4.5 Article

Illegal crossing behavior of pedestrians at signalized intersections: Factors affecting the gap acceptance

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.007

关键词

Illegal crossing; Distance gap; Safety margin; Crossing time; Signalized intersection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of designing crosswalks is to allow pedestrians to cross the roads safely avoiding conflicts between pedestrians and motorized vehicles. However, pedestrians do not always comply with the crossing rules, whether it is timing (signalization) and/or location (crossing facility). An observation survey of illegal crossings was conducted at six intersections in Izmir, Turkey to determine the distance and time gap perception of the pedestrians for safe road-crossing within the 25 m of the crosswalk. Each intersection was observed on weekdays during afternoon (12.30-13.30) and evening peak hours (17.00-18.00). Totally, 444 illegal crossings were observed at all intersections. Data were analyzed playing the video recordings in office. All roads were consisted of two lanes. In this study pedestrians' illegal crossing behavior at signalized intersections depending on the position of the oncoming vehicle is of interest. Safety margins and crossing times of the pedestrians were also reported. Position of the vehicle was determined for the first lane at the instant the pedestrian stepped the lane. Pedestrians' distance gap perception was categorized into five groups depending on the position of the oncoming vehicle which are; vehicle is within the 25 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is within the 25-50 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is within the 50-75 m of the crosswalk, vehicle is just beyond 75 m, and vehicle is out of field of view. Factors affecting the distance gaps, safety margins and crossing times were analyzed by ANOVA. The most significant effect was the vehicle speed in all analysis. Pedestrians based their decision of crossing on distance rather than time gap. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据