 

analysis for each nonmotorized mode and for all cities in the study area. Using a count database of 954 

observations and 471 locations, Hankey and Lindsey (2016) employed a stepwise linear regression 

model that allowed for varying spatial scale of independent variables including land use and 

transportation network variables. Relying on the modeled estimates of bicycle traffic from this latter 

work, Wang et al. (2016) then estimated peak-hour bicycle traffic volumes for many segments in 

Minneapolis. The model results were then converted to bicycling volume for intersections and used for 

computing bicycle crash rates by intersections and segments. Radwan et al. (2016) used a stepwise 

regression model to estimate intersection pedestrian volume (for 52 sample intersections). The model 

was based on three main independent variables: daily traffic volumes, distance crossed, and population. 

The model estimates were then used to classify intersections across the state of Florida to compute the 

statewide averages for pedestrian crash rates at intersections. 

Strauss et al. (2013; 2014) used a relatively improved version of modeling to estimate nonmotorized 

demand. Strauss et al. (2013) developed a bivariate Bayesian Poisson model to simultaneously estimate 

cyclists’ injury occurrence and bicycle activity at 647 signalized intersections on the island of Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada. In a follow-up study, Strauss et al. (2014) applied their Bayesian modeling 

methodology as part of a multimodal approach aimed at examining the safety at intersections for both 

nonmotorized and motorized traffic. After model calibration, the study compared injury and risk 

between modes and intersections by using the “expected number of injuries (obtained from the models) 

per million cyclists, pedestrians or motor-vehicle occupants per year” as the expected risk. 

The state of practice mainly consists of regional travel demand models that are based on traditional tripbased forecasting models. The trip-based models generally consist of four main steps: trip generation, 

trip distribution, mode share, and traffic assignment. During the assignment step, the predicted traffic 

volumes are assigned to the individual network links (usually based on shortest distance). TAZs are the 

most commonly used geographic units to inventory existing and future demographic data required for 

modeling purposes. Therefore, trip-based models are particularly limited in estimating nonmotorized 

travel due to their coarse level of spatial analysis structure. Schneider et al. (2009) and Griswold et al. 

(2011) indicated that such regional demand models are not adequate in capturing the fine-grained 

differences in intersection-level bicycle or pedestrian activity. Kuzmyak et al. (2014) pointed out that 

“...if these models are used to account for nonmotorized travel, it is typically limited to the trip 

31
 
 

 

 

Special Focused Models 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

generation step; nonmotorized trip productions and attractions are estimated, but they are then 

removed from the remainder of the analysis, which focuses on motor vehicle trips”. Furthermore, Aoun 

et al. (2015) emphasized the lack of these regional models in capturing recreation trip purpose, which is 

a key consideration in pedestrian and bicyclist trip rates. 

To overcome these limitations and increase their sensitivity to pedestrian and bicyclist trips, several 

enhancements have been made to trip-based models, such as developing an enhanced trip generation 

model sensitive to land use factors or an enhanced auto ownership model as input to nonmotorized trip 

production. Emerging tour- or activity-based models also provide superior alternatives to traditional 

four-step models since they are based on individuals rather than trips, and the spatial resolution can be 

reduced to a smaller level of geography (such as parcels instead of TAZs). 

The literature has also witnessed various versions of specially focused models that can be particularly 

beneficial to be applied at the corridor and subarea planning level. These are primarily variations of 

focused regional model approaches. For example, the scenario planning tools, which heavily depend on 

the usage of GIS-based modeling methodologies, are used to estimate nonmotorized travel under 

alternative land use and transportation investment scenarios. The GIS-based walk-accessibility model 

developed by the NCHRP 08-78 research team provided an enhanced example to such tools, expanding 

their capability by estimating pedestrian trip tables using GIS-derived walk-accessibility scores. This 

model uses GIS to compute measures of accessibility to or from any point by all modes and attraction 

types, and then estimates mode split and creates walk trip tables by purpose (Kuzmyak et al. 2014). 

Similarly, the pedestrian trip generation and flow models are among the examples of focused regional 

models specifically focusing on pedestrian travel and smaller geographical zones rather than TAZs. The 

two examples of this type of modeling include PedContext and its sequel Model of Pedestrian Demand 

(MoPeD), which were developed through the University of Maryland’s National Center for Smart 

Growth. While PedContext is not publically available, MoPeD is an open source model designed to be 

used by practitioners and non-experts. The model requires data on vehicle ownership, street 

connectivity, parcel-level land use, Census population and employment, and travel survey. Kuzmyak et 

al. (2014) indicated that, compared to the NCHRP 08-78 GIS-based walk-accessibility model, MoPeD is 

limited since it only generates walk trips instead of developing an overall trip generation and mode 

choice model. In particular, MoPeD uses pedestrian analysis zones (which are block or street-level) as 

the level of analyses. The main modeling structure follows regional four-step process, but employed 

only for walk trips, yielding to a link and intersection activity levels for walk trips 

(see http://kellyjclifton.com/products/moped/). Clifton et al. (2008) indicated that the objective of the 

MoPeD study was to “develop a method to estimate pedestrian demand or pedestrian volumes on a 

network – in order to evaluate pedestrian risk exposure in Maryland communities”. 

Network analysis models can also be discussed under these special focused models since they usually 

use variations of the four-step modeling approach for trip generation and distribution (Raford and 

Ragland 2006). These models are based on a representation of a pedestrian network. They are used to 

estimate volumes for specific facility types (e.g. street segments or intersections) over an entire area of 

interest (e.g. neighborhood or city). Space Syntax is one of the most well-known examples of network 

analysis models, which was first developed in mid 1980s in London. The model framework has been 

widely used in planning projects in Europe and Asia, but relatively unknown in the United States (Raford 

and Ragland 2004; McDaniel et al. 2014). Kuzmyak et al. 2014 indicated two potential reasons for its 

relatively minimal usage: 1) The information on its special software is limited; and 2) The process is not 

32
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simulation-based Traffic Models 

 

 

 

intuitive to transportation planners since its process does not follow traditional trip generation and 

distribution steps. Instead, it uses spatial characteristics and relationships to explain the route chosen. 

Raford and Ragland (2004) described space syntax as a “suite of modeling tools and simulation 

techniques used to analyze pedestrian movement and to predict pedestrian volume”. The authors listed 

seven steps for creation of a space syntax predictive model (Raford and Ragland, 2006): 

1. Base data collection 

2. Pedestrian route network modeling 

3. Processing for movement potentials 

4. Collection of pedestrian counts to calibrate the model 

5. Addition of land use, transit and other variables 

6. Testing the accuracy of the model 

7. Forecasting future pedestrian volumes based upon network changes 

In one of their relevant studies, Raford and Ragland (2004) applied the space syntax model to estimate 

pedestrian volumes at 670 intersections (from a total of 42 intersections and 94 counts) for the City of 

Oakland, California. The output volumes were then used in a safety analysis for the city’s first pedestrian 

master plan. In specifics, the relative risk used for the safety analysis was computed for each 

intersection by dividing the annual pedestrian-vehicle collisions by exposure measure (i.e. average 

annual pedestrian volume). 

Finally, there have been few efforts using the underlying principles of discrete choice models to model 

crossing behavior based on the information about the crossings and crossing behavior during the trip as 

an exposure measure. Lassarre et al. (2007) explained that “accident risk exposure can be estimated for 

any location (micro-environment) along a pedestrian trip, where a pedestrian is likely to cross”. This 

then requires development of a pedestrian behavior choice model for each location along an entire trip. 

Lassarre et al. (2007) used this concept in developing a framework for modeling pedestrian’s exposure 

considering their crossing behavior. A nested logit model was utilized for developing a hierarchical 

choice structure between junctions and mid-block locations. The independent variables used included 

origins and destinations, traffic characteristics (e.g. traffic volume), and pedestrian facilities (e.g. 

pedestrian signal). The final estimated crossing probabilities were then used to compute accident risk 

exposure. Using a sequential logit model, Papadimitriou et al. (2012) followed a similar approach by first 

estimating crossing probabilities associated with each alternative location along a trip, and then 

estimating pedestrian exposure to risk based on this crossing behavior. A pilot model was applied to a 

pedestrian trip in Athens, Greece. 

Benefiting from advances in computation capabilities, simulation-based traffic models have also evolved 

substantially over the last two decades. These models differ from the travel demand models as they 

often use the traffic volumes output of the relevant travel demand models as inputs to the traffic 

simulation models (DKS et al. 2007). These models can be applied at microscopic, macroscopic, or 

mesoscopic levels. For example, Abdelghany et al. (2012) developed a mesoscopic simulation-based 

dynamic trip assignment model for large-scale pedestrian networks. Their model is responsive to predict 

pedestrian responses to changes in design, operational conditions, and crowd management. The authors 

indicated that “the model can configure the study area in the form of a network and represent 

pedestrian demand at the individual level”. Hong et al. (2016) developed a pedestrian exposure model 

based on a hybrid microsimulation-statistical model that also accounts for heteroscedasticity and spatial 

correlation. They used data composed of pedestrian dynamics, pedestrian area dynamics, and network 

topology measures. The authors tested their methodology for modeling 688 crosswalks in Seattle 

33
 
 

 

 

 

Innovative Methods to Estimate Facility-Specific Exposure 

 

 

 

Crowdsourcing from Mobile Devices 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington using various network typology measures integrating centrality, clustering, attractiveness, 

etc. 

In fact, the recent literature has witnessed development of various agent-based microsimulation models 

aimed at capturing pedestrian activity in an area. Raford and Ragland explained that these models are 

based on “simulation of individual pedestrian movement in crowds (“agents”) based on complex 

behavioral rules and environmental modeling”. Greene-Roesel et al. (2007) described these models as 

using “flow principles from physical science to model pedestrian behavior in confined spaces such as 

interior of shopping mass or subway stations, on a single or small number of streets, or within building 

interiors”. Microsimulation models provide highly accurate, detailed, and visually strong pedestrian 

flow. On the other hand, they are complex and require significant input data and special resources, such 

as specialized software (e.g. VISSIM, PARAMICS, etc.) and unique expertise (Raford and Ragland 2006; 

Greene-Roesel et al. 2007). 

Thus far, this chapter has focused on data sources and methods used by practitioners and researchers to 

directly measure or estimate facility-specific pedestrian and bicyclist exposure. However, there are 

several innovations that, if fully developed in the next five to ten years, have the potential to 

dramatically improve pedestrian and bicyclist activity data to estimate exposure for safety analyses. The 

next several sections describe these innovative methods and data sources. 

Many pedestrians and bicyclists carry a highly-advanced, location-aware sensor everywhere they go: 

their GPS-enabled smartphone (http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/). There are many 

commercial applications that rely on knowing the location of a smart phone to provide location-based 

services (such as Google Maps and Traffic, Facebook, TripAdvisor, etc.), and these companies are using 

petabytes of historical smartphone location information and advanced analytics to estimate activity 

levels at businesses and other points of interest (e.g., see Google’s Popular Times feature). Other 

companies (such as Streetlight Data, Cuebiq, etc.) also work in this location analytics domain, and try to 

provide insights in real-world consumer behaviors and trends. It is important to note that some 

population groups (such as the elderly, poor, young children) may be underrepresented in smartphone 

activity data. 

This type of smartphone monitoring is considered passive, in that the smartphone owner/user does not 

have to initiate an app in order for the smartphone location to be tracked (although location services 

does have to be enabled within the app’s settings). With passive monitoring, the smartphone routinely 

stores and sends the smartphone location without owner/user intervention. Sometimes this occurs even 

when the smartphone app is not open or active (assuming that locations services are enabled). As one 

might expect, passive and anonymous monitoring of thousands or millions of location-aware 

smartphones over several months or years could lead to significant improvements in pedestrian and 

bicyclist activity data. 

Another approach to smartphone monitoring is becoming more common in pedestrian and bicyclist 

planning. This approach, sometimes called active monitoring, relies on a smartphone owner/user to 

initiate a fitness-based app (such as Strava) or other trip/activity collector app (such as Moves) to gather 

walking, jogging, running, or bicycling activity. In other cases, a wearable fitness device (such as Fitbit) 

34
 
 

 

 

 

 

Advanced Video Image Processing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pedestrian Pushbutton Activations 

 

 

could be used to gather route choice information from pedestrians or bicyclists. The user agreement for 

these apps includes a provision for the app to anonymously collect and reuse the smartphone location 

data. To date, Strava has been the most active app developer to resell this pedestrian and bicyclist 

activity data to public agency for planning purposes. Relative walking and bicycling activity levels of 

Strava users (i.e., Strava Heat Map) can be seen online at http://labs.strava.com/heatmap. 

Both of these smartphone monitoring approaches have their strengths and limitations. Passive 

monitoring can provide larger and less biased samples of pedestrians and bicyclists, simply because it 

does not require the smartphone owner/user to initiate app-based location monitoring. But in some 

situations, it may be difficult to differentiate travel mode (e.g., bicyclists in slow-moving motor vehicle 

traffic). Active monitoring (such as Strava) can provide more detailed data about activity type (e.g., 

walking, jogging, bicycling, off-road bicycling) as well as demographics. However, the activity data from 

active monitoring is typically from a much smaller and more biased sample (e.g., recreation-based 

activity) (Griffin and Jiao 2016). 

Image processing on video data or Google Street View uses machine learning algorithms to accurately 

identify a non-motorist from the field-of-view of video or images. Video-based and image-based human 

detection and counting have been studied by many researchers (Dalal and Triggs, 2005; Gallahar and 

Chen, 2009; Tan et al., 2011; Yin et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2016; Tome et al., 2016;). The common method 

applied in these studies by extracting the features from the images at first, and then utilizing different 

machine learning algorithms to perform a precise classification. Although researchers developed many 

high quality algorithms, exploration on pedestrian detection and count is still attracting many 

researchers as there is an ongoing demand for more accurate estimates. 

The algorithm developed by Dalal and Triggs (2005) is considered as one of the most popular pedestrian 

detection algorithm. The detection was done by the histogram based on the gradient direction. Tan et 

al. (2011) developed semi-supervised elastic net to count pedestrians. The research team used 

sequential information between unlabeled samples and their temporally neighboring samples to 

perform the study. The developed method showed superior predictions than the other state-of-the-art 

studies. Yin et al. (2015) used Google Street View images to extract pedestrian counts using machine 

vision and learning technology. The reliability tests results showed that the developed method was 

adept in counting pedestrians with a reasonable level of accuracy. Qi et al. (2016) proposed a sparse 

representation based approach for pedestrian detection from thermal images. In this study, the 

researchers first adopted the histogram of sparse code to represent image features and then detected 

pedestrian with the extracted features in different frameworks. This study validated the approach by 

comparing with three widely used features: Haar wavelets, histogram of oriented gradients, and 

histogram of phase congruency. The results showed the superiority of the approach developed in this 

study. Tome et al. (2016) used the popular modern algorithm deep convolution neural network to 

detect pedestrians. The research team tested the developed algorithm on the core hardware of 

autonomous car technology. 

Several studies have examined the feasibility of using pedestrian crosswalk pushbuttons to estimate 

pedestrian counts at intersections. In this method, the number of crosswalk actuations must be factored 

up to account for cases in which more than one pedestrian crosses during each pedestrian crosswalk 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

Naturalistic Data Collection for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

phase. Several studies attempt to characterize this relationship between signal actuations and actual 

pedestrian counts. In a limited pilot study in Portland, Blanc et al. (2015) finds 1.24 pedestrian crossings 

per pedestrian actuator press. Kothuri et al. (2016) also measure pedestrian actuated signal phases in 

Portland, Oregon. They show that is feasible to capture pedestrian actuated signal phases using existing 

technology and infrastructure for the evaluation of facility improvements. In NCHRP Report 797, Ryus et 

al. (2014) provide a thorough overview of actuation technologies for counting pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Day et al. (2014) present a statistical regression method to predict single actuator counts as a function 

of weather, time of day, facility characteristics, and land use. While signal actuation counts are a noisy 

estimate of pedestrian counts, Day et al. argue that the method is useful for the measurement of 

relative changes in exposure due an intervention. It is our conclusion that more research is needed 

before signal actuation methods are widely implemented. 

