Understanding driver/pedestrian conflicts: Driver Understanding - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Understanding driver/pedestrian conflicts: Driver Understanding driver/pedestrian conflicts: Driver behaviour and effects of measures at pedestrian behaviour and effects of measures at pedestrian crossings crossings

19th ICTCT Workshop in Minsk, Belarus 19th ICTCT Workshop in Minsk, Belarus October 26th October 26th-

• 27th 2006

27th 2006

Truls Vaa Transportøkonomisk institutt (TØI), Box 6110 - Etterstad N-0602 Oslo, Norge

2

Objectives Objectives

• Describe the

Describe the effects of road safety measures effects of road safety measures especially especially addressed and designed to promote road safety for addressed and designed to promote road safety for pedestrians pedestrians

• Discuss and

Discuss and propose a theoretical explanation propose a theoretical explanation why why

• rdinary pedestrian crossings seem to increase the
• rdinary pedestrian crossings seem to increase the

number of accidents involving pedestrians at pedestrian number of accidents involving pedestrians at pedestrian crossings crossings

• Propose elements and dynamics in a suggested

Propose elements and dynamics in a suggested “ “Pedestrian Behaviour Model Pedestrian Behaviour Model” ”

3

Handbook of Road Safety Measures (2004) Handbook of Road Safety Measures (2004)

• Marking pedestrian crossings on carriageways, normally

Marking pedestrian crossings on carriageways, normally combined with traffic signs combined with traffic signs

• Traffic signal control of pedestrian crossings (at intersections

Traffic signal control of pedestrian crossings (at intersections and and mid mid-

• block)

block)

• Raised pedestrian crossings

Raised pedestrian crossings

• Refuges (traffic islands on pedestrian crossings)

Refuges (traffic islands on pedestrian crossings)

• Pedestrian guard rails

Pedestrian guard rails

• School crossing patrols

School crossing patrols

• pavement widening at intersections

pavement widening at intersections

• All: Estimates of effects on accidents by meta-analysis

4

Studies per 2004 (1997) Studies per 2004 (1997)

• Mackie and Older 1965 (Great Britain, ordinary and traffic signa

Mackie and Older 1965 (Great Britain, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings) l controlled pedestrian crossings)

• Jacobs 1966 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

Jacobs 1966 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

• Jacobs and Wilson 1967 (Great Britain, ordinary and traffic sign

Jacobs and Wilson 1967 (Great Britain, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings) al controlled pedestrian crossings)

• Wilson and Older 1970 (Great Britain, ordinary pedestrian crossi

Wilson and Older 1970 (Great Britain, ordinary pedestrian crossings) ngs)

• J

Jø ørgensen rgensen and and Rabani Rabani 1971 (Denmark, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestria 1971 (Denmark, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings) n crossings)

• Herms 1972 (USA, ordinary pedestrian crossings)

Herms 1972 (USA, ordinary pedestrian crossings)

• Lalani

Lalani 1977 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian crossings) 1977 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian crossings)

• Cameron and Milne 1978 (Australia, pedestrian crossings)

Cameron and Milne 1978 (Australia, pedestrian crossings)

• Inwood

Inwood and Grayson 1979 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian crossing and Grayson 1979 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian crossings) s)

• Engel and

Engel and Krandsg Krandsgå ård rd Thomsen, 1983 (Denmark, pavement widening and raised pedestrian Thomsen, 1983 (Denmark, pavement widening and raised pedestrian crossings) crossings)

• Bagley 1985 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

Bagley 1985 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

• Yagar

Yagar 1986 (Canada, ordinary pedestrian crossings) 1986 (Canada, ordinary pedestrian crossings)

• Vodahl

Vodahl and and Gi Giæ æver ver 1986 (Norway, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian 1986 (Norway, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings) crossings)

• Yagar

Yagar, , Ropret Ropret and Kaufman 1987 (Canada, ordinary pedestrian crossings) and Kaufman 1987 (Canada, ordinary pedestrian crossings)

• Boxall

Boxall 1988 (Great Britain, school crossing patrols) 1988 (Great Britain, school crossing patrols)

• Ekman

Ekman 1988 (Sweden, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian 1988 (Sweden, ordinary and traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings) crossings)

• Stewart 1988 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

Stewart 1988 (Great Britain, pedestrian guard rails)

• Jones and Farmer 1988 (Great Britain, raised pedestrian crossing

Jones and Farmer 1988 (Great Britain, raised pedestrian crossings) s)

• Hunt and Griffiths 1989 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian cr

Hunt and Griffiths 1989 (Great Britain, refuges on pedestrian crossings)

• ssings)
• Daly, McGrath and Van

Daly, McGrath and Van Emst Emst 1991 (Great Britain, pedestrian crossings) 1991 (Great Britain, pedestrian crossings)

