Citation

Hatfield J, Fernandes R, Job RFS, Smith K. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2007; 39(4): 833-842.

Affiliation

NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, The University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.005

PMID

17258163

Abstract

Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules may contribute to pedestrian trauma, especially at crossings where pedestrian and traffic signals appear to give contradictory messages. Two thousand eight hundred and fifty-four pedestrians were observed crossing at signal-controlled intersections to compare attention to traffic for different combinations of pedestrian and traffic signals. In addition, a survey was conducted at signal-controlled intersections and nearby car parks in metropolitan and rural areas. Five hundred and seventy-four participants took the role of pedestrian or driver when responding to questions regarding beliefs about pedestrian right-of-way for a range of situations at signal-controlled crossings, zebra crossings, and unmarked sections of road (specifically: alone, with pedestrian refuge, or paved). Results suggest that at signal-controlled crossings pedestrian right-of-way is erroneously thought to be influenced by the pedestrian signal. Many respondents thought that a pedestrian refuge or paving gave a pedestrian right-of-way at an otherwise unmarked section of road. In many situations more than 20% of both drivers and pedestrians reported that they would take right-of-way. Pedestrian crossing types should be rationalised, and education should be provided regarding rules and responsibilities at available crossings.

Language: en