NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ...

or pedestrians to conflicting traffic. The animated eyes display may be used to alert drivers
exiting parking lots to the presence of pedestrians. (Hagen, 2006) Van Houton and Malefant
found a small but significant decrease in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in this type of location. The
animated eye also can be part of the pedestrian signal (reminding pedestrians to look both ways).
A passive (non-animated) set of eyes can also be used. (For examples of applications see
http://www.cers-safety.com/products.htm.)
Electronic Pedestrian Crossing Indicators: LED pedestrian signs directed toward the motorist
that light up when activated either by a pedestrian or a passive pedestrian detector can alert the
driver to the presence of a pedestrian and also show the direction that the pedestrian is crossing.
They are similar in concept to the in-pavement flashing lights, but mounted overhead or on
roadside poles. A study found that the proportion of drivers that yield to pedestrians was always
higher when the signs were activated (reported in Zegeer, Stutts, et al., 2004). They are often
combined with animated eyes.
5.2.4 Unsignalized Intersections
Three main treatments used at unsignalized intersections are: marked crosswalk; enhanced highvisibility
crosswalk (see 5.2.4 section) or “active when present” traffic control device; red signal
or beacon device.
Marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections are not recommended. An NCHRP study
(Fitzpatrick, Turner, et al., 2006) on unsignalized crossings, which looked at research from the
1970s to 2006, found that crosswalk markings at unsignalized intersections are correlated with
higher pedestrian crash rates. For example, a study of 104 locations in Los Angeles where
crosswalk marking were removed found a decrease in pedestrian crashes after removal.
The NCHRP study also found: “Those treatments that show a red signal indication to the
motorist have a statistically significant different compliance rate from devices that do not show a
red indication. These red signal or beacon devices had compliance rates greater than 95 percent
and include midblock signals, half signals, and high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK)
signal beacons. Nearly all the red signal or beacon treatments evaluated were used on busy, highspeed
arterial streets. Pedestrian crossing flags and in-street crossing signs also were effective in
prompting motorist yielding, achieving 65 and 87 percent compliance, respectively. However,
most of these crossing treatments were installed on lower-speed and lower-volume, two-lane
roadways. The measured motorist compliance for many crossing treatments varied considerably
among sites. Number of lanes being crossed and posted speed limit were other factors in addition
to type of treatment influencing the effectiveness of the crossing treatments.”
The research team of the NCHRP study developed and presented recommendations to the
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to revise the MUTCD pedestrian
warrant for traffic control signals. The study proposed two revisions to the MUTCD: 1) the use
of median refuge islands or curb extensions as alternatives to traffic control signals; and 2) the
inclusion of a new type of highway traffic signal, Pedestrian Traffic Control Signals.
NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Study 80