• Downing,

Downing, Sayer Sayer, , Zaheer Zaheer-

• Ul

Ul-

• Islam

Islam 1993 (Pakistan, raised pedestrian crossings) 1993 (Pakistan, raised pedestrian crossings)

5

Traffic control measures for pedestrians (I) Traffic control measures for pedestrians (I)

Percentage change in the number of accidents Accident severity Types of accident affected Best estimate 95% Confidence interval Mid-block traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 12

(-18; -4) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 2

(-9; +5) Injury accidents All accidents

• 7

(-12; -2) Pedestrian crossings with mixed phases at traffic signal controlled intersections Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents +8 (-1; +17) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 12

(-21; -3) Injury accidents All accidents

• 1

(-7; +6) Pedestrian crossings with separate phases at traffic signal controlled intersections Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 29

(-40; -17) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 18

(-27; -9) Injury accidents All accidents

• 22

(-29; -14)

6

Traffic control measures for pedestrians (II) Traffic control measures for pedestrians (II)

Table 1: Traffic control measures for pedestrians with statistically significant effects

• n accidents. Percentage change in the number of accidents. (from: Elvik and Vaa, 2004).

Percentage change in the number of accidents Accident severity Types of accident affected Best estimate 95% Confidence interval Pedestrian guard rails Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 24

(-35; -11) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 8

(-33; +27) Injury accidents All accidents

• 21

(-32; -9) School crossing patrols Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 35

(-67; +30) Pavement widening at intersections or at pedestrian crossings Injury accidents All accidents

• 5

(-58; +117)

7

Traffic control measures for pedestrians (III) Traffic control measures for pedestrians (III)

Table 1: Traffic control measures for pedestrians with statistically significant effects

• n accidents. Percentage change in the number of accidents. (from: Elvik and Vaa, 2004).

Percentage change in the number of accidents Accident severity Types of accident affected Best estimate 95% Confidence interval Raised pedestrian crossings Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 49

(-75; +3) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 33

(-58; +6) Injury accidents All accidents

• 39

(-58; -10) Refuges on pedestrian crossings Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents

• 18

(-30; -3) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 9

(-20; +3) Injury accidents All accidents

• 13

(-21; -3) Ordinary marked pedestrian crossings Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents +28 (+19; +39) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents +20 (+5; +38) Injury accidents All accidents +26 (+18; +35)

8

In In-

• depth accident study

depth accident study – – 36 accidents with pedestrians 36 accidents with pedestrians ( (Statens Statens vegvesen vegvesen Buskerud Buskerud, 2001) , 2001)

• In 17 of the 36 accidents, the cause of the accident was attribu

In 17 of the 36 accidents, the cause of the accident was attributed to ted to pedestrian errors pedestrian errors

• Pedestrians were hit by a car because they ran or

Pedestrians were hit by a car because they ran or “ “staggered staggered” ” into into the roadway without forewarning the roadway without forewarning (!!) (!!)

• Especially dangerous in combination with darkness and

Especially dangerous in combination with darkness and

• bstructions of sight
• bstructions of sight
• “

“To see a car is not the same as the driver sees me To see a car is not the same as the driver sees me” ”

• In about 50% of the accidents, the pedestrian did not see the

In about 50% of the accidents, the pedestrian did not see the vehicle. vehicle.

9

In In-

• depth accident study

depth accident study – – 36 accidents with pedestrians 36 accidents with pedestrians ( (Statens Statens vegvesen vegvesen Buskerud Buskerud, 2001) , 2001)

• The study is too small to conclude, but some
• bservations may be used to state some hypotheses:
• Pedestrians involved in these accidents very often

belonged to subgroups who are more exposed than the average Norwegian also in other contexts, i.e.:

• pedestrians often were impulsive adolescents, mentally

disabled, children, elderly people, intoxicated….

10

In In-

• depth accident study

depth accident study – – 36 accidents with pedestrians (II) 36 accidents with pedestrians (II)

• 24 of 36 accidents: Cause attributed to the drivers:
• Driving speeds were too high, and/or
• “Too low awareness about risks although the circumstances called

for something different”.

• 28 of 36 accidents: Drivers did not see the pedestrians “before it

was too late” The two most pronounced explanations:

• 1) Drivers do not check blind spots when needed
• 2) Drivers are more directed towards the other road traffic than to

spot pedestrians ( (“ “looking for dangers looking for dangers…… ……? ?” ”) )

11

“ “too low awareness about risks although the circumstances too low awareness about risks although the circumstances called for something different called for something different” ”

• r simply that the drivers
• r simply that the drivers

“ “did not see the pedestrian before it was too late did not see the pedestrian before it was too late” ”, ,

The pedestrian Degree of attention Inattentive Vigilant Inattentive

Problem At risk, but may be saved by the other

The driver Vigilant

At risk, but may be saved by the other No problem

12

Refuge on pedestrian crossings Injury accidents Accidents with pedestrians

• 18

(-30; -3) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 9

(-20; +3) Injury accidents All accidents

• 13

(-21; -3)

13

Raised pedestrian crossing Personal injury accidents Accidents with pedestrians

• 49

(-75; +3) Personal injury accidents Vehicle accidents

• 33

(-58; +6) Personal injury accidents All accidents

• 39

(-58; -10)

14

The message from the shape of a circle segment is: ”Caution, slow down! – otherwise a big jump of the car may follow”

( (Concious Concious process process?) ?)