Naturalistic data collection refers to the unobtrusive observation of behaviors. This approach has been 

used in many fields outside of transportation for quite some time. Advances in sensor, computer, and 

telecommunication technologies now provide a method for automatically collecting detailed, objective 

information about a person’s driving performance (LeBlanc et al. 2006, 2007) and have led to a number 

of naturalistic driving studies (Campbell, 2012). At the same time, most have concentrated on motor 

vehicles, including cars, trucks, and motorcycles, and the primary focus has been on understanding 

safety-related behaviors rather than estimating exposure. 

Thus, it is not surprising that most of the available exposure data on pedestrians and bicycles comes 

from sources other than naturalistic data collection (Vanparijs et al. 2015). These include various 

estimation models using: survey data such as the NHTS (Clifton and Krizek 2004; Salon and Handy 2014); 

data from pedestrian and bicyclist counts for relatively small areas and taken during one or a few points 

in time (Gallop et al. 2011; Griswold et al. 2011); and data for other location-specific characteristics such 

as employment, household size, and land use (Schneider et al. 2009). 

In the limited cases in which naturalistic data have been used to examine pedestrian and/or bicycle 

behavior, the focus has typically not been on exposure per se but rather risk factors for collisions or 

crashes. Some of these studies involved the installation of unobtrusive video cameras at intersections to 

examine unsafe behaviors of cyclists such as red light running or helmet use (Johnson et al. 2008; Pai 

and Jou 2014; Wu et al. 2012). Most of the other studies involved the instrumentation of bicycles 

themselves; several of these latter studies are highlighted below. 

Johnson et al. (2010) used helmet-mounted video cameras to capture the behaviors (head checks, 

reactions, maneuvers) of cyclists in Melbourne, Australia, that were associated with collisions, near 

collisions, and other events. Their data were limited to 127 hours and 38 minutes for 13 participants, 

and were not intended to generate information on exposure for this or a wider set of cyclists. 

Dozza et al. (2012) described their efforts to adapt naturalistic driving methods to bicycles in 

Gothenburg, Netherlands, including the equipment used, data produced, tools and algorithms for 

visualizing and pre-processing the data, methods of analysis, and lessons learned. Results were reported 

for 12 participants, with data collection occurring over two weeks for each participant. The authors 

noted that their study complements the analyses of critical safety events by Johnson et al. (2010), by 

adding kinematics, location, and information about distraction by cyclists, leading to a better 

understanding of crash causation and providing a basis for deriving measureable safety indicators for 

development of intelligent countermeasures. 

36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In related work, Werneke and Dozza (2014) used naturalistic cycling data from Gothenburg, in 

combination with crash, insurance, exposure, weather, road, and interview data to better understand 

single bicycle crashes and the factors contributing to them. According to the authors, naturalistic cycling 

studies can be used to fill in the gaps in reporting for single bicycle crashes and allow for the capture 

bicyclists’ behavior before and during safety critical events, overcoming the limitation of post-crash data 

sources. 

Building on methods used in the 100-car study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, 

Jahangiri et al. (2015) developed a smaller data acquisition system (consisting of several sensors 

measuring acceleration, speed, and current location) that can be used to study bicyclists’ behavior and 

more specifically to develop bicycle violation prediction models. They also incorporated connected 

vehicle technology to facilitate communication within the system. 

Investigators in Stockholm, Sweden, also used global positioning system logging devices and cameras to 

identify accessibility and safety problems among a sample of 16 commuter cyclists, as well as generate 

an accessible geographical interface for use as traffic planning tool (Gustafsson and Archer 2013). 

Specific study aims were to: identify the frequency and location of safety and accessibility/mobility 

problems and their causes; map and document these problems; help inform policy and strategy 

development; and help traffic planners better understand the problems faced by commuter cyclists on a 

daily basis. Participants were asked to ride 17 major cycle routes during the morning and afternoon peak 

traffic hours, resulting in the identification of more than 500 safety and accessibility/mobility problems. 

In another naturalistic cycling study, Schleinitz et al. (2015) equipped three types of bicycles 

(conventional, pedelecs, and S-pedelecs) with a data acquisition system consisting of sensors to measure 

speed and distance, and two cameras. Using data collected from 85 cyclists over a period of 4 weeks 

each, the authors examined differences in speed and acceleration between bicycle types, as well effects 

of age and infrastructure features (e.g., bicycle lane, path, part of road used by cars, and foot path); they 

were not able to assess the implication of results on crash risk but speculated that higher speeds are 

associated with more severe crash outcomes. 

A few studies used data from the naturalistic driving studies focusing on motor vehicles to examine 

various aspects of pedestrian/bicycle safety. For example, Lin et al. (2015) used data from the Strategic 

Highway Research Program 2 Naturalistic Driving Study to examine interactions between drivers and 

various pedestrian features at selected signalized intersections through which they drove. However, 

their interest was in assessing the effectiveness of selected pedestrian features in improving pedestrian 

safety and not estimating exposure. Other investigators used data from a 110-car naturalistic driving 

study in Indianapolis, Indiana, to identify potential conflict situations involving pedestrians and vehicles 

(Du et al. 2013; Tian et al. 2014); they concluded that this approach holds promise for studying pre-crash 

scenarios for vehicle to pedestrian collisions. 

Collectively, the studies highlighted above suggest a promising start for applying naturalistic data 

collection methods to pedestrians and bicyclists to better understand safety-related problems, 

especially factors associated with crash and near crash risk. However, the use of naturalistic observation 

for these segments of the road user population is not without its challenges. For example, Dozza et al. 

(2012) pointed out that bicycle data loggers, unlike those used in cars or trucks, need to be small, light, 

waterproofed, tolerant to shocks and vibrations, low cost, and use as little energy as possible. In 

addition, they noted that higher drop-out rates might be expected for bicycling studies, compared to 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Sources and Methods 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

naturalistic driving studies, due to inclement weather and more convenient alternatives to bicycling. 

They also cautioned that privacy may be more of a concern for participants in naturalistic cycling 

studies, especially when cycles are taken indoors with cameras still recording, and that data loggers on 

cycles are more exposed to theft and tampering, especially when left outside and unattended. 

The lack of studies using naturalistic data collection for the sole purpose of estimating exposure raises 

concern about whether this approach is a practical approach to measure pedestrian and bicyclist 

exposure. It may be more fruitful to explore naturalistic observation as a tool for supplementing other 

approaches to estimating exposure. For example, there may be a role for naturalistic data collection in 

helping to calibrate or validate estimation models for exposure and provide more robust measures of 

risk. 

Summary and Conclusions 

This chapter summarized numerous examples of exposure analyses that were conducted on specific 

transportation facilities. The facility-specific exposure analyses were most often used to identify highpriority locations for pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements, and were typically conducted for an 

entire city. In some cases, the facility-specific information was also aggregated to provide overall trends 

for certain road types or for subareas within a city. 

Most of the facility-specific exposure analyses used pedestrian and bicyclist count data from one or both 

of these sources: 

•	 Direct measurement: Many cities are now directly collecting pedestrian and bicyclist count data 

on an annual basis, just like motorized vehicle counts. However, these counts are collected at a 

very limited number of locations, and often at the locations with the most pedestrian and 

bicyclist volume in the city. 

•	 Estimation and models: Because directly-measured counts are typically collected at a limited 

number of locations, various estimation and modeling methods are often used to provide count 

estimates for all locations within a city or other defined area. In many cases, the sample of direct 

counts are used in the development and calibration of these estimation models. 

For direct measurement of pedestrian and bicyclist counts, much progress has been made in the past 

ten years. Several companies now offer automated count equipment that helps to make pedestrian and 

bicyclist counting more efficient and cost-effective. The NBPD provided early guidance and helped to 

promote count data collection. Since then, FHWA has included a chapter specifically devoted to 

nonmotorized traffic monitoring in their 2013 TMG, and this chapter is likely to be updated in 2017. In 

2014, NCHRP Report 797 Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection was published 

and is a comprehensive resource on pedestrian and bicycle count data collection. 

For estimating pedestrian and bicyclist counts, direct demand models have been the most widely used 

models for facility-specific exposure estimation thus far, and typically use regression analysis to relate 

directly measured counts to other measured attributes of the adjacent environment (e.g., land use and 

form, street type, etc.). Assuming that these measured attributes are available citywide, the regression 

model allows one to extend the sample of facility-specific counts to all facilities citywide. This chapter 

provided details on other types of modeling approaches that have been used on a limited basis, or could 

be used for facility-specific exposure estimation. These approaches include regional travel demand 

38
 
Exposure Measures 

 

 

 

 

 

models, GIS-based models, trip generation and flow models, network analysis models, discrete choice 

models, and simulation-based traffic models. 

Similar to the areawide exposure analyses, the units used in facility-specific exposure measures varied 

widely. Since the primary data source was pedestrian and bicyclist count data (rather than surveyed trip 

data in areawide exposure analyses), the units of exposure typically were a volume count for specified 

time period, or a distance traveled (calculated by multiplying a count by a street crossing width or road 

segment length). In a few cases where the exposure values were very high, the exposure was given in 

units of 1 million or 10 million (e.g., 1 million pedestrian miles traveled, 10 million pedestrian crossings). 

Unlike areawide exposure analyses, several of the facility-specific exposure analyses did account for the 

interaction of nonmotorized and motorized traffic in their exposure measure. Several analyses 

computed the product of pedestrian and/or bicyclist traffic and motorized traffic ((P or B) × V) at 

intersections or other street crossings. A few other analyses used exposure measures like pedestrian 

crossings (or pedestrian miles) per entering motorized vehicle. Thus, having more granular exposure 

data on specific facilities does provide a better opportunity to quantify the level of interaction between 

pedestrian or bicyclist traffic and motorized vehicle traffic. 

39
 
 

Other Risk Factors 

 

 

Disaggregate level 

 

Facility Condition 

CHAPTER 5. RISK FACTORS OTHER THAN EXPOSURE
 

Understanding risk factors is an important step toward the improvement of pedestrian safety because a 

complete understanding can contribute to developing effective countermeasures. The discussion in this 

section focuses on significant factors that influence the risk of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes and 

crash-related injuries as identified in the literature. 

To perform the scalable estimate of exposure, two major levels are considered: disaggregate level 

(facility) and aggregate level (corridor, network/system, and regional). Risk factors other than exposure 

can also be divided based on these two levels. Figure 6 shows the flow chart of other risk factors. 

Figure 6. Division of Risk Factors Other Than Exposure for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes 

Understanding the exposure to risks is beneficial for safety improvement. For a systematic safety 

planning process, it is important to prioritize locations with an aim to reduce the crash risk and crash 

severity for pedestrians and bicyclists for a given countermeasure. 

Disaggregate-level characteristics have significant influence on the occurrence of pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes. Many studies investigated the association between site characteristics and both pedestrian 

exposure and pedestrian crashes. The research synthesis on disaggregate-level risk factors focuses on 

two major issues: facility condition and individual level. 

Facility condition is subdivided into three major groups: (a) feature type, (b) segment, and 

(c) intersection. Table 8 lists the facility condition risk factors and related studies. 

40
 
 

Urban or Rural Roadways 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. List of Studies on Facility Condition 

Category Risk Factors Studies 

Feature Type 

Urban/Rural 

Harkey and Zeeger, 2004; DaSilva et al., 2003; Choueiri et al., 1993; 

Mueller et al., 1988; Litman and Fitzroy, 2009; Ewing and Dumbaugh, 

2009; Ibrahim and Sayed, 2011; Tarko and Azam, 2011; Dixon et al., 2015; 

Kamyab et al., 2003; Jones and Carlson, 2003; 

Divided/Undivided Obaidat et al., 2007; 

Workzone Shaw et al., 2016; 

Posted speed Limpert, 1994; Leaf and Preusser, 1999; Litman, 2008; Peden, 2004; Renski 

et al., 1999; Abdel-aty and Keller, 2005; 

Lighting at night 

Sze and Wong, 2007; Ulfarsson et al., 2010; Sullivan and Flannagan, 2011; 

Aziz et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 1996; Klop and Khattak, 1999; Johnson 

1997; Abdel-aty, 2003; Haleem et al., 2015; Siddiqui et al., 2006; Das and 

Sun, 2015; 

Segment 

Sidewalk Knoblauch et al., 1987; Mcmahon et al., 1999; 

Bike lane Kroll and Ramey, 1977; Conway et al., 2013; 

On street parking Marshall et al., 2008; 

Shoulder width Dixon et al., 2015; Klop and Khattak, 1999; Mcmahon et al., 1999; 

Number of lanes Aziz et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2006; Poch and Mannering 1996; Spainhour 

and Wootton, 2007; Das and Sun, 2015; 

Bus Stop Miranda-Morenoetal., 2011; Ukkusuri et al., 2012; Wang and Kockelman, 

2013; Chen and Zhou, 2016; 

Intersection 

Signalization Abdel-aty and Keller, 2005; Koepsell, 2002; Zegeer et al., 2001; Lee and 

Abdel-aty 2005; Oxley et al. 1997; 

Crossings Oxley et al.,1997; Coffin and Morrall, 1995; Lassarre et al., 2007; 

Width Zajac and Ivan, 2003; 

Feature Type 

The prevalence of walking and biking is greatest in urban and urbanized areas. Most non-motorized 

crashes occur in urban areas, where concentrations of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists are higher 

than in rural areas. Approximately 80 percent of injury crashes and 65 percent of fatal crashes occur in 

urban areas due to high non-motorist activity and traffic volumes (Harkey and Zeeger, 2004; DaSilva et 

al., 2003). However, the ratio of fatal crashes to injury crashes is nearly three times greater in rural areas 

than in urban areas (Choueiri et al., 1993), which is attributed to higher speeds on rural roadways. Other 

studies also concluded that pedestrians in rural areas had higher rates of injuries and severe injuries 

than pedestrians in urban areas (Mueller et al., 1988; Litman and Fitzroy, 2009; Ewing and Dumbaugh, 

2009; Ibrahim and Sayed, 2011; Tarko and Azam, 2011). There is an abundance of studies conducted on 

urban non-motorized crashes. Since non-motorized trips are more likely to end in a crash in an urban 

location, rural non-motorized crashes have been studied less often. Dixon et al. (2015) conducted a 

study on the non-motorized crashes on rural two-lane and multilane roadways in Texas. The findings 

showed that high speeds and narrow shoulders were highly associated with fatal non-motorist crashes. 

41
 
 

 

Divided or Undivided Roadways 

 

 

 

 

Workzone 

 

 

Posted Speed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lighting 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These findings are in line with the findings from other studies (Kamyab et al., 2003; Jones and Carlson, 

2003). Another significant variable in Jones and Carlson’s (2003) study was the flow rate of heavy 

vehicles in the same direction as bicyclists. 

The type of median (divided or undivided) has an effect on the safety of non-motorized trips. It is most 

significant for intersections. It is usually easier to cross the approach on divided roads than on undivided 

roads since pedestrians or bicyclists have a shorter distance to cross prior to reaching a refuge area. 

Research has shown that divided roadways are safer than undivided roadways while crossing (Obaidat 

et al., 2007). 

In the United States, nearly 17 percent of work zone crashes involved a non‐motorized road user in the 

recent years (Shaw et al., 2016). Bryden and Andrew (1999) concluded that work zone non-motorist 

crashes accounted for 15 percent of all serious injuries and over 40 percent of all fatalities in New York 

during 1993-1997. They also showed that two-thirds of the motor vehicles involved in crashes left the 

traffic lane and entered into the work area. 

