Increasing Safe Crossing Behaviors of Pedestrians on a University Campus Ajal Patel, Josh Staley, & Rhiannon Fante, Ph.D. 2010 ABAI Annual Convention May 31, 2010

Texas Transportation Code Section 552.003 Operators of vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing roadways in a crosswalk if… There is no traffic control signal The pedestrian is on the half of the roadway in which the vehicle is traveling The pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be put in a dangerous situation

Texas Transportation Code Section 552.003 Pedestrians may not suddenly leave a curb and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the driver of the vehicle to yield

Issue at hand When motorists or pedestrians do not know the responsibilities they must uphold or the responsibilities the other must uphold Leads to near misses, accidents, and fatalities

Van Houten (1988) Advanced stop lines and sign prompts at crosswalks Implemented due to motorist-pedestrian conflicts Results Advanced stop lines and sign prompts reduced the motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts by 80%

Huybers, Van Houten, and Malenfant (2004) Used sign prompts in order to reduce motorist-pedestrian conflicts Results Decreased motor vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as well as increased the stopping distance motorists yielded with This was just as effective as using advanced pavement markings

Austin, Hackett, Gravina, and Lebbon (2006) Effects of a sign prompt on the stopping behavior of motor vehicle drivers at a university campus Used a sign that read “Please stop I care” with the other side of the sign saying “Thank you” Results Motorists’ compliance improved on both sides of the crosswalk, even though the poster was only shown to motorists on one side of the crosswalk

Current Problem Many studies focus on motorists’ behaviors, but what about pedestrian behaviors? University setting Lots of traffic from both motorists and pedestrians Potential for near misses, accidents, and fatalities

Method Participants Setting College students, faculty, auxiliary staff, and visitors who used the crosswalks designated for the study Setting 2 separate crosswalks on a mid-sized university campus East college - a mid-block crosswalk with a stop sign and two lanes of traffic Griffith - an intersection with a four way stop sign

East College

Griffith

Griffith

Method Design Dependent variables A within-subject ABAB reversal design was used Dependent variables Stopping - coming to a complete stop before entering the crosswalk Looking – turning head and looking both ways before crossing Use of crosswalk - remaining on or between the white lines that designate the crossing lane for the entire length of the cross Secondary observational data included: 1. current weather conditions 2. whether or not a person was using a cell phone 3. listening to an mp3 device 4. number of people crossing with the target, and whether target conversed with the people 5. A near miss - if a car nearly hit a person crossing 6. If an individual was struck with a moving vehicle.

Method Data were collected 4 days a week, 2 times a day Monday-Thursday 8am Monday & Wednesday 12pm Tuesday & Thursday 12:30pm Independent Variable Sign prompt One side read “Please Stop and Look Before Crossing” Other side read “Thank you” The later observation start time for Tuesday and Thursday afternoons accommodated for the later release of students from classes on those days resulting in similar pedestrian traffic patterns.

Method Procedure Baseline Intervention An observer selected a person that was on route to the crosswalk Observation would then continue until the person reached the opposite curb Intervention A research assistant would hold up the sign with the “Please Stop and Look Before Crossing” side facing the target If the target stopped or looked before crossing the sign would then be flipped to the “Thank You” side Data collection did not begin until the selected individual was at approximately 20 feet from the curb

Method Interobserver agreement A second observer collected IOA data on 35.3% of the total sessions 99.1% for stopping 81.8% for looking 92.6% for use of crosswalk IOA was 100% on all secondary measures

Results: East College Baseline: Average percentage safe = .33 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 8.3 Baseline: Average percentage safe = .83 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 12.9

Results: East College Baseline: Average percentage safe = 15.6 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 22.9 Baseline: Average percentage safe = 16.6 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 29.6

Results: East College

Results: Griffith Baseline: Average percentage safe = .94 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 14.1 Baseline: Average percentage safe = 2.5 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 14.2

Results: Griffith Baseline: Average percentage safe = 37.8 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 61.0 Baseline: Average percentage safe = 44.1 Prompting: Average percentage safe = 71.7

Results: Griffith

Discussion Pedestrian behaviors improved when prompting was used for both crosswalks Behaviors improved from baseline to prompting Behaviors decreased after prompting stopped the first time Behaviors once again improved after prompting was reintroduced Held true for stopping, looking, and use of crosswalk

Discussion Interesting findings Motorists’ behavior increased in terms of stopping and looking Pedestrians smiled more and talked more when prompting took place

Future Directions Increase ability to see looking behaviors of pedestrians Was difficult at times to see if a person was looking or not before crossing Possibly directly attempt to increase motorists’ behaviors at crosswalks

Special Thanks Research Assistants Vicki Sexton Justine Korth Charlotte Lancaster Eleasha Tatum D’Oreall Johnson Julia Phillips Ellen Johnson Shylo Brandenburg

Thank You Questions or comments?