Research With Respect to the Claim of a Pedestrian False Sense of Security
"In summary … there was no evidence of pedestrian overconfidence or aggressiveness associated with these (high-visibility) crosswalks."
"Crosswalks, Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled crosswalks are marked crosswalks where no traffic controls such as a stop sign or signal exist. Such markings have become much rarer since the early 1970s, as traffic engineers have systematically removed marked crosswalks from uncontrolled locations, believing the markings provide a "false sense of security." Recent studies suggest the story is far more complicated.
Background
Livable streets guru Dan Burden observes that able-bodied pedestrians will not generally walk more than approximately 150 feet to reach a controlled crosswalk. Along corridors where controlled intersections are farther apart than 300 feet, this means a lot of pedestrians will be crossing illegally mid-block, or at uncontrolled intersections, such as where a 2-lane residential street intersects with a 4-lane arterial.
Engineers are appropriately cautious about placing a crosswalk in any uncontrolled location, especially if the street is a multi-lane collector. Unfortunately, engineers have erred in the other direction, removing crosswalks and pronouncing pedestrians safer as a result.
"False Sense of Security" Theory
For many years, where and when to paint a crosswalk in the U.S. has been decided on the basis of popular assumptions from a single study, published in 1972. [1] The so-called "Herms Study" of crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections in San Diego, California, found there were more pedestrians struck (per person crossing) at uncontrolled intersections where a crosswalk was marked than in those left unmarked. However, Herms did not account for the fact that markings were probably provided at precisely those locations where pedestrian/vehicle conflicts were an issue.
But neither did the study conclude all marked crosswalks are unsafe. Yet, that is the common misinterpretation by the traffic engineering profession. Rather unfortunately, Herms also speculated that marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections may give a "false sense of security" to pedestrians using them. On the basis of this "theory" engineers have been removing marked crosswalks for decades, and failing to provide new ones in critical locations.
Debunking the "False Sense of Security" Theory
The Herms Study's theory of pedestrian behavior has been debunked by more recent studies. Knoblauch et al. [2] found that pedestrians exhibit more, not less caution, in a crossing location after a crosswalk has been marked (the comparison was at the same location, before and after the crosswalk was marked.) For their part, drivers were found to slow down slightly when approaching the marked crosswalks. This does not mean it is safe to provide a crosswalk anywhere, some locations are too dangerous. Rather, it indicates that crosswalk markings, appropriate signage, and other safety measures aimed at warming motorists should not be avoided on the theory that they induce a"false sense of security" in pedestrians. Advocates for pedestrian safety are justifiably weary of hearing this phrase, especially given its shaky empirical underpinnings.
To clarify once and for all where crosswalks may be marked, the Federal Department of Transportation conducted a study which examined thousands of pedestrian crashes in all 50 states and set guidelines for installing marked crosswalks. This so-called Zegeer Study [3] is the most thorough of its kind ever conducted. Importantly, it controlled for pedestrian volume and crosswalk location and has a more than adequate sample size, all serious flaws of earlier studies.
New Federal Guidelines for Crosswalks
The federal guidelines resulting from the Zegeer Study indicate that, as an example, a marked crosswalk is safe to provide for a 2-lane road if the speed limit does not exceed 40 mph and traffic volumes fall below 12,000 daily trips. This assumes there are no unusual circumstances, such as a blind curve, a visibility problem, or a high volume of large trucks. If any of these conditions occur, a marked crosswalk alone provides no safety advantage. The authors emphasize that,
"in most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments (e.g., curb extensions, raised crossing islands, traffic signals, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures, etc.). Think of marked crosswalks as one option in a progression of design treatments. If one treatment does not adequately accomplish the task, then move on to the next one. Failure of one particular treatment is not a license to give up and do nothing. In all cases, the final design must accomplish the goal of getting pedestrians across the road safely."
From the U.S. Department of Transportation
Report No. FHWA-RD-00-105 August 2001
An Evaluation of High-Visibility Crosswalk Treatment – Clearwater, Florida
Pedestrian Looking Behavior
To check this hypothesis, the looking behavior of pedestrians crossing was observed in both the experimental (high-visibility markings) and control (either unmarked crosswalks or crosswalks with standard markings) locations. As described, the observation procedure involved two observers; one recording the pedestrians looking behavior and the other noting the presence of approaching vehicles. The vehicle volumes at all the sites were such that very few of the pedestrians crossed when no vehicle was approaching the crosswalk. Therefore, the date shown in Table 5 represent the looking behavior of pedestrians crossing when there was at least one vehicle approaching. At the two experimental sites 88.2 percent and 93.3 percent of the pedestrians looked at least once toward approaching traffic. At the control location, 76.5 percent and 100 percent of the pedestrians were observed looking at traffic.
Table 5. Clearwater: Pedestrians Looking at Least Once While Crossing
|
Site No.. |
Site Type |
Pedestrians Who Looked At Least Once | |
|
N |
% | ||
|
1 |
Experimental; high visibility crosswalk, refuge island |
68 |
88.2% |
|
2 |
Control: no crosswalk markings – intersection |
17 |
76.5% |
|
3 |
Experimental: high-visibility crosswalk, refuge island |
90 |
93.3% |
|
4 |
Control: standard crosswalk marking – mid-block |
11 |
100.0% |
An examination of pedestrian looking behavior found no (statistical) differences between the experimental and control locations. This suggests that pedestrians are not any less careful in a high-visibility crosswalk.
Finally there was also no evidence of increased pedestrian overconfidence, as indicated by pedestrians running and/or rushing in the crosswalks… In summary … there was no evidence of pedestrian overconfidence or aggressiveness associated with these crosswalks.