Segment 

Higher posted speed increases the probability of a pedestrian or bicyclist fatality. The findings of one 

study showed that the risk of a pedestrian crash fatality is estimated to increase from 5 percent to 

45 percent when speed increases from 20 to 30 mph; the risk increases to 85 percent when speed 

reaches 40 mph (Limpert, 1994). Similar findings are seen in other studies (Leaf and Preusser, 1999; 

Litman, 2008). While pedestrians have a 90 percent chance of surviving a crash involving a vehicle 

traveling 20 mph or below, they have less than a 50 percent chance of surviving a crash with a vehicle 

traveling 30 mph or above (Peden, 2004). Many studies concluded that reduced speeds would have 

been effective in reducing non-motorized crashes and severities (Limpert, 1994; Leaf and Preusser, 

1999; Litman, 2008; Peden, 2004; Renski et al., 1999; Abdel-Aty and Keller, 2005). The literature review 

on impact speed is described in a different section. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists have a higher probability of being in a fatal crash under poor lighting 

conditions. This finding is supported by several studies (Sze and Wong, 2007; Ulfarsson et al., 2010; 

Sullivan and Flannagan, 2011; Aziz et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 1996; Klop and Khattak, 1999; Abdel-Aty, 

2003; Haleem et al., 2015; Das and Sun 2015). The odds of a fatal injury in daylight are reduced by 

75 percent at midblock locations and 83 percent at intersections compared to dark conditions with no 

lighting. Street lighting reduces the same odds by 42 percent at midblock locations and 54 percent at 

intersections (Siddiqui et al., 2006). Klop and Khattak (1999) concluded that street lighting decreased the 

severity of injury compared to dark conditions in rural areas. Dark lighting conditions with no streetlights 

are associated with slightly higher increases in pedestrian crash severity at unsignalized intersections 

compared to signalized intersections (Haleem et al., 2015). 

Sidewalks 

Sidewalks encourage walking and improve the safety of pedestrians. Locations with no sidewalks are 

prone to pedestrian crashes. Knoblauch et al. (1987) determined that sites without sidewalks were more 

than twice as likely to be pedestrian crash prone than sites with sidewalks. The presence of a sidewalk 

42
 
 

 

Bike Lane 

 

 

 

 

On street Parking 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Lanes 

 

 

 

Bus Stops 

 

 

was found to have a particularly large safety benefit in residential and mixed residential areas. However, 

sidewalks seem less effective on pedestrian crashes in medium or larger commercial areas. McMahon et 

al. (1999) found that the likelihood of a location with a paved sidewalk being a crash site was 

88.2 percent lower than a location without a sidewalk. 

Kroll and Ramey (1977) examined the interactions between bicyclists and drivers for a bike lane by 

observing an affiliated cyclist riding on 10 streets with bicycle lanes and 10 streets without bicycle lanes. 

The results concluded that the mean separation distance between bicycles and cars was largely a 

function of the motorist’s available travel space (the distance between the bicyclist and the centerline) 

rather than the presence or absence of a bicycle lane. The results also indicated that bicycle lanes as 

narrow as 3 ft provided sufficient space for drivers to interact safely (Kroll and Ramey, 1977). Bicycle 

lane design has significant influence on bicycle crashes. Considering three types of bicycle lanes—Type 1 

(a standard bicycle lane located adjacent to a travel lane and separated from the curb by vehicle 

parking), Type 2 (a buffered bicycle lane separated from the curb by parking and from the vehicle travel 

lanes by a striped buffer), and Type 3 (a curbside bicycle lane protected by parked vehicles)—Conway et 

al. (2013) concluded that Type 3 was safer than the other two options. 

It is usually believed that on-street parking decreases the space for both drivers and non-motorized 

travelers. A study found that low-speed streets with on-street parking had the lowest fatal and severe 

injury non-motorized crash rates of any road category, suggesting that presence of parking had a 

measurable effect on vehicle speeds (Marshall et al., 2008). 

Shoulder Width 

One study found that an unpaved shoulder of 4 ft or more made a location 89 percent less likely to be a 

non-motorized crash site (McMahon et al., 1999). This finding is in line with the findings of Dixon et al. 

(2015). Another study concluded that shoulder width of any size was not statistically significant on crash 

severity compared to the absence of a shoulder (Klop and Khattak, 1999). 

The number of lanes on a road is a significant factor on the severity level of non-motorized crashes. 

Results from one study indicated that crashes on single-lane roads had a lower probability of resulting in 

a fatality. Moreover, results showed that crashes on multilane roads had a higher probability of resulting 

in a fatality (Aziz et al., 2013). This finding is consistent with the results of previous studies (Wang et al., 

2006; Poch and Mannering, 1996; Das and Sun, 2015). One study concluded that the higher the number 

of lanes that a pedestrian tried to cross before being hit, the more likely it was that the pedestrian was 

at fault (Spainhour and Wootton, 2007), partially because of the higher amount of exposure time while 

crossing. 

Several studies showed that the presence of bus stops on roadway segments is closely associated with 

higher non-motorist crash frequency (Miranda-Moreno et al., 2011; Ukkusuri et al., 2012; Wang and 

Kockelman, 2013; Chen and Zhou, 2016). Bus stops usually generate more non-motorist activities, and 

failure to provide clear distance for the non-motorists causes a higher number of crashes. 

43
 
 

 

Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection 

 

 

Crossings 

 

 

 

 

Individual Level 

Intersection 

Statistics suggest that crossing the street at the intersection is more risky than walking or biking along 

the roadways. The reason is that pedestrian exposure is higher while crossing than the walking or biking 

along the roadway. Intersections without traffic control signals and absence of cross walks are found to 

be highly correlated with fatal non-motorized crashes (Sze and Wong, 2007; Moudon, 2011). Another 

important factor in this regard is the crossing behavior of the non-motorized traveler. One study found 

that fatal crashes are strongly associated with pedestrians crossing un-signalized intersections and 

vehicles moving straight ahead on a roadway (Ulfarsson et al., 2010; Moudon, 2011). 

A study investigating the crash severities at signalized intersections found that crashes involving a 

pedestrian or a bicyclist and a motor vehicle turning left had a high probability of resulting in severe 

pedestrian or bicyclist injury (Abdel-Aty and Keller, 2005). For pedestrians on state routes, the most 

dangerous action to take was to cross these routes at unsignalized intersections, where the likelihood of 

being involved in a fatal or severe injury crash was approximately four times that of being anywhere else 

on the route. This finding supported previous research and suggested that engineering approaches to 

road design could improve the safety of pedestrians (Koepsell, 2002; Zegeer et al., 2001). Lee and AbdelAty (2005) noted that drivers tended to drive more carefully when they approached traffic signals than 

stop or yield signs in rural areas and pedestrian crashes occurred less frequently at rural signalized 

intersections. 

Crosswalk characteristics have been associated with severity of injury. For example, one study found 

that on a two-lane road, crash severity did not differ significantly for crashes occurring at marked and 

unmarked crosswalks, but on multilane roads, there was evidence of more fatal crashes at marked 

crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks (Zegeer et al., 2001). Additional analysis of the data 

revealed that the ADT level along with the presence of other traffic control devices was key to explaining 

the relationship. Another study showed that over 40 percent of pedestrian fatalities occurred in 

locations without crosswalks (Ernst, 2004). Several studies examined crossing behavior and identified 

behaviors with greater risk for different age groups; for example, older people’s slower gait increases 

the time spent crossing a road, thereby increasing exposure (Oxley et al., 1997; Coffin and Morrall, 1995; 

Lassarre et al., 2007). 

Individual level of behavior is one of the most dominant factors in pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. Risk 

factors associated with the individual level are subdivided into four major groups: (a) vehicle related, 

(b) bicycle related, (c) driver related, and (d) pedestrian/bicyclist related. Table 9 lists the studies 

focusing on the individual-level risk factors. 

44
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact Speed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. List of Studies on Individual Level Risk Factors 

Category Risk Factors Studies 

Vehicle 

related 

Impact speed Rosen et al., 2011; Tefft, 2011; 

Vehicle age Peden, 2004; Blows, 2003; 

Vehicle size Galloway and Patel, 1982; Atkins et al.,1988; Mizuno and Kajzer, 1999; 

Driver 

Age Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005 

Distraction Dimaggio and Durkin, 2002 

Gender Das and Sun, 2015 

Occupants Das and Sun, 2015 

Pedestrian / 

bicyclist 

Age Assailly 1997; Davies 1999; Vyrostek et al. 2001; Retting et al. 2003; 

Gawryszewski and Rodrigues 2006; WHO 2009; Ponnaluri and Nagar 2010; 

Green et al. 2011; Hurruff et al. 1998; Fontaine and Gourlet 1997; Rodgers 

1995; 

Child pedestrian Davies, 1999; USDOT, 2001; NCIPC, 2006; Connelly et al., 1998; Whitebread, 

2000; Agran et al., 1994; Wills et al., 1997; Macpherson et al., 1998; Howard et 

al., 2005; King and Palmisano, 1992; Laflame, 2000; Lascala et al., 2000; Rivara 

and Barber, 1986; Carlin et al., 1995; Wazana, et al. 2000; 

Gender Campbell, 2004; NCSA, 2008; Li and Baker, 1994; NHTSA, 2011; 

Intoxication Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005; Oxley et al., 2006; Spainhour et al., 2006; Clayton and 

Colgan, 2001; Miles-Doan, 1996; Öström and Eriksson, 2001; Holubowycz, 

1995; Leaf et al., 2005; 

Reflective clothing Luoma and Trauba, 1995; Owen and Sival, 1993; Tyrrell and Patton, 1998; 

Tyrrell et al., 2004a; Tyrrell et al., 2004b; 

Cell phone Hatfield, 2007; Hyman et al., 2010; Nasar et al., 2008; Stavrinos et al., 2011; 

Crossing behavior Palamarthy et al., 1994; Quddus et al., 1996; Hunter and Huang, 1995; 

Temporal effect Harkey and Zeeger, 2004; Hunter and Huang, 1995; 

Vehicle related 

It is well established that the risk of a severe or fatal non-motorized crash is significantly associated with 

the impact speed (Rosén et al., 2011). Rosén et al. (2011) reviewed a substantial number of studies on 

the relationship between crash impact speed and pedestrian fatality risk published prior to 2010. Of the 

11 studies considered for analysis, five were based on data collected prior to 1980 (including three 

different studies of the same data), and nine were biased due to overrepresentation of crashes. At lower 

speeds (like 15 mph or below), risks were low and the trend of increment was smaller with small 

increments in speed. At impact speeds below 15 mph, pedestrians (about 91 percent) did not endure 

severe injuries, and very few (about 2–5 percent) were killed. However, as speeds increased beyond this 

lower speed range, small changes in speed yielded a relatively larger increment in risk. At an impact 

speed of 25 mph, an estimated 30 percent of pedestrians sustained a severe injury, and about 

12 percent were killed. Approximately half of all pedestrians (47 percent) struck at 30 mph sustained 

severe injury, and one in five (20 percent) died. Risks for a pedestrian struck at any given speed by a light 

truck were higher than if struck at the same speed by a car. Risks were higher for an older pedestrian 

struck at any given speed than for a younger pedestrian struck at the same speed (Tefft, 2011). 

45
 
Vehicle Age 

Vehicle Size 

 

 

Driver related 

Driver Age 

 

Driver Distraction 

Driver Gender 

Number of Occupants 

 

Age 

 

 

 

 

The association between vehicle age and risk of non-motorized crashes has been investigated in a few 

studies (e.g., Peden, 2004; Blows, 2003). These studies quantify the increased risk of car crash injury 

associated with older vehicle year. 

Some studies observed that larger cars resulted in more serious pedestrian injuries (Galloway and Patel, 

1982; Atkins et al., 1988) and higher pedestrian fatality rates (Mizuno and Kajzer, 1999). The larger 

vehicles were related with more traumatic brain, thoracic, and abdominal injuries. At higher speeds, 

there was no association with size of vehicles. The study suggested that the occurrence of these injuries 

is independent of vehicle type for certain threshold speeds. Compared to conventional cars, pedestrians 

hit by sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks were more likely (with odds of 1.48) to have higher injury 

severity or be killed, with odds of 1.72 (Mizuno and Kajzer, 1999). 

One study showed that middle-age (25–64) and male drivers are more prone to be involved in nonmotorist crashes (Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005). 

One study concluded that driver distraction and associated situational factors increase the probability of 

non-motorized crashes (Dimaggio and Durkin, 2002). 

Das and Sun (2015) found that male drivers have a greater association with severe and moderate injury 

pedestrian crashes. The study also showed that female drivers are associated with a higher number of 

pedestrian crashes during inclement weather. 

Das and Sun (2015) found that drivers with multiple passengers are associated with a higher number of 

pedestrian crashes. 

Pedestrian/Bicyclist Related 

Age is a significant personal-level factor in non-motorized crashes. Children are particularly at risk in 

road traffic crashes (Assailly, 1997; Davies, 1999; Vyrostek et al., 2001; Retting et al., 2003; 

Gawryszewski and Rodrigues, 2006; WHO, 2009; Ponnaluri and Nagar, 2010). Many researchers focused 

on child pedestrians in their investigations (e.g., Green et al., 2011). Harruff et al. (1998) performed a 

retrospective analysis of 217 pedestrian traffic fatalities in Seattle, Washington. The study concluded 

that elderly pedestrians were most vulnerable because they are more likely to be injured as a pedestrian 

and are more likely to die because of their vulnerabilities. Fontaine and Gourlet (1997) concluded that 

younger and older pedestrians showed more exposure risk than other age groups. Rodgers (1995) 

determined that bicyclists over 65 years old were significantly more likely to be in fatal crashes than 

bicyclists from other age groups. 

46
 
Child Pedestrian 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender 

 

 

 

 

 

Intoxication 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reflective Clothing 

 

A range of demographic factors is associated with child pedestrian risk, such as the age of the child. 

Epidemiological influences of age are predominant among these factors. Studies showed that middle 

childhood is a time of increased risk for child pedestrian injury (Assailly, 1997; USDOT, 2001; NCIPC, 

2006). As children grow older, between the ages of 5 and 9, their pedestrian skills gradually increase 

(Connelly et al., 1998; Whitebread and Neilson, 2000). Some studies showed that children wandering 

farther from home while unsupervised accounts for the increase in the injury rate (Agran et al., 1994; 

Wills et al., 1997; Macpherson et al., 1998). Children from an ethnic minority background are at higher 

risk for pedestrian injury (Howard et al., 2005; King and Palmisano, 1992; Laflamme, 2000; LaScala et al., 

2000). This finding may be due to their homes typically being located in urban areas with greater traffic 

density and higher rates of unemployment. Pedestrian injury rates are higher in low socioeconomic 

status urban areas with higher traffic density, denser housing units, and fewer safe areas for children to 

play (Laflamme, 2000; Rivara and Barber, 1986). Exposure time studies showed increased injury rate 

odds of 2.2 for children riding bicycles for more than 3 hours per week compared to children riding less 

than 1 hour. Riding more than 5 km on the sidewalk was also associated with increased injury risk, with 

odds of 3.1 (Carlin et al., 1995). One study concluded that child pedestrian injury rates are 2.5 times 

higher on one-way than on two-way streets (Wazana et al., 2000). 

The behavior and actions of pedestrians significantly affect a crash outcome. Research suggests that 

males have a higher probability than females to be killed in a crash. Males showing higher risk behaviors 

than females (Campbell, 2004) explains why more males than females die as the outcome of a 

non-motorized crash. In 2000, the fatality rate of male pedestrians was twice that of female pedestrians 

(National Center for Statistics and Analysis [NCSA], 2008) in the United States. Based on daily trips, men 

were found to be at a slightly lower injury risk than women (Li and Baker, 1994). Recent National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2011) data show that in 2009, 549 male bicyclists were 

killed and another 41,000 were injured. This was compared to 81 female bicyclist fatalities and 10,000 

injuries. For child pedestrians, gender is also associated with risk for injury (Assailly, 1997; Howard et al., 

2005), with boys experiencing injury at a rate roughly double that of girls (NCIPC, 2006). 