15

Trapeze-shaped crossing ”The smaller the ascending angle, the higher driving speed I can tolerate”

(Conscious?) (Conscious?)

16

Sinus-shaped crossing ”The lower the height, the higher driving speed I can tolerate”

(Consci (Conscious?)

• us?)

17

Ordinary pedestrian crossing Injury accidents Pedestrian accidents +28 (+19; +39) Injury accidents Vehicle accidents +20 (+5; +38) Injury accidents All accidents +26 (+18; +35)

18

” ”Descartes Descartes’ ’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain” ” ( (Damasio 1994): Damasio 1994):

• Axiom

Axiom: : Man’s deepest motive: Survival Survival

• We must have an organ, a risk monitor

risk monitor for for detecting detecting dangers dangers that that threaten survival

• The body is

is the risk monitor Emotions Emotions and and feelings feelings are the tools Dangers must be experienced , dangers must be felt !

19

Ad hoc Ad hoc – – observations: Crossing/pedestrian ratios

• bservations: Crossing/pedestrian ratios
• Location

Location City/ City/village village No of trips No of trips No of obs No of obs Ratio Ratio

• Oslo

Oslo city city 12 12 198 : 13 198 : 13 15 : 1 15 : 1

• H

Hø ønefoss nefoss city city 28 28 703 : 28 703 : 28 25 : 1 25 : 1

• Sokna

Sokna village village 105 105 314 : 9 314 : 9 35 : 1 35 : 1

• B

Bæ ærum rum village village 66 66 355 : 6 355 : 6 59 : 1 59 : 1

• Kongsberg

Kongsberg city city 14 14 67 : 1 67 : 1 67 : 1 67 : 1

• Rjukan

Rjukan city city 22 22 526 : 2 526 : 2 263 : 1 263 : 1

• Paris

Paris-

• Nancy

Nancy-

• Colmar

Colmar-

• Dijon

Dijon-

• Paris

Paris roundtrip roundtrip 1 1 116 : 0 116 : 0 116 : 0 116 : 0

20

The problem: It is The problem: It is empty empty most of the time most of the time ” ”Nothing Nothing happens happens” ” What What do do you you learn learn ? ? Automated Automated

21

Are Are pedestrians pedestrians threats threats for the drivers? for the drivers? “….drivers are more directed towards the other road traffic than to spot pedestrians”

22

MC: 8 : 1 MC: 8 : 1 Looking Looking for for dangers dangers ? ?

23

Thoughts about a Thoughts about a “ “Pedestrian Behaviour Model Pedestrian Behaviour Model” ”

• Maybe we need a “Pedestrian Behaviour Model”
• Being a pedestrian is “democratic”: No pre-selection – no “pedestrian licence”

is required, everybody is allowed to enter “The system of pedestrians”

• Pedestrians exhibit greater variability in knowledge, understanding of traffic

system, experience, competence, risk perception abilities…….

• Who should we design for? Which subgroup of pedestrians should be the “The

dimensioning group of pedestrians”? Children? The elderly? The mentally disabled…..?

• The problem of impulsivity: Impulsivity “kills” monitoring of risk: From being

part of a safe and secure behavioural system on the pavement – you may just jump into the street because you saw someone ….. (literally!) (literally!)

24

More thoughts More thoughts ………… …………. .

• Crossing the street, looking left – right – left , assessing speeds of on-

coming vehicles, estimate the required time gaps to cross: Cognitively difficult

• “The relativity issue”: As pedestrian you are part of a slow-moving

system, cars are moving (much) faster relatively to you: Cognitively difficult to get an overview of the system you are in

• Relativity (II): Being a “fast-moving driver in a system of cars” relatively

to slow-moving pedestrians is much easier, pedestrians “seem more like constants” relatively to you”: To get an overview is much easier for a driver…

25

Conclusions Conclusions

1. Man’s deepest motive is survival (Damasio, 1994). The human organism is designed to primarily look for dangers. Drivers are looking for what they regard as threats to their survival, which predominantly are cars, not pedestrians 2. Drivers’ processing of information at ordinary pedestrian crossings, where pedestrians generally are infrequent, might be automated in such a way that no special attention is directed towards searching for pedestrians, because of the process of automation itself 3. Ordinary pedestrian crossing might be regarded as a trap where pedestrians falsely may feel they are safe while in fact they are not. Hence, this kind of pedestrian crossing should be removed or replaced by another type of crossing which has been confirmed to reduce the number of accidents.

• 4. (Updated meta-analysis will come…)