# Empowering Pedestrian Safety: Unveiling a Lightweight Scheme for Improved Vehicle-Pedestrian Safety
## 3 Simulation
### Simulation Results  
In this section, we present the simulation results for our proposed V2P system using the three evaluation network parameters: Average throughput, processing delay, and network load.  
* Average throughput: The average throughput at different traffic scenarios is presented in Figure 6 It can be observed that the throughput increases with an increase in the number of vehicles and pedestrians in both schemes. In different traffic scenarios, the throughput's increase is expected because the number of transmissions increases as the number of vehicles and pedestrians grows. We observed that our scheme introduces slightly more throughput in all traffic scenarios than the pure V2V scheme. This is because pedestrians' engagement in communication with vehicles introduces more transmission and the reception of data. However, the increase in the throughput introduced by our scheme is minimal. For example, it can be observed that the throughputs of the pure V2V scheme and the scheme with pedestrian protection in the average traffic scenario are 28.21 and 33.28 Kbps, respectively. This is a 15% throughput increase introduced by our scheme for pedestrian safety. In addition, the throughput increase is only 8% in the low-traffic scenario.
* Processing delay: Figure 7 depicts the average processing delay. We differentiate between the delay in both schemes: with pedestrian protection and without pedestrian protection. In the pedestrian protection scheme, we run our scheme after the verification process of BSM messages. In the other scheme, we only run the verification process of BSM messages. We set the verification time of BSM messages to be 4.97 ms according to [24; 25]. As observed in the following Figure 7, the delay introduced by both schemes is almost constant in all traffic scenarios, even with increasing the number of nodes in the high-traffic scenario. We observe that in our scheme, the processing delay times are 13.07, 13.77, and 13.97 ms in all traffic scenarios. Without pedestrian protection, the delay times are 4.97 ms for the same traffic scenarios. The introduced delay by our scheme is only 8 ms, which is a minimal cost and proves  
Figure 5: Exchanged messages in our simulation.  
that our scheme is lightweight and fits well in VANET safety applications. More importantly, the delay is far below 100 ms even in dense traffic scenarios, which meets the minimum latency requirements of VANET safety applications according to [26; 27].
* Network load: The number of packets transmitted throughout the simulation time at different traffic scenarios is shown in Figure 8. It can be observed that the number of packets increases with an increase in the number of vehicles and pedestrians involved in communication. This is normal behavior because of the increase in packet transmission. When comparing the pure V2V scheme with our scheme, we can observe that our scheme has more packets transmitted. We attribute the increase in transmitted packets to the pedestrians' communication with vehicles. The increase in network load due to the use of our scheme is negligible. For example, our scheme transmits 73,967 packets while the pure V2V scheme transmits 71,712 packets in the low-traffic scenario. This is an increase in the transmission of 2255 packets only (3%), which is a small bandwidth cost for protecting pedestrians.  
Figure 8: Network load in different traffic scenarios.  
Figure 6: Average throughput in different traffic scenarios.  
Figure 7: Processing delay in different traffic scenarios.