Research suggests that intoxicated pedestrians are at significantly higher risk of injury (Clayton and 

Colgan, 2001). Moreover, as a non-motorist’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) increases, the 

probability of that non-motorist being involved in a fatal crash increases. Non-motorists under the 

influence of alcohol have also been shown to exhibit risky road-crossing behaviors (Lee and Abdel-Aty, 

2005; Oxley et al., 2006; Spainhour et al., 2006). One study found that 43 percent of male pedestrians 

and 21 percent of female pedestrians involved in fatal crashes had BACs at or above .08 g/dL (Leaf et al., 

2005). Miles-Doan (1996) showed that impaired pedestrians were more involved in crashes and their 

odds of dying compared to surviving were higher. Ostrom and Eriksson (2001) found that impaired 

pedestrians were more severely injured and suffered more head injuries. Some studies considered the 

mixed effect of several factors like pedestrian age, gender, and alcohol use on the risk outcomes. For 

example, Holubowycz (1995) reported that young and middle-age intoxicated males were high-risk 

non-motorist groups. 

Several studies established that wearing retroreflective materials increased recognition distance (Luoma 

et al., 1995; Owen and Sivak, 1993). Research shows that pedestrians usually overestimate their own 

47
 
 

Cell Phone 

 

 

 

Crossing Behavior 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temporal Effect 

 

 

 

Aggregate Level 

 

 

Traffic Characteristics 

 

visibility to drivers and underestimate the benefits of retro-reflective materials in dark conditions (Tyrell 

and Patton, 1998; Tyrell et al., 2004a; Tyrell et al., 2004b). 

Research has found that improper situational awareness and distracted attention levels are significant 

factors among pedestrians using mobile phones (Hatfield and Murphy, 2007; Hyman et al., 2010; Nasar 

et al., 2008; Stavrinos, 2011). Field studies (Hatfield and Murphy, 2007; Nasar et al., 2008) observed that 

pedestrians made more unsafe street crossings when conversing on a cell phone than when 

undistracted. 

Palamarthy et al. (1994) conducted a detailed study on the crossing behavior of pedestrians. Findings 

showed that 18 percent crossed during a no-walking signal and only 9 percent waited for the next 

steady walking signal. This type of behavior is associated with a higher number of pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes (Abdulsattar, 1996). A study by Hunter and Huang (1995) concluded that the most common 

bicyclist crash contributing factors were failure to yield (represented 21 percent of crashes), stop sign 

violations (represented 7.8 percent of crashes), and safe movement violations (represented 6.1 percent 

of crashes). The condition of the bicycle was found to be without defects in 91 percent of cases. 

A study by Campbell (2004) showed that the highest proportion of pedestrian crashes happened 

between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Most pedestrian fatalities tend to occur at night (Campbell, 2004; Harkey 

and Zeeger, 2004). Significant numbers of older pedestrian crashes occurred in fall and winter months, 

whereas younger pedestrian crashes occurred significantly during the spring and summer months 

(Campbell, 2004). Harkey and Zeeger (2004) determined higher clustering of pedestrian fatalities on 

weekend days. Hunter and Huang (1995) showed that more crashes involving a bicyclist occur during the 

fair-weather months of April to October and on weekdays. 

Many studies used larger spatial units (like U.S. census county, tract, block group, and block) to 

determine the key association factors in pedestrian and bicycle crashes. This level is divided into three 

groups: (a) traffic characteristics, (b) land use characteristics, and (c) demographics. 

Traffic characteristics like traffic volume and non-motorist volume are closely associated with nonmotorist crash risks. Roadways with higher traffic and non-motorist traffic increase risk exposures 

significantly. Table 10 lists the studies on traffic characteristics. 

48
 
Category Risk Factors Studies 

AADT Garder, 2004; Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005; Loukaitou-Sideris et 

al., 2007; Wier et al., 2009; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; 

Traffic volume 

Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012; Abdel-Aty et al., 2013; 

Walk and bike Dixon et al., 2015; 

trips 

Percentage of Retting, 1993; 

trucks 

AADT 

Walk and Bike Trips 

Percentage of Trucks 

Table 10. List of Studies on Traffic Characteristics 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Volume Related 

Research suggests that crash risk from a pedestrian’s perspective is more influenced by pedestrian 

volume than vehicle volume (Garder, 2004). In many places, it is problematic to determine pedestrian or 

bicyclist volume of different age groups at intersections or roadway segments. Thus, it is difficult to 

determine what proportion of the pedestrians were actually involved in crashes. Frequency of 

pedestrian crashes usually increases with traffic volume up to a certain threshold. This indicates that 

pedestrian or bicycle crashes are more likely to occur at intersections or segments with higher traffic 

volume since higher volume increases the potential conflict points between non-motorists and vehicles. 

However, it appears that the rate of increase gradually decreases as traffic volume increases after 

certain thresholds for different roadway classes (Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005; Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2007; 

Wier et al., 2009; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012; Abdel-Aty et al., 2013). 

Dixon et al. (2015) conducted research to evaluate the relationship between non-motorized trips and 

risk outcomes on rural two-lane and multi-lane roadways. The relationship between higher nonmotorized trips and crash severity outcomes was not significant at 95 percent confidence interval. 

One study found that pedestrian fatalities involving large trucks were more likely to occur at 

intersections. Results also showed that large truck fatal crashes involved pedestrians aged 60 or above, 

and other vehicle fatal crashes involved pedestrians aged 40 and above (Retting, 1993). The two most 

common crash scenarios, representing 47 percent of all crashes, involved large trucks proceeding 

forward either at intersections or segment locations. Trucks turning and striking pedestrians with the 

front of the trucks, the rear wheels, or the trailers accounted for another 24 percent, and trucks backing 

up fatally injured pedestrians in 10 percent of cases (Retting, 1993). 

Land Use Characteristics 

A wide selection of spatial units has been examined in macro-level crash modeling for non-motorized 

trips in the safety literature. This includes block group (Levine et al., 1995), TAZ (Abdel-Aty et al., 2011; 

Guevara et al., 2004; Hadayeghi et al., 2003; Hadayeghi et al., 2006; Hadayeghi et al., 2010; Ng et al., 

2002; Washington et al., 2010; Naderan and Shahi, 2010), census wards (Noland and Quddus, 2004a; 

Quddus, 2008), standard statistical regions (Noland and Quddus, 2004b), census tract (Lascala et al., 

2000; Quddus, 2008; Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2007; Wier et al., 2009; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; 

49
 
 

 

 

Socioeconomic Structure 

Crime 

 

Ethnicity 

 

 

 

 

Income 

 

Ukkusuri et al., 2011), county (Aguero-Valverde and Jovanis, 2006; Amonros et al., 2003; Huang et al., 

2010; Karlaftis and Tarko, 1998; Noland and Oh, 2004), state (Noland, 2003), local health areas (Macnab, 

2002), and grid-based structure (Kim et al., 2006). Table 11 lists the studies associated with land use 

characteristics. 

Table 11. List of Studies on Adjacent Land Use 

Category Risk Factors Studies 

Socio-economic Lascala, 2000; Wier et al., 2009; Qin and Ivan, 2001; 

Crime Bagley, 1992; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; Green et al., 2011; 

Ethnicity Rivara and Barber, 1986; Agran et al., 1998; Hilton, 2006; Sciortino 

et al., 2005; 

Land use 

Income Mueller et al., 1988; LaScala, 2000; Noland and Quddus, 2004; 

Wier et al., 2009; Agran et al., 1998; Chakravarthy et al., 2010; 

Roberts et al., 1995; Delmelle et al., 2012; Graham and Glaister, 

2003; Green et al., 2011; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; Siddiqui and 

Abdel-Aty, 2012; Abdel-Aty et al., 2013 

Neighborhood Campbell, 2004; Noland and Quddus, 2004; Clifton and KreamerFults, 2007; 

Households Mcmahon et al., 1999; Zajac and Ivan, 2003; 

Area Qin and Ivan, 2001; 

Public schools Clifton and Kreamer-Fults, 2007; 

Two studies using data from San Francisco found a relationship between socioeconomic structure and 

pedestrian crash severities of all ages (LaScala, 2000; Wier et al., 2009). Qin and Ivan (2001) concluded 

that a large number of studies recognized the indirect relationship between pedestrian crashes and 

socioeconomic factors. 

Bagley (1992) investigated the probability of sites being hazardous given socioeconomic and crime data. 

Pedestrian injuries are more dominant in areas with high measures of social disadvantage, such as crime 

and domestic violence (Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; Green et al., 2011). 

Past studies noted a relationship between economic and ethnic differences with pedestrian crash rates. 

Low income and household crowding are factors associated with greater pedestrian injuries (Rivara and 

Barbar, 1986). Other studies have linked poverty and the lack of English language fluency with 

pedestrian injuries (Agran et al., 1998). The 2006 national data showed that minorities of almost all age 

groups were more likely to be involved in a fatal non-motorist crash than the non- Hispanic white 

population (Hilton et al., 2006). Underreporting of pedestrian injuries among minorities is also cited in 

the literature and would likely increase the amount of vulnerabilities in certain ethnicities (Sciortino et 

al., 2005; Abdel-Aty et al., 2013). 

In the U.S., children from families with low income are seven times more likely to be injured than 

children from families with high income (Mueller et al. 1988). Chakravarthy et al. (2010) found that the 

percentage of the population living in low-income households was the strongest predictor of pedestrian 

injuries, with pedestrian crashes four times more likely in poor neighborhoods. This finding is repeated 

50
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Households 

 

 

 

 

Area Type 

Public Schools 

 

in a study that found that the risk of injury for children in the lowest socioeconomic stratum is more 

than twice that of children in higher socioeconomic categories (Roberts et al., 1995). These results are 

consistent with previous research that looked at pedestrian injury crashes on a smaller geographic scale 

(LaScala et al., 2000; Noland and Quddus, 2004a; Wier et al., 2009; Agran et al., 1998; Cottrill and 

Thakuriah, 2010; Green et al., 2011; Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010; Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012; AbdelAty et al., 2013). Minority populations were found to have a higher incidence of non-motorist fatalities. 

It relates to geometric factors associated with lower-income areas, such as high-speed roads. Graham 

and Glaister (2003) found evidence to support this among patterns of childhood pedestrian fatalities, 

which are strongly associated with more poor income areas. However, a study conducted by Delmelle et 

al. (2012) in Buffalo, New York, found minimal effect of income on pedestrian crashes. This study 

showed that bicycle and pedestrian crashes were related to factors like ethnicity, educational status, 

and land use. 

Neighborhood 

A study by Epperson (1995) recognized that the economic status of a neighborhood was significantly 

related to the number of pedestrian crashes. The characteristics of the area or the neighborhood had 

significant contributions as well. Severity of pedestrian crashes was found to be higher outside of urban 

zones in another study (Campbell, 2004). In standard statistical regions of the U.K., lower-income areas 

and increased per capita expenditure on alcohol were associated with severe or fatal pedestrian crashes 

(Noland and Quddus, 2004). 

McMahon et al. (1999) studied land use variables such as the percentage of single parents with children, 

percentage of housing stock built after 1980, percentage of households composed of families, and 

percentage of the unemployment rate. The study showed that the percentage of single parents with 

children and percentage of housing stock built after 1980 were significantly related to segment-related 

pedestrian crashes. Some specific areas (for example, downtown, compact residential, low-density 

commercial, and medium-density commercial areas) are more likely to experience lower pedestrian 

crash severity than other areas, like villages or low-density residential areas (Zijac and Ivan, 2003). 

Research shows that area type is significantly related to non-motorized crashes. Because campus areas 

as well as tourist zones have the greatest positive effect on pedestrian exposure, Qin and Ivan (2001) 

argued that these zones deserve additional consideration for improvements in pedestrian facilities, such 

as warning devices, speed limits, stop signs, and marked crosswalks. 

Clifton and Kreamer-Fults (2007) showed that the presence of a driveway or turning bay at a school 

entrance decreased non-motorist crashes and injury severity. On the other hand, the presence of 

recreational facilities near public schools was positively associated with a higher number of 

non-motorist crashes. 

Demographics 

Demographics influence risk intensity of non-motorists. Since land use, socio-economic status, and 

demographics are closely associated, this study used three broad groups as risk factors associated with 

demographics. These factors are: (a) population density, (b) number of licensed drivers, and (c) vehicle 

ownership. Table 12 lists the studies associated with demographics. 

51
 
Population Density 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Licensed Drivers 

 

Vehicle Ownership 

Proxy variables, Exposure, and Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 

 

 

Table 12. List of Studies on Demographics 

Category Risk Factors Studies 

Demographics 

Population 

density 

LaScala, 2000; Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2007; Chakravarthy et 

al., 2010; Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012; Abdel-aty et al., 

2013; Graham and Glaister, 2003; Greene-Roesel et al., 

2007; Miranda-Moreno, 2011; 

Number of 

licensed drivers DaSilva et al., 2003; 

Vehicle 

ownership Qin and Ivan, 2001; 

Many studies considered population density as a contributing factor (LaScala, 2000; Loukaitou-Sideris et 

al., 2007; Chakravarthy et al., 2010; Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012; Abdel-Aty et al., 2013). However, 

some studies showed that pedestrian safety analyses based on population density might distort the true 

risk values. The population variable captures the inherent likelihood of non-motorized crashes due to 

greater risk from pedestrian-vehicle interactions. At intersections, risk exposure has been found to be a 

function of pedestrian activity and traffic volume (Greene-Roesel et al., 2007; Miranda-Moreno et al., 

2011). In many cases, data on pedestrian volume were not achievable and total population was used as 

proxy of exposure. LaScala et al. (2000) conducted a spatial regression analysis of pedestrian injuries 

associated with motor vehicles in San Francisco. The results showed that pedestrian injuries were 

associated with increased traffic flow and population density (as measured per kilometer of road 

length). Areas with higher unemployment were associated with higher injury rates, whereas areas with 

more high school graduates had lower injury rates. This finding is similar to the results of Graham and 

Glaister (2003), who used an areawide deprivation score in their study. This research found that larger 

numbers of children (ages 0 to 15) in an area were associated with fewer pedestrian injuries, contrary to 

the findings of other studies. 

A study by DaSilva (2003) reported that there were about 0.38 drivers involved in pedestrian crashes per 

1,000 licensed drivers. Younger drivers (20 years or less) held the highest probability of being involved in 

a crash with pedestrians, at over 0.8 drivers per 1,000 licensed drivers. The second-highest involvement 

rate based on the licensed driver population is associated with older drivers (85 years or more), showing 

nearly six drivers involved in crashes per 10,000 licensed drivers. 

It is evident that the vehicle-owner ratio is higher in rural areas. These areas have different demographic 

factors, such as neighborhood environment, household median income, and unemployment, compared 

to urban environments. Thus, Qin and Ivan’s (2001) study suggested the necessity of considering an 

urban setting and rural setting separately. 

This chapter provides a summarized view on the studies focusing on pedestrian and bicyclist risk factors 

other than exposure. Interested reader can consult other studies providing systematic synthesis on 

52
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disaggregate Level 

 

 

 

 

pedestrian and bicyclist risk factors (Karsch et al., 2012; PEDSAFE, 2013; BIKESAFE, 2014;). It is important 

to note that NCHRP Report 803 described most of these risk factors (for example, population density, 

employment density, transit stop density, presence of sidewalk, socioeconomic characteristics) as 

demand proxy variables (Lagerwey et al., 2015). Moreover, findings from most of these studies indicate 

association, not causation, between these risk factors and crash outcomes. In many of these studies 

described in this chapter, risk factors were associated with pedestrian/bicyclist crashes without 

considering exposure into account. There is a small body of research literature that examined the link 

between pedestrian/bicyclist injury counts and both vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle flows at intersection 

locations. Zegeer et al. (1985) conducted study on pedestrian crashes at 1,297 signalized intersections in 

15 cities. The findings showed that the volume of pedestrians crossing at an intersection was the most 

influential variable in explaining the variation in pedestrian crashes. This study also showed that vehicle 

volume was the second most important factor in explaining pedestrian crashes. Similar findings were 

found in other studies (Brude and Larsson, 1993; Lyon and Persaud, 2002; Zegeer et al., 2005;). Leden 

(2002) compared pedestrian crashes associated with left-turning traffic with pedestrian crashes with 

right-turning traffic. The results showed that left-turn volume was highly associated with a larger 

increase in pedestrian crashes compared to right-turn volume. Schneider et al. (2011) used vehicle and 

pedestrian volume data from 81 intersections. The results from negative binomial regression model 

showed that significantly more pedestrian crashes occurred at intersections with more right-turn-only 

lanes, more nonresidential driveways within 50 ft, more commercial properties within 0.1 mi, and a 

greater percentage of younger (< 18 years old) residents within 0.25 mi. Miranda-Moreno et al. (2011) 

used disaggregate vehicle and cyclist flows to develop cyclist injury frequency models. The findings 

showed that a 10% increase in bicycle flow was associated with a 4.4% increase in the frequency of 

cyclist injuries and a 10% increase in vehicle flow would result in a 3.4% increase in cyclist injury 

occurrence. 

Summary and Conclusions 

This chapter summarizes the state-of-the-art research synthesis on pedestrian and bicyclist risk factors 

other than exposure. The risk factors are explained based on two large categories: a) disaggregate level 

risk factors, and b) aggregate level risk factors. Table 13 and Table 14 show influence of the risk factors 

of non-motorist crashes by using selected number of major studies. An upper arrow (⇑) sign indicates 

that the corresponding factor is associated with higher number of non-motorized crashes and a down 

arrow (⇓) sign indicates that the factor is negatively associated with non-motorized crash frequencies. 

Disaggregate-level risk factors mainly associate facility condition and individual level. Facility condition 

considers risk factors associated with feature type (e.g., urban/rural, divided/undivided), segment, and 

intersection. Non-motorized trips are more likely to end in a crash in an urban location, but the ratio of 

fatal crash to injury crash is higher in rural locations. Many studies showed that posted higher speeds on 

roadway segments are closely associated with higher pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. Moreover, no 

lighting at dark, absence of sidewalks or bike lanes, and presence of bus stops are significant risk factors 

for roadway segments. On intersections, the key risk factors are wider crossings and unsignalized 

conditions. The individual level indicates risk factors involved with an individual unit or person. The 

significant risk factors are characteristics of drivers (e.g., age, distraction), characteristics of 

pedestrians/bicyclists (e.g., age, impairment, cell phone use), and properties of vehicles/bicycles (e.g., 

speed, lighting). These factors can contribute to determining direct measures of crash involvement and 

crash severity. For example, an intersection with a wider crosswalk is a crash-prone location for older 

pedestrians. This finding may be attributed to both exposure time and direct measurement of crashes. 

53
 
 

Aggregate Level 

 

 

 

 

 

For safety improvement, the reduction of the length of crosswalks is helpful because it decreases the 

exposure time that an older pedestrian needs to cross the road. 

Many studies examined a wide selection of spatial units in aggregate-level analyses. This includes 

census block, block group, tract, county, state, TAZ standard statistical regions, and grid-based structure. 

In this research synthesis, aggregate-level risk factors are divided into three properties: traffic condition, 

land use characteristics, and demographics. Traffic condition involves risk factors like motorized and 

non-motorized traffic volume for different spatial units. Risk factors associated with land use 

characteristics involve income level, household size, percentage of minorities, etc. Many studies showed 

that specific socioeconomic structures (e.g., poor neighborhood, higher density of minority households) 

are closely associated with higher crash risks for non-motorists. Demographics include broader spatial 

characteristics like population density, number of licensed drivers, etc. Analyzing risk factors at the 

aggregate level usually directs the focus toward a systematic safety investigation. For example, a higher 

number of public schools in a census block group is likely to increase crashes or crash severities. To 

improve safety for a larger spatial unit, the authority needs to consider a wider variety of 

countermeasures in determining a systematic approach to safety. 

54
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Impact of the Risk Factors at Disaggregate Level 

Variables 

Abdel-Aty and Keller, 2005Aziz et al., 2013Conway et al., 2013Das and Sun, 2015;Dixon et al., 2015Howard et al. 2005Knoblauch et al., 1987LaScala et al., 2000Leaf et al., 2005Lee and Abdel-Aty, 2005Mcmahon et al., 1999;Nasar et al., 2008Peden, 2004Ponnaluri and Nagar, 2010Retting et al., 2003Shaw et al., 2016Spainhour and Wootton, 2007Tefft, 2011Tyrrell et al., 2004Zegeer et al., 2001 

Facility Condition 

Urban roadways - ⇑ - - ⇑ - - - - - ⇑ - - - - - -

Work zone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - - -

Roadway 

Segment 

Higher speed ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - -

No lighting at 

night - ⇑ - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No sidewalks - - ⇑ - - - ⇑ - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - -

No Bike Lanes - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Narrow shoulders - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of lanes - ⇑ - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - -

Intersection 

Unsignalized ⇑ - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - ⇑

Wider crosswalks - - - - - - ⇑ - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - ⇑

Vehicle 

Impact speed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - -

Older vehicles - - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - -

Driver 

Age - - - - - - - - - ⇓ - - - - - - - - - -

Number of 

occupants - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Non-motorist 

Age - - - - - - - - - - - - - ⇓ ⇓ - - - - -

Child pedestrian - - - - - ⇑ - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - - -

Intoxication - - - - - - - - ⇑ ⇑ - - - - - - - - - -

No retroreflective 

wearing 

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

⇑

-

Cell phone - - - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - -

Notes:⇑ : Increase in risk, ⇓ : Decrease in risk, - : Not considered 

55
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Impact of the Risk Factors at Aggregate Level 

Variables 

Abdel-Aty et al., 2013Chakravarthy 2011Cottrill and Thakuriah, 2010DaSilva et al., 2003Dixon et al., 2015Green et al. (2011)LaScala et al., 2000Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2007Noland and Quddus, 2004Retting, 1993Siddiqui and Abdel-Aty, 2012Ukkusuri et al., 2011Wier et al., 2009 

Traffic and Transportation 

Traffic Volume ⇑ - ⇑ - - - ⇑ ⇑ - - ⇑ - ⇑

Walk and bike trips - - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - -

Percentage of trucks - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - - -

Land use 

Crime - - ⇑ - - ⇑ - - - - - - -

Low income ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ - - - - - - - ⇑ - ⇑

Minority ⇑ - - - - ⇑ - ⇑ - - ⇑ ⇑ -

Non-English speaker - ⇑ - - - - - - - - - - -

Alcohol Availability - - - - - - ⇑ - ⇑ - - - -

Housing density ⇑ - - - - - - - - - ⇑ - -

Public Schools - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - ⇑ -

Demographics 

Population density ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ - - - ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ - ⇑ ⇑ -

Number of licensed drivers - - - ⇑ - - - - - - - - -

Notes:⇑ : Increase in risk, ⇓ : Decrease in risk, - : Not considered 

56
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inconsistent Areawide Exposure Measures Despite Similar Travel Survey Data 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS
 

The project team reviewed over 280 research reports, journal articles, and other technical documents 

on risk and exposure, and in particular, pedestrian and bicyclist risk and exposure. The findings of this 

review were summarized in Chapters 2 through 5: 

•	 Chapter 2 summarized foundational definitions and concepts for risk and exposure in the 

context of pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis. 

•	 Chapter 3 summarized the use of exposure measures at areawide levels (i.e., network/system 

and regional), and described the data sources and methods that could be used for exposure 

measures at these more aggregate analysis levels. 

•	 Chapter 4 summarized the use of exposure measures on specific transportation facilities (i.e., 

street crossings and segments), and described the data sources and methods that could be used 

for exposure measures at these more granular analysis levels. 

•	 Finally, Chapter 5 summarized the wide variety of risk factors (other than exposure) that can 

affect pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

This chapter provides overall conclusions based on the findings summarized in the previous chapters. 

Importance of Geographic Scale in Exposure Analysis 

Chapter 2 noted the importance of geographic scale in estimating exposure. In this report, exposure 

scale was defined as the most granular geographic level for which an exposure measure is desired. For 

example, is an exposure measure sought for a selected number of individual street crossings? Is an 

exposure measure sought for certain roadway segments? Or is an exposure measure sought for a 

defined areawide geography, such as TAZs, Census tracts, or Census block groups? 

The exposure scale will likely influence how the theoretical definition of exposure can be 

operationalized in a practical way, since exposure data cannot be collected on all pedestrian, bicyclist, 

and motor vehicle movements at all locations at all times. Therefore, the exposure scale will determine 

what data source and methods are practical and feasible, and what exposure measures can be readily 

estimated or calculated from these data sources and methods. 

Future methodological development in this project could benefit from the use of clear, unambiguous 

terms for various scales. The U.S. Census provides standardized terms and definitions for several 

different areawide geography scales. Similarly, the HCM provides terms and definitions for various 

scales of roadway system elements. To encourage widespread consistency and adoption by 

practitioners, existing terms and definitions should be drawn from widely used manuals, guidebooks, or 

references. 

The units used in areawide exposure measures varied widely, despite many analyses using the same two 

national travel surveys (i.e., ACS and NHTS) as their base data source. Many analyses used the number 

of pedestrian and/or bicyclist trips. However, some analyses focused on only journey-to-work trips 

(directly from ACS data), whereas other analyses included total trips (from NHTS data or combining ACS 

57
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps 

 

 

 

and NHTS data). In other analyses, the pedestrian and bicyclist trips were converted to pedestrian and 

bicyclist miles of travel using estimated trip length data. 

If areawide exposure measures use the same base travel survey data, one might expect an emerging 

consensus on the best approach for using the same or similar trip data to calculate areawide exposure 

measures. The number of pedestrian and bicyclist trips was a common exposure measure (see Table 1 in 

Chapter 3), but even with this measure, some analyses reported only on work trips whereas some 

reported on all trips. Even if consensus on a single areawide exposure measure cannot be achieved, 

future methodological development in this project should focus on identifying a few good measures that 

are designated as a best practice for estimating areawide exposure. 

Use of Counts in Combination with Models to Estimate Facility-Specific 

Exposure 

One of the most common approaches to estimate facility-specific exposure has been to combine 

pedestrian and bicyclist counts with estimation models, such that exposure can be estimated for all 

facilities within a defined geographic area (typically citywide). Even though many cities are now directly 

collecting pedestrian and bicyclist count data on an annual basis for multiple purposes, these counts are 

collected at a very limited number of locations. Therefore, estimation models must be used to estimate 

counts (and exposure) for all the remaining locations where pedestrians and bicyclists cannot be directly 

counted. 

Direct demand models have been the most widely used models for facility-specific exposure estimation 

so far, and typically use regression analysis to relate directly measured counts to other measured 

attributes of the adjacent environment (e.g., land use and form, street type, etc.). Assuming that these 

measured attributes are available citywide, the regression model allows one to extend the sample of 

facility-specific counts to all facilities citywide. Aside from direct demand models, there are many 

estimation models in use, including regional travel demand models, GIS-based accessibility models, 

network analysis models, and simulation-based traffic models. 

Given the wide variety of estimation models in place, it will be difficult to single out a single best 

practice for future methodological development in this project. This project could focus on providing 

additional guidance on the most common estimation model, the direct demand model, while still 

acknowledging and providing high-level details on other estimation model approaches. 

Similar to areawide exposure measures, the units used in facility-specific exposure measures varied 

widely. This is also despite the fact that direct measurement and estimation models both produce the 

same basic data item: counts of pedestrians and/or bicyclists at a point or along a street segment for a 

defined time interval. As with areawide exposure measures, it may be difficult to achieve consensus on a 

single facility-specific exposure measure. However, there would be value in defining a few good 

measures that are designated as a best practice for estimating facility-specific exposure. 

Based on the findings and conclusions in this Task 3 report, the TTI-led project team will develop a 

conceptual framework and design for risk exposure estimation at several different geographic scales 

(Task 4.A. of this project). The conceptual framework will be based on best practices as identified in this 

58
 
 

report, as well as other practices and processes that may be in development (such as those from NCHRP 

17-73, Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analyses). The first draft of the conceptual framework will be 

available for review in May 2017. 

59
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 

Abasahl, F. (2013). Spatial Factors Impacting Non-Motorized Exposures and Crash Risks. Master’s Thesis. 

Western Michigan University. June 2013. 

Abdel-Aty, M. (2003). Analysis of driver injury severity levels at multiple locations using ordered probit 

models. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 597–603. 

Abdel-Aty, M., and J. Keller. (2005). Exploring the overall and specific crash severity levels at signalized 

intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 417–425. 

Abdel-Aty, M., C. Siddiqui, H. Huang, and X. Wang. (2011) Integrating Trip and Roadway Characteristics 

to Manage Safety in Traffic Analysis Zones. Transportation Research Record 2213. pp. 20–28. 

Abdel-Aty, M., J. Lee, C. Siddiqui, and K. Choi. (2013). Geographical unit based analysis in the context of 

transportation safety planning. Transportation Research Part A. Vol. 49, pp. 62–75. 

Abdelghany, A., Adbelghany, K., Mahmassani, H.S., and Al-Zharani, A. (2012). Dynamic Simulation 

Assignment Model for Pedestrian Movements in Crowded Networks. Transportation Research 

Record 2316. pp. 95–105. 

Agran PF, Winn DG, Anderson CL, Del Valle C. (1998). Family, social, and cultural factors in pedestrian 

injuries among Hispanic children. Injury Prevention, Vol. 4, pp. 188–193. 

Agran, P. F., D.G. Winn, & C. L. Anderson. (1994). Differences in child pedestrian injury events by 

location. Pediatrics. Vol. 93, pp.284–288. 

Aguero-Valverde, J., and P. P. Jovanis. (2006). Spatial analysis of fatal and injury crashes in Pennsylvania. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 618–625. 

Alliance for Biking and Walking. (2016). Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2016 Benchmarking 

Report, http://www.bikewalkalliance.org/resources/benchmarking. 

Alluri, P., Haleem, K., Gan, A., Lavasani, M., and Saha, D. (2015). Comprehensive Study to Reduce 

Pedestrian Crashes in Florida. Prepared for the State of Florida Department of Transportation. Final 

Report, Contract No. BDK80-977-32. 

Alta Planning & Design and Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2009a). National Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Documentation Project DESCRIPTION. Available 

at http://bikepeddocumentation.org/application/files/2014/6671/8017/NBPD_Description_2009.p 

df. 

Alta Planning & Design and Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2009b). National Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Documentation Project Fact Sheet and Status Report. Available 

at http://bikepeddocumentation.org/application/files/8214/6671/7629/NBPD_Fact_Sheet__Status 

_Feb_09.pdf 

Amoros, E., J. Martin, and B. Laumon. (2003). Comparison of road crashes incidence and severity 

between some French counties. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 537–547. 

An, M. and Chen, M. (2007). Estimating Nonmotorized Travel Demand. Transportation Research Record 

2002. pp. 18-25. 

Assailly, J. (1997). Characterization and prevention of child pedestrian accidents: An overview. Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 257–262. 

Atkins, R. M., W. H. Turner, R. B. Duthie, and B. R. Wilde. (1988). Injuries to pedestrians in road traffic 

accidents. BMJ. Vol. 297, No. 6661, pp. 1431–1434. 

Aziz, H. A., S. V. Ukkusuri, and S. Hasan. Exploring the determinants of pedestrian–vehicle crash severity 

in New York City. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 1298–1309. 

Bagley, C. (1992). The urban setting of juvenile pedestrian injuries: A study of behavioural ecology and 

social disadvantage. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 

60
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barnes, G. and Krizek, K.J. (2005). Estimating Bicycling Demand. Transportation Research Record 1939. 

pp. 45–51. 

Blaizot, S., Papon, F., Haddak, M. M., and Amoros, E. (2013). Injury Incidence Rates of Cyclists compared 

to Pedestrians, Car Occupants and Powered Two-Wheeler Riders, Using a Medical Registry and 

Mobility data, Rhône County, France. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 58, pp. 35-45. 

Blanc, B., Johnson, P., Figliozzi, M., Monsere, C., and Nordback, K. (2015). Leveraging Signal 

Infrastructure for Nonmotorized Counts in a Statewide Program: Pilot Study. Transportation 

Research Record 2527. pp. 69-79. 

Blows, S. (2003). Vehicle year and the risk of car crash injury. Injury Prevention. Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 353– 

356. 

Bly, P., Dix, M., Stephenson, C. (1999). Comparative Study of European Child Pedestrian Exposure and 

Accidents. MVA Limited, The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 

Bradley, J.R., Holan, S.H., and Wikle, C.K. (2016). Multivariate Spatio-Temporal Survey Fusion with 

Application to the American Community Survey and Local Area Unemployment Statistics. STAT, 5: 

pp. 224 - 233. 

Brude, U., and J. Larsson (1993). Models for Predicting Accidents at Junctions where Pedestrians and 

Cyclists are Involved. How well do they fit? Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 25(5), pp. 499­

509. 

Bryden, J. E., & Andrew, L. B. (1999). Serious and fatal injuries to workers on highway construction 

projects. Transportation Research Record 1657. pp. 42-47. 

Cameron, M.H. (1982). A Method of Measuring Exposure to Pedestrian Accident Risk. Accident Analysis 

and Prevention. Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 397–405. 

Cameron, M.H., Milne, P.W. (1979). Pedestrian Exposure and Risk in New South Wales. Joint ARRB/DOT 

Pedestrian Conference. 

Campbell, B. J. A review of pedestrian safety research in the United States and abroad. Federal Highway 

Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA, 2004. 

Campbell, K.L. (2012). The SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study: Addressing driver performance and 

behavior in traffic safety. TR News 282, 30-35. 

Carlin, J. B., P. Taylor, and T. Nolan. (1995). A case-control study of child bicycle injuries: relationship of 

risk to exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 839–844. 

Chakravarthy, B., C. L. Anderson, J. Ludlow, S. Lotfipour, and F. E. Vaca. (2010). The Relationship of 

Pedestrian Injuries to Socioeconomic Characteristics in a Large Southern California County. Traffic 

Injury Prevention. Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 508–513. 

Chapman, R. (1973). The concept of exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 5, pp. 95–110. 

Chen, P., and Zhou, Z. (2016) Effects of the built environment on automobile-involved pedestrian crash 

frequency and risk. Journal of Transport and Health. 

Choueiri, E. M., R. Lamm, G. M. Choueiri, and B. M. Choueiri. (1993). Pedestrian Accidents: A 15-Year 

Survey from the United States and Western Europe. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. 

pp. 36–42. 

Chu, X. (2003). The Fatality Risk of Walking in America: A Time-Based Comparative Approach, 

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Walking in the 21st Century, Portland, OR. 

Chu, X. (2009). Measuring Injury Risks from Motor Vehicle Crashes with an Integrated Approach. Journal 

of Transportation Safety & Security. Vol., 1, No. 3, pp. 190-202. 

Clayton, A., and M. Colgan. (2001). Alcohol and Pedestrians— A Final Report to Road Safety Division. 

Road Safety Research Report No. 20. London, UK: Department of the Environment, Transport and 

the Regions. 

61
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clifton, K. J., and K. Kreamer-Fults. (2007). An examination of the environmental attributes associated 

with pedestrian–vehicular crashes near public schools. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 39, 

No. 4, pp. 708–715. 

Clifton, K. J., and Krizek, K. J. (2004). The utility of the NHTS in understanding bicycle and pedestrian 

travel. Presented at the National Household Travel Survey Conference: understanding our nation’s 

travel. 

Clifton, K.J., Burnier, C.V., Schneider, R., Huang, S., Kang, M.W. (2008). Pedestrian Demand Model for 

Evaluating Pedestrian Risk Exposure. Report prepared for the Maryland State Highway 

Administration, Office of Traffic and Safety. 

Coffin, A., and Morrall, J. (1995). Walking speeds of elderly pedestrians at crosswalks. Transportation 

Research Record 1487. pp. 63–67. 

Connelly, M. L., H. M. Conaglen, B. S. Parsonson, and R. B. Isler. (1998) Child pedestrians' crossing gap 

thresholds. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 443–453. 

Conway, A., J. Cheng, D. Peters, and N. Lownes. (2013). Characteristics of Multimodal Conflicts in Urban 

On-Street Bicycle Lanes. Transportation Research Record 2387. pp. 93–101. 

Cottrill, C. D., and P. V. (2010). Thakuriah. Evaluating pedestrian crashes in areas with high low-income 

or minority populations. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1718–1728. 

Dai, B., Lee, R., Sener, I.N. (2014). Summary of Travel Trends in Austin District: 2009 National Household 

Travel Survey. Prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation- Austin District. 

Dalal, N., and Triggs, B. (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Computer 

vision and pattern recognition. IEEE computer society conference. Vol. 1, pp. 886-893. 

Das, S., and X. Sun. (2015). Factor Association with Multiple Correspondence Analysis in Vehicle– 

Pedestrian Crashes. Transportation Research Record 2519. pp. 95–103. 

DaSilva, M. P., Smith, J. D., & Najm, W. G. (2003). Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes. (Report No. DOT HS 

809 585). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Davies, D. G. (1999). Research, development and implementation of pedestrian safety facilities in the 

United Kingdom. The Administration, Washington, DC. 

Day, C.M., Premachandra, H., and Bullock, D.M.. Rate of Pedestrian Signal Phase Actuation as a Proxy 

Measurement of Pedestrian Demand. TRB 2016 Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 

Dellinger, A.M., Langlois, J.A., Li, G. (2002). Fatal crashes among older drivers: Decomposition of rates 

into contributing factors. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 155, No. 3, pp. 234-241. 

Delmelle, E. C., J. C. Thill, and H. H. Ha. (2012). Spatial Epidemiologic Analysis of Relative Collision Risk 

Factors among Urban Bicyclists and Pedestrians. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 433–48. 

Dimaggio, C., and M. Durkin. (2002). Child Pedestrian Injury in an Urban Setting Descriptive 

Epidemiology. Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 54–62. 

Dimaggio, C., Brady, J., Li., G. (2015). Association of the Safe Routes to School program with school-age 

pedestrian and bicyclist injury risk in Texas. Injury Epidemiology. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-8. 

Dixon, K., K. Fitzpatrick, R. Avelar, and S. Das. (2015). Analysis of the Shoulder Widening need on the 

State Highway System. TxDOT Report: FHWA/TX-15/0-6840-1. 

DKS Associates, University of California, Irvine, University of California Santa Barbara, and Utah State 

University. (2007). Assessment of Local Models and Tools for Analyzing Smart-Growth Strategies. 

Final Report, Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. 

Dozza, M., Werneke, J. and Fernandez, A. (2012). Piloting the naturalistic methodology on bicycles. 

Proceeding, International Cycling Safety Conference. Helmond, The Netherlands. November 7-8. 

Du, E.Y., Yang, K., Jiang, P., Tian, R., Luzetski, M., Chen, Y., Sherony, R. & Takahashi, H. (2013). 

Pedestrian behavior analysis using 110-car naturalistic driving data in USA. 23rd International 

Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (p. 27-30). 

62
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. 

(2006). http://durhamnc.gov/1012/Comprehensive-Bicycle-Transportation-Pla (retrieved 

10.27.2016). 

Edwards, S., Ivey, S. S., Lipinski, M., Golias, M. M. (2012). Bicycle and Pedestrian Studies Based on Data 

from National Household Travel Survey. Transportation Research Record 2299. pp. 150-156. 

Elvik, R. (2015). Some implications of an event-based definition of exposure to the risk of road accident. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 76, pp. 15–24. 

Epperson, B. (1995). Demographic and Economic Characteristics of Bicyclists Involved in Bicycle-Motor 

Vehicle Accidents. Transportation Research Record 1502. pp. 58–64. 

Ernst, M. (2004). Mean Streets 2004 – How Far Have We Come? Pedestrian Safety, 1994-2003. Surface 

Transportation Policy Project, Report No. HS-043-734. 

Ewing, R., and E. Dumbaugh. (2009). The Built Environment and Traffic Safety: A Review of Empirical 

Evidence. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 347–367. 

Federal Highway Administration. (2013). Traffic Monitoring Guide. Report No. FHWA-PL-13-015. 

Available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/. 

Federal Highway Administration. (2016). FHWA New Non-Motorized Travel Analysis Toolkit. Available 

at http://catsip.berkeley.edu/news/fhwa-new-non-motorized-travel-analysis-toolkit. 

Fehr & Peers. (2010). Santa Monica Bicycle and Pedestrian Model Development Report. For City of Santa 

Monica. 

Fontaine, H., and Y. Gourlet. (1997). Fatal pedestrian accidents in France: A typological analysis. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 303–312. 

Gallagher, A., and Chen, T. (2009) Understanding images of groups of people. In Proc. CVPR. 

Gallop, C., Tse, C., and Zhao, J. (2011). A Seasonal Autoregressive Model of Vancouver Bicycle Traffic 

Using Weather Variables. I-Manager’s Journal on Civil Engineering, 1(4), 9–18. 

Galloway, D., and A. Patel. (1982). The pedestrian problem: a 12-month review of pedestrian accidents. 

Injury, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 294–298. 

Garder, P.E., (2004). The impact of speed and other variables on pedestrian safety in Maine. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 36, pp. 533–542. 

Gawryszewski, V. P., and E. M. S. Rodrigues. (2006). The burden of injury in Brazil, 2003. Sao Paulo Med. 

J. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, Vol. 124, No. 4. 

Goodwin, P.B. and Hutchinson, T.P. (1977). The Risk of Walking. Transportation. Vol. 6, pp. 217-230. 

Gordis, L. (2014). Epidemiology (5th Edition). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders. 

Graham, D. J., and S. Glaister. (2003). Spatial Variation in Road Pedestrian Casualties: The Role of Urban 

Scale, Density, and Land Use Mix. Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 1591–1607. 

Green, J., H. Muir, and M. Maher. (2011). Child pedestrian casualties and deprivation. Accident Analysis 

and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 714–723. 

Greene-Roesel, R., Diogenes, M.C., Ragland, D.R. (2007). Estimating Pedestrian Accident Exposure: 

Protocol Report. (In Estimating Pedestrian Accident Exposure: Final Report, California PATH 

Research Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2010-32, Final Report for Task Orders 5211/6211). 

Griffin, G.P. and J. Jiao. (2016) Crowdsourcing Bicycle Volumes: Exploring the Role of Volunteered 

Geographic Information and Established Monitoring Methods. Journal of the Urban & Regional 

Information Systems Association, Vol. 27, No. 1. 

Griswold, J., Medury, A., and Schneider, R. (2011). Pilot Models for Estimating Bicycle Intersection 

Volumes. Transportation Research Record 2247. pp. 1–7. 

Guevara, F. L. D., S. (2004). Washington, and J. Oh. Forecasting Crashes at the Planning Level: 

Simultaneous Negative Binomial Crash Model Applied in Tucson, Arizona. Transportation Research 

Record 1897. pp. 191–199. 

63
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gustafsson, L. and Archer, J. (2013). A naturalistic study of commuter cyclists in the greater Stockholm 

area. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 58, pp. 286-298. 

Hadayeghi, A., A. S. Shalaby, and B. N. Persaud. (2010). Development of planning level transportation 

safety tools using Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 

Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 676–688. 

Hadayeghi, A., A. S. Shalaby, B. N. Persaud, and C. Cheung. (2006). Temporal transferability and updating 

of zonal level accident prediction models. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 579– 

589. 

Hadayeghi, A., A. Shalaby, and B. (2003). Persaud. Macrolevel Accident Prediction Models for Evaluating 

Safety of Urban Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record 1840. pp. 87–95. 

Hadayeghi, A., A. Shalaby, and B. Persaud. (2010). Development of Planning-Level Transportation Safety 

Models using Full Bayesian Semiparametric Additive Techniques. Journal of Transportation Safety & 

Security. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45–68. 

Haleem, K., P. Alluri, and A. Gan. (2015) Analyzing pedestrian crash injury severity at signalized and nonsignalized locations. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 81, pp. 14–23. 

Hankey, S. and Lindsey, G. (2016). Facility-Demand Models of Peak-period Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Traffic : A Comparison of Fully-specified and Reduced-form Models. TRB 2016 Annual Meeting 

Compendium of Papers. 

Hankey, S., Lindsey, G., Wang, X., Borah, J., Hoff, K., Utecht, B. and, Xu, Z. (2012). Estimating Use of Nonmotorized Infrastructure: Models of Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic in Minneapolis, MN. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. Vol. 107, Issue 3, pp. 307-316. 

Harkey, D. L., & Zeeger, C. V. (2004). PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection 

System, Final Report 2001-2004. (Report No. FHWA-SA-04-003). Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Harruff, R. C., A. Avery, and A. S. Alter-Pandya. (1998). Analysis of circumstances and injuries in 217 

pedestrian traffic fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 11–20. 

Harwood, D., Torbic, D., Gilmore, D., Bokenkroger, C., Dunn, J., Zegeer, C., Srinivasan, R., Carter, D., 

Raborn, C., Lyon, C., and Persaud, B. (2008). Pedestrian Safety Prediction Methodology, Final Report 

for National Highway Cooperative Research Program Project 17-28. 

Harwood, D.W., Gilmore, D.,K., Bauer, K.M., Souleyrette, R., Hans, Z.N. (2010). United States Road 

Assessment Program: Pilot Program/Phase III. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. MRI Project No. 

310537.1.021. 

Hatfield, J., Murphy, S. (2007). The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at 

signalized and unsignalised intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 39, pp. 197–205. 

Hauer, E. (1982). Traffic conflicts and exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 

359–364. 

Hauer, E. (1995). On exposure and accident rate. Traffic Engineering + Control. Volume 36, pp. 134–138. 

Hemenway, D., T. Christoffe, and S. S. Gallagher. (2000). Injury Prevention and Public Health: Practical 

Knowledge, Skills, and Strategies. Journal of Public Health Policy. Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 102. 

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 

Hilton J. (2006). Race and Ethnicity Factors in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 1999–2004. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Holubowycz, O. T. (1995). Age, sex, and blood alcohol concentration of killed and injured pedestrians. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 417–422. 

Hong, J., Shankar, V.N. and Venkataraman, N. (2016). A Spatially Autoregressive and Heteroskedastic 

Space-time Pedestrian Exposure Modeling Framework with Spatial Lags and Endogenous Network 

Topologies. Analytic Methods in Accident Research. Vol. 10, pp. 26–46. 

64
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Howard, I., J. G. Joseph, & J. E. Natale. (2005). Pediatric traumatic brain injury: Do racial/ethnic 

disparities exist in brain injury severity, mortality, or medical disposition? Ethnicity and Disease, Vol. 

15, pp. 51–56. 

Huang, H., M. Abdel-Aty, and A. Darwiche. (2010). County-Level Crash Risk Analysis in Florida. 

Transportation Research Record 2148. pp. 27–37. 

Hunter, W. W., & Huang, H. F. (1995). User counts on bicycle lanes and multiuse trails in the United 

States. Transportation Research Record 1502. pp. 45-57. 

Hunter, W., J. Stutts, W. Pein, and C. Cox. (1996). Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990’s. 

Publication FHWA-RD-95-163. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Hyman, I.E., Boss, S.M., Wise, B.M., McKenzie, K.E., Caggiano, J.M., (2010). Did you see the unicycling 

clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive 

Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 597–607. 

Ibrahim, S. E.-B., and T. Sayed. (2011). Developing safety performance functions incorporating reliabilitybased risk measures. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 2153–2159. 

Jacobsen, P. (2003). Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury 

Prevention, Vol. 9, pp. 205–209. 

Jahangiri, A., Rakha, H.A. and Dingus, T.A. (2015). Developing a system architecture for cyclist violation 

prediction models incorporating naturalistic cycling data. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 5543-5550. 

Johnson, C. (1997) Pedestrian Fatalities on Interstate Highways: Characteristics and Countermeasures. 

Transportation Research Record 1578. pp. 23–29. 

Johnson, M., Charlton, J. and Oxley, J. (2008). Cyclists and red lights—a study of the behaviour of 

commuter cyclist in Melbourne. In proceedings of 2008 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing 

and Education Conference (p. 519-524). Adelaide, South Australia. November. 

Johnson, M., Charlton, J., Oxley, J., and Newstead, S. (2010). Annals of Advances in Automotive 

Medicine, 54, 275-283. 

Jones, E., and T. Carlson. (2003). Development of Bicycle Compatibility Index for Rural Roads in 

Nebraska. Transportation Research Record 1828. pp. 124-132. 

Jones, M. G, Ryan, S., Donlon, J., Ledbetter, L., Ragland, D.R., and Arnold, L. (2010). Seamless Travel: 

Measuring Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity in San Diego County and its Relationship to Land Use, 

Transportation, Safety and Facility Type. Report No. UCB-ITS-PRR-2010-12, Final Report for Task 

Order 6117. 

Kamyab, A., S. Andrle, D. Kroeger, and D. Heyer. (2003). Methods to Reduce Traffic Speed in HighPedestrian Rural Areas. Transportation Research Record 1828. pp. 31-37. 

Karlaftis, M. G., and A. P. Tarko. (1998). Heterogeneity considerations in accident modeling. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 425–433. 

Karsch, H., Hedlund, J., Tison, J., and Leaf, W. (2012). Review of Studies on Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety, 1991-2007. NHTSA. 

Keall, M.D. (1995). Pedestrian Exposure to Risk of Road Accident in New Zealand. Accident Analysis and 

Prevention. Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 729–740. 

Kerr, Z.Y., Rodriguez, D.A., Evenson, K.R., Aytur, S.A. (2013). Pedestrian and bicycle plans and the 

incidence of crash-related injuries. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 50, pp. 1252-1258. 

Kim, K., I. Brunner, and E. Yamashita. (2006). Influence of Land Use, Population, Employment, and 

Economic Activity on Accidents. Transportation Research Record 1953. pp. 56–64. 

King, W. D., and P. A. Palmisano. (1992). Racial differences in childhood hospitalized pedestrian injuries. 

Pediatric Emergency Care, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 221–224. 

Klop, J., and A. Khattak. (1999). Factors Influencing Bicycle Crash Severity on Two-Lane, Undivided 

Roadways in North Carolina. Transportation Research Record 1674. pp. 78–85. 

65
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knoblauch, R. L., B. H. Justin, S. A. Smith, and M. T. Pretrucho. (1987). Investigation of Exposure-Based 

Pedestrian Accident Area: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets, and Major Arterials. Report 

FHWA/RD-87-038. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Koepsell, T. (2002). Crosswalk Markings and the Risk of Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Collisions in Older 

Pedestrians. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 288, No. 17, p. 2136. 

Kothuri, S. M., Reynolds, T., Monsere, C. M., and Koonce, P. J. (2012). Preliminary Development of 

Methods to Automatically Gather Bicycle Counts and Pedestrian Delay at Signalized Intersections. 

TRB 2012 Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 

Kroll, B., and M. R. Ramey. (1977). Effects of Bike Lanes on Driver and Bicyclist Behavior. Journal of 

Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 2. 

Laflamme, L. (2000). Social differences in traffic injury risks in childhood and youth--a literature review 

and a research agenda. Injury Prevention, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 293–298. 

Lagerwey, P., Hintze, M., Elliott, J., Toole, J., and Schneider, R. (2015). NCHRP REPORT 803: Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. 

Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 

LaScala, E. A., D. Gerber, and P. J. Gruenewald. (2000). Demographic and environmental correlates of 

pedestrian injury collisions: a spatial analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 

651–658. 

Lassarre, S., Papadimitriou, E., Yannis, G. and Golias, J. (2007). Measuring Accident Risk Exposure for 

Pedestrians in Different Micro-Environments. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 

1226–1238. 

Last, John M. et al., editors. (1995). A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Leaf, W. A., and D. F. Preusser. (1999). Literature review on vehicle travel speeds and pedestrian injuries. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, 

D.C. 

Leaf, W. A., Shabanova Northrup, V., & Preusser, D. F. (2005). Evaluation of Alternative Approaches for 

Reducing Alcohol-Related Crashes Among Pedestrian Targets of Opportunity. DTNH22-98-D-45079, 

Draft Final Report. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

LeBlanc, D., Sayer, J., Winkler, C., Bogard, S. (2007). Field test results of a road departure crash warning 

system: driver utilization and safety implications. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Driving 

Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (p. 246-252). 

Washington DC. 

LeBlanc, D., Sayer, J., Winkler, C., Ervin, R., Bogard, S., Devonshire, J., Mefford, M., Hagan, M., Bareket, 

Z., Goodsell, R., Gordon, T. (2006). Road Departure Crash Warning System Field Operational Test: 

Methodology and Results. Report No. UMTRI-2006-9-1. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute. 

Leden, L. (2002). Pedestrian risk decrease with pedestrian flow. A case study based on data from 

signalized intersections in Hamilton, Ontario. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, pp. 457-464. 

Lee, C., and M. Abdel-Aty. (2005). Comprehensive analysis of vehicle–pedestrian crashes at intersections 

in Florida. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 775–786. 

Levine, N., Kim, K.E., Nitz, L.H., (1995). Spatial analysis of Honolulu motor vehicle crashes: II. Zonal 

generators. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 27, pp. 675–685. 

Li, G., & Baker, S. P. (1994). Alcohol in fatally injured bicyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol, 26, 

No. 4, pp. 543-548. 

Liggett, R., Huff, H., Taylor-Gratzer, R., Wong, N., Benitez, D., Douglas, T., Howe, J., Cooper, J., Griswold, 

J., Amos, D., Proulx, F. (2016). Bicycle Crash Risk: How Does It Vary, and Why? Caltrans Task No. 

2801. 

66
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limpert, R., (1994). Motor Vehicle Crash Reconstruction and Cause Analysis. Michie Company, 

Charlottesville, SC. 

Lin, P.S, Kourtellis, A., Wang, Z., & Guo, R. (2015). Understanding Interactions between Drivers and 

Pedestrian Features at Signalized Intersections. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transportation 

Research, University of South Florida. 

Litman, T. and S. Fitzroy, (2009). Safe travels: evaluating mobility management traffic safety impacts. 

Litman, T. Evaluating Safety and Health Impacts. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008. Available 

at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm58.htm. 

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., R. Liggett, and H.-G. Sung. (2007). Death on the Crosswalk: A Study of PedestrianAutomobile Collisions in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 

338–351. 

Luoma, J., J. Schumann & E.C. Trauba (1995). Effects of retro-reflective positioning on night-time 

recognition of pedestrians (Report No. UMTRI-95-18). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute. 

Lyon, C., and Persaud, B. (2002). Pedestrian Collision Models for Urban Intersections. Transportation 

Research Record 1818. 

Lyons, W., Rasmussen, B., Daddio, D., Fijalkowski, J., Simmons, J. (2014). Nonmotorized Transportation 

Pilot Program: Continued Progress in Developing Walking and Bicycling. Report No. DOT-VNTSCFHWA-14-04. 

Macnab, Y. (2002). Bayesian spatial and ecological models for small-area accident and injury analysis. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 36, pp. 1028-1091. 

Macpherson, A., I. Roberts, and I. B. Pless. (1998). Children's exposure to traffic and pedestrian injuries. 

American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 88, No. 12, pp. 1840–1843. 

Marshall, W., N. Garrick, and G. Hansen. (2008). Reassessing On-Street Parking. Transportation Research 

Record 2046. pp. 45–52. 

McDaniel, S., Lowry, M. and Dixon, M. (2014). Using Origin-Destination Centrality to Estimate Directional 

Bicycle Volumes. Transportation Research Record 2430. pp. 12–19. 

McKenzie, B. (2014).Modes Less Traveled: Commuting by Bicycle and Walking in the United States, 

2008–2012, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-26, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

Mcmahon, P., C. Duncan, J. Stewart, C. Zegeer, and A. Khattak. (1999). Analysis of Factors Contributing 

to "Walking Along Roadway" Crashes. Transportation Research Record 1674. pp. 41–48. 

Miles-Doan, R. (1996). 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. 

Miranda-Moreno, L., Morency, P., El-Geneidy, A., (2011). The link between built environment, 

pedestrian activity and pedestrian–vehicle collision occurrence at signalized intersections. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 1624–1634. 

Miranda-Moreno, L., Strauss, J., and Morency, P. (2011). Disaggregate Exposure Measures and Injury 

Frequency Models of Cyclist Safety at Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research Record 

2236, pp. 74–82. 

Mizuno, K., and J. Kajzer. (1999). Compatibility problems in frontal, side, single car collisions and car-topedestrian accidents in Japan. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 381–391. 

Molino, J.A., Kennedy, J.F., Inge, P.J., Bertola, M. A., Beuse, P A., Fowler, N.L., Emo, A.K., Do, A. (2012). A 

Distance-Based Method to Estimate Annual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure in an Urban 

Environment. Report No. FHWA-HRT-11-043. 

Molino, J.A., Kennedy, J.F., Johnson, P.L., Beuse, P.A., Emo, A.K., Do, A. (2009). Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Exposure to Risk: Methodology for Estimation in an Urban Environment. Transportation Research 

Record 2140. pp. 145-156. 

67
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moudon, A. V., L. Lin, J. Jiao, P. Hurvitz, and P. Reeves. (2011). The risk of pedestrian injury and fatality in 

collisions with motor vehicles, a social ecological study of state routes and city streets in King 

County, Washington. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 11–24. 

Mueller, B. A., F. P. Rivara, and A. B. Bergman. (1988). Urban-rural location and the risk of dying in a 

pedestrian-vehicle collision. The Journal of Trauma. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 91–94 

Naderan, A., and J. Shahi. (2010). Aggregate crash prediction models: Introducing crash generation 

concept. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 339–346. 

Nasar, J., Hecht, P., Wener, R., (2008). Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 40, pp. 69–75. 

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2016). Equitable Bike Share Means 

Building Better Places for People to Ride. NACTO Bike Share Equity Practitioners’ Paper #3. 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). (2006). WISQARSTM (Web-Based Injury 

Statistics Query and Reporting System). Retrieved March 8, 2006, from 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/) 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis, (2008). National Pedestrian Crash Report. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. 

National Complete Streets Coalition. (2014). Dangerous by Design 2014. Prepared for the Smart Growth 

America. May 2014. 

National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) (2015) Expert Panel Review of the 2016 National Household 

Travel Survey. April 28, 2015. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2016/pub/20151019Report.pdf 

Navarro, F. (2012). An introduction to ACS statistical methods and lessons learned. Paper presented at 

the Measuring People in Place conference, Boulder, 

CO. http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/cupc/workshops/measuring_people_in_place/themes/theme1/n 

avarro.pdf. 

Ng, K.-S., W.-T. Hung, and W.-G. Wong. (2002). An algorithm for assessing the risk of traffic accident. 

Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 387–410. 

NHTSA, 2011. Traffic Safety Facts 2009 Data. Bicyclists and other Cyclists. . (Report No. DOT HS 811 386. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at http://www-nrd. 

nhtsa. dot. gov/Pubs/811386. pdf. 

Noland, R. B. (2003). Traffic fatalities and injuries: the effect of changes in infrastructure and other 

trends. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 599–611. 

Noland, R. B., and L. Oh. (2004). The effect of infrastructure and demographic change on traffic-related 

fatalities and crashes: a case study of Illinois county-level data. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 

Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 525–532. 

Noland, R. B., and M. A. Quddus. (2004). A spatially disaggregate analysis of road casualties in England. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 973–984. 

Noland, R., and M. Quddus. (2004). Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Casualties with Regional Panel 

Data. Transportation Research Record 1897. pp. 28–33. 

Nordback, K., Kothuri, S., Petritsch, T., McLeod, P., Rose, E., Twaddell, H. (2016). Exploring Pedestrian 

Counting Procedures. Report No. FHWA-HPL-16-026. 

Obaidat, M., H. Al-Masaeid, O. Al-Haji, and A. Qudah. (2007). A Knowledge-based System for 

Pedestrian’s Roadway Crossing Behavior through Video Cameras. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering. 

Volume 1, No. 2. 

Onieva-Garcia, M.A., Martinez-Ruiz, V., Lardelli-Claret, P., Jimenez-Moleon, J.J., Amezcua-Prieto, C., 

Luna-del-Castillo, J.D., Jimenez-Mejias, E. (2016). Gender and age differences in components of 

traffic-related pedestrian death rates: exposure, risk of crash and fatality rate. Injury Epidemiology. 

Vol 3, p. 14. 

68
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Öström, M., and A. Eriksson. (2001). Pedestrian fatalities and alcohol. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 

Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 173–180. 

Owen, D.A., & Sivak, M. (1993). The role of reduced visibility in night-time road fatalities (Report No. 

UMTRI-93-33). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. 

Oxley, J., B. Fildes, E. Ihsen, J. Charlton, and R. Day. (1997). Differences in traffic judgements between 

young and old adult pedestrians. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 839–847. 

Oxley, J., M. Lenné, and B. Corben. (2006). The effect of alcohol impairment on road-crossing behaviour. 

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 258–268. 

Pai, C.W. & Jou, R.C. (2014). Cyclists’ red-light running behaviours: An examination of risk-taking, 

opportunistic, and law-obeying behaviours. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 62, pp. 191-198. 

Palamarthy, S., Mahmassani, H. S., & Machemehl, R. B. (1994). Models of pedestrian crossing behavior 

at signalized intersection. Report No. FHWA/TX-94+1296-1. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Papadimitriou, E., Yannis, G., and Golias, J. (2012). Analysis of Pedestrian Exposure to Risk in Relation to 

Crossing Behavior. Transportation Research Record 2299. pp. 79–90. 

Peden, M. M. (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. World Health Organization, 

Geneva. 

Poch, M., and F. Mannering. (1996). Negative Binomial Analysis of Intersection-Accident Frequencies. 

Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 122, No. 2, pp. 105–113. 

Ponnaluri, R., and F. Nagar. (2010). ‘Road Crash Risk among Vulnerable Population Groups in Andhra 

Pradesh, India.’ Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 89th Annual Meeting, 

Washington, DC. 

Pucher, J., Buehler, R., Merom, D., Bauman, A. (2011) Walking and cycling in the United States, 2001– 

2009: evidence from the national household travel surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 101 

(suppl 1), pp. S310–S317. 

Pulugurtha, S.S. and Repaka, S.R. (2008). Assessment of Models to Measure Pedestrian Activity at 

Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research Record 2073. pp 39–48. 

Qi, B., John, V., Liu, Z., and Mita, S. (2016). Pedestrian detection from thermal images: A sparse 

representation based approach. Infrared Physics & Technology, Vol. 76, pp. 157–167. 

Qin, X. and Ivan, J. (2001). Estimating Pedestrian Exposure Prediction Model in Rural Areas. 

Transportation Research Record 1773. pp. 89–96. 

Quddus, H. N., Tarawneh, M. S., McCoy, P. T., & Kachman, S. D. (1996). Effect of vehicle-pedestrian 

conflicts of “turning traffic must yield to pedestrians” sign. Transportation Research Record 1553. 

pp. 38-4 

Quddus, M. A. (2008). Modelling area-wide count outcomes with spatial correlation and heterogeneity: 

An analysis of London crash data. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 1486–1497. 

Radwan, E., Abou-Senna, H., Mohamed, A., Navarro, A., Minaei, N., Wu, J., and Gonzalez, L. (2016). 

Assessment of Sidewalk/Bicycle-Lane Gaps with Safety and Developing Statewide Pedestrian Crash 

Rates. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation. Final Report, Contract No. BDV24­

977-07. 

Raford, N. and Ragland, D. (2004). Space Syntax: Innovative Pedestrian Volume Modeling Tool for 

Pedestrian Safety. Transportation Research Record 1878. pp. 66-74. 

Raford, N. and Ragland, D.R. (2006) Pedestrian Volume Modeling for Traffic Safety and Exposure 

Analysis: Case of Boston, Massachusetts. TRB 2006 Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 

Rasmussen, B., Rousseau, G., Lyons, W. (2012). Estimating the Impacts of the Nonmotorized 

Transportation Pilot Program: Developing a New Community-Wide Assessment Method. TRB 2013 

Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 

69
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renski, H., A. Khattak, and F. (1999). Council. Effect of Speed Limit Increases on Crash Injury Severity: 

Analysis of Single-Vehicle Crashes on North Carolina Interstate Highways. Transportation Research 

Record 1665. pp. 100–108. 

Retting, R. A. (1993). A review of fatal injuries to pedestrians induced by urban truck crashes. 

Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Proceedings, 37th Annual Conference, 

San Antonio, TX, November 4-6, 1993, 128p. 

Retting, R. A., S. A. Ferguson, and A. T. Mccartt. (2003). A Review of Evidence-Based Traffic Engineering 

Measures Designed to Reduce Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Crashes. American Journal of Public 

Health. Vol. 93, No. 9, pp. 1456–1463. 

Retting, R., and Rothenberg, H. (2015). Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2015 Preliminary Data. 

Prepared for the Governors Highway Safety Association. 

Rivara, F. P., and M. Barber. (1986) Demographic Analysis Of Childhood Pedestrian Injuries. Journal of 

Pediatric Orthopaedics. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 375-381. 

Roberts, I., R. Norton, R. Jackson, R. Dunn, and I. Hassal. (1995). Effect of Environmental Factors on Risk 

of Injury of Child Pedestrians by Motor Vehicles: A Case-control Study. British Medical Journal. 

Volume 310, No. 6972, pp. 91–94. 

Rodgers, G. B. (1995). Bicyclist deaths and fatality risk patterns. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 

27, No. 2, pp. 215-223. 

Rosén, E., H. Stigson, and U. (2011). Sander. Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of 

car impact speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 25–33. 

Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S., Lash, T.L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd Edition). Philadelphia, PA: 

Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins. 

Royal, D. & Miller-Steiger, D. (2008). 2002 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and 

Behavior, Volume 1: Summary Report. Report No. DOT HS 810 971. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. August 2008. 

Ryus, P., Ferguson, E., Laustsen, K.M., Schneider, R.J., Proulx, F.R., Hull, T., Miranda-Moreno, L. (2014). 

Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection. NCHRP Report 797. 

Salon, D. & Handy, S. (2014). Estimating Total Miles Walked and Biked by Census Tract in California. 

Research Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-14-07. 

Salon, D. (2016). Estimating Pedestrian and Cyclist Activity at the Neighborhood Scale. Journal of 

Transport Geography. Vol. 55, pp. 11–21. 

Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H.Y., Gray, D., Liss, S. (2011). Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 

National Household Travel Survey. Report No. FHWA-PL-11-022. 

Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Krems, J. & Gehlert, T. (2015). The German naturalistic 

cycling study: Comparing cycling speed of riders of different e-bikes and conventional bikes. Safety 

Science, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.027. 

Schmiedeskamp, P. and Zhao, W., (2016). Estimating Daily Bicycle Counts in Seattle, Washington, from 

Seasonal and Weather Factors. Transportation Research Record 2593. pp. 94–102. 

Schneider, R. and Stefanich, J. (2015). Wisconsin Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis: 2011-2013. 

Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), Bureau of Transportation 

Safety (BOTS). Final Draft. 

Schneider, R., Arnold, L., & Ragland, D. (2009). Pilot Model for Estimating Pedestrian Intersection 

Crossing Volumes. Transportation Research Record 2140. pp. 13–26. 

Schneider, R.J., Grembek, O., Braughton, M. (2013). Pedestrian Crash Risk on Boundary Roadways: 

University Campus Case Study. Transportation Research Record 2393. pp 164–173. 

Schneider, R.J., Henry, T., Mitman, M.F., Stonehill, L., Koehler, J. (2012). Development and Application of 

a Pedestrian Volume Model in San Francisco, California. Transportation Research Record 2299. pp. 

65–78. 

70
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schneider, R., Diogenes, M., Arnold, L., Attaset, V., Griswold, J., and Ragland, D. (2011). Association 

Between Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian Crash Risk in Alameda County, 

California. Transportation Research Record 2236, pp. 74–82. 

Schroeder, P. & Wilbur, M. (2013a). 2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and 

Behavior, Volume 1: Summary Report. Report No. DOT HS 811 841 A. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. October 2013. 

Schroeder, P. & Wilbur, M. (2013b). 2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and 

Behavior, Volume 2: Findings Report. Report No. DOT HS 811 841 B. Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. October 2013. 

Schroeder, P. & Wilbur, M. (2013c). 2012 National Survey of Bicyclist and Pedestrian Attitudes and 

Behavior, Volume 3: Methodology Report. Report No. DOT HS 811 841 C. National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. October 2013. 

Schwartz, W., Porter, C. (2000). Bicycle and Pedestrian Data: Sources, Needs, & Gaps. Report No. BTS00­

02. 

Sciortino S, Vassar M, Radetsky M, Knudson MM. (2005). San Francisco Pedestrian injury surveillance: 

mapping, under-reporting, and injury severity in police and hospital records. Accident Analysis and 

Prevention. Vol. 37, pp. 1102–1113. 

Sharp, J., and Murakami, E. (2005) Travel surveys: Methodological and technology-related 

considerations. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 8 (3), pp. 97-113. 

Shaw, J.W., M.V. Chitturi, Y. Han, W. Bremer, and D.A. Noyce. (2016). Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety in 

Work Zones: Recent Advances and Future Directions. In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual 

Meeting (No. 16-1471). 

Siddiqui, C., and M. Abdel-Aty. (2012). Nature of Modeling Boundary Pedestrian Crashes at Zones. 

Transportation Research Record 2299. pp. 31–40. 

Siddiqui, N., X. Chu, and M. (2006). Guttenplan. Crossing Locations, Light Conditions, and Pedestrian 

Injury Severity. Transportation Research Record 1982. pp. 141–149. 

Spainhour, L., and I. (2007). Wootton. Modeling Fault in Fatal Pedestrian Crashes by Using Various Data 

Sources. Transportation Research Record 2002. pp. 64–71. 

Spainhour, L., I. Wootton, J. Sobanjo, and P. Brady. (2006). Causative Factors and Trends in Florida 

Pedestrian Crashes. Transportation Research Record 1982. pp. 90–98. 

Spielman, S. E., and D. C. Folch. (2014). Reducing uncertainty in the American Community Survey 

through data-driven regionalization. PloS ONE 10 (2):e0115626. 

Spielman, S. E., Folch, D. C., and Nagle, N. N. (2014). Patterns and causes of uncertainty in the American 

Community Survey. Applied Geography, 46:pp. 147–157. 

Spielman, S.E. and Singleton, A. (2015) Studying Neighborhoods Using Uncertain Data from the 

American Community Survey: A Contextual Approach, Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers, 105:5, pp. 1003-1025. 

Stavrinos, D., Byington, K.W., Schwebel, D.C., (2011). Distracted walking: cell phones increase injury risk 

for college pedestrians. Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 101–107. 

Strauss, J. and Miranda-Moreno, L.F. (2013). Spatial Modeling of Bicycle Activity at Signalized 

Intersections. Journal of Transport and Land Use. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 47–58. 

Strauss, J., Miranda-Moreno, L.F., and Morency, P. (2013). Cyclist Activity and Injury Risk Analysis at 

Signalized Intersections: A Bayesian modelling approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 59, 

pp. 9–17. 

Strauss, J., Miranda-Moreno, L.F., and Morency, P. (2014). Multimodal Injury Risk Analysis of Road Users 

at Signalized and Non-Signalized Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 71, pp. 201– 

209. 

71
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sullivan, J. M., and M. J. Flannagan. (2011). Differences in geometry of pedestrian crashes in daylight and 

darkness. Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 33–37. 

Sze, N., and S. Wong. (2007). Diagnostic analysis of the logistic model for pedestrian injury severity in 

traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1267–1278. 

Tabeshian, M. and Kattan, L. (2014). Modeling Non-motorized Travel Demand at Intersections in Calgary, 

Canada. Transportation Research Record 2430. pp. 38–46. 

Tan, B., Zhang, J., and Wang, L. (2011). Semi-supervised Elastic net for pedestrian counting. Pattern 

Recognition, Vol. 44, pp. 2297–2304. 

Tarko, A., and M. S. Azam. (2011). Pedestrian injury analysis with consideration of the selectivity bias in 

linked police-hospital data. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 1689–1695. 

Tefft, B. C. (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death. AAA Foundation for 

Traffic Safety. 

Tian, R., Li, L., Yang, K., Chien, S., Chen, Y. & Sherony, R. (2014). Estimation of the vehicle-pedestrian 

encounter/conflict risk on the road based on TASI 110-car naturalistic driving data collection. 2014 

IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings (p. 623-629). 

Tobey, H.N., Shunamen, E.M., Knoblauch, R.L. (1983). Pedestrian Trip Making Characteristics and 

Exposure Measures. Report FHWA/RD-83/062. 

Tome, D., Monti, F., Baroffio, L., Bondi, L., Tagliasacchi, M., and Tubaro, S. (2016). Deep Convolutional 

Neural Networks for pedestrian detection. Signal Processing: Image Communication, Vol. 47, pp. 

482–489. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2013). Transportation Research Circular E-C178: Exploring New 

Directions for the National Household Travel Survey. Phase One Report of Activities (October 

2013): http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec178.pdf. 

Transportation Research Board (TBR) (2016). Transportation Research Circular E-C217: Exploring New 

Directions for the National Household Travel Survey. Phase Two Report of Activities (December 

2016): http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/circulars/ec217.pdf. 

Transport Research Laboratory. (2001). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Measures for Vulnerable Road Users. 

Deliverable D 5 for European Research Project PROMISING (Promotion of Measures for Vulnerable 

Road Users). 

Tyrrell RA, Wood JM, Carberry TP. (2004) On-road measures of pedestrians’ estimates of their own 

nighttime conspicuity. Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 35, No. 5. Pp. 483-90. 

Tyrrell, R. A., & Patton, C. W. (1998). The effectiveness of educating pedestrians about their own 

nighttime visibility. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, 

October 5-9, 1998, Proceedings, Volume 2, pp. 1205-09. 

Tyrrell, R. A., Patton, C. W., & Brooks, J. O. (2004). Educational interventions successfully reduce 

pedestrians’ overestimates of their own nighttime visibility. Human Factors. Vol. 46, pp. 170-182. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2001). Traffic safety facts 2001: Pedestrians (Publication No. DOT 

HS 809 478). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001pedestrian.pdf 

Ukkusuri, S., S. Hasan, and H. Aziz. (2011). Random Parameter Model Used to Explain Effects of BuiltEnvironment Characteristics on Pedestrian Crash Frequency. Transportation Research Record 2237. 

pp. 98–106. 

Ulfarsson, G. F., S. Kim, and K. M. Booth. (2010). Analyzing fault in pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes in 

North Carolina. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1805–1813. 

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide 

and Countermeasure Selection System (2013). Authors: C.V. Zegeer. D. Nabors, and P. Lagerwey, 

Available online, http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/index.cfm. 

72
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. BIKESAFE: Bicycle Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System (2014). Primary Authors: C. Sundstrom and D. Nabors, 

Contributing Authors: M. Hintze, B. Schultheiss, P. Lagerwey, and K. Langford, Available online, 

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/authors.cfm. 

Vanparijs, J., Panis, L.I., Meeusen, R. & de Geus, B. (2015). Exposure measurement in bicycle safety 

analysis: A review of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 84, pp. 9-19. 

Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 673–678. 

Vyrostek, S. B., J. L. Annest, and G. W. Ryan. (2001). Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries--United 

States,. PsycEXTRA Dataset. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm. 

Wang, J., Lindsey, G., and Hankey, S. (2016). Exposure to Risk and the Built Environment, an Empirical 

Study of Bicycle Crashes in Minneapolis. TRB 2017 Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 

Wang, X., M. Abdel-Aty, and P. Brady. (2006). Crash Estimation at Signalized Intersections: Significant 

Factors and Temporal Effect. Transportation Research Record 1953. pp. 10–20. 

Wang, Y., and Kockelman, K. (2013). A Poisson-lognormal conditional autoregressive model for 

multivariate spatial analysis of pedestrian crash counts across neighborhoods. Accident Analysis & 

Prevention, Vol. 60, pp. 71–84. 

Washington, S., Schalkwyk, I.V., You, D., Shin, K., Samuelson, J.P., 2010. PLANSAFE User Manual: 

Forecasting the Safety Impacts of Socio-Demographic Changes and Safety Countermeasures. NCHRP 

8-44(2) 

Wazana A, V.L. Rynard, P. Raina, P. Krueger. (2000). Are child pedestrians at increased risk of injury on 

one-way compared to two-way streets? Canadian Journal of Public Health. Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 201. 

Wei R, Tong D, and Phillips J.M. (2016). An integrated classification scheme for mapping estimates and 

errors of estimation from the American Community Survey. Computers, Environment and Urban 

Systems. In Press. 

Werneke, J. and Dozza, M. (2014). Integrating road safety data for single-bicycle crash causation. 2014 

IRCOBI Conference Proceedings, 442-443. Berlin, Germany. 

Whitebread, D., and K. Neilson. (2000). The contribution of visual search strategies to the development 

of pedestrian skills by 4-11 year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 70, No. 

4, pp. 539–557. 

Wier, M., J. Weintraub, E. H. Humphreys, E. Seto, and R. Bhatia. (2009). An area-level model of vehiclepedestrian injury collisions with implications for land use and transportation planning. Accident 

Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 137–145. 

Wills, K. E., K. K. Christoffel, J. V. Lavigne, R. R. Tanz, J. L. Schofer, M. Donovan, and K. Kalangis. (1997). 

Patterns and Correlates of Supervision in Child Pedestrian Injury. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 

Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 89–104. 

Wolfe, A.C. (1982). The Concept of Exposure to the Risk of a Road Traffic Accident and an Overview of 

Exposure Data Collection Methods. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 337–340. 

World Health Organization. (2009). Global Status Report on Road Safety: Time for Action. World Health 

Organization. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2009/en/. 

Wu, C., Yao, L. & Zhang, K. (2012). The red-light running behavior of electric bike riders and cyclists at 

urban intersections in China: An observational study. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 49, pp. 

186-192. 

Yin, L, Cheng, Q., Zhenxin, W., and S. Zhenfeng. (2015). ‘Big data’ for pedestrian volume: Exploring the 

use of Google Street View images for pedestrian counts. Applied Geography, Vol. 63, pp. 337-345. 

Zajac, S. S., and J. N. Ivan. (2003). Factors influencing injury severity of motor vehicle–crossing 

pedestrian crashes in rural Connecticut. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 369– 

379. 

73
 
 

 

 

 

Zegeer, C., Opiela, K., and Cynecki, M. (1985). Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives. Report No. 

FHWA/RD 83/102, Federal Highway Administration. 

Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, H. Huang, and P. Lagerwey. (2001). Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked 

Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes in 30 Cities. Transportation 

Research Record 1773. pp. 56–68. 

Zegeer, C., Stewart, J., Huang, H., Lagerway, P., Feaganes, J., and Campbell, B. (2005). Safety Effects of 

Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended 

Guidelines, Report No. FHWA-RT- 04-100, Federal Highway Administration. 

74