1. 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

2. Texas Transportation Code
Section
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

3. Texas Transportation Code
Section
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

4. 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

5. 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%

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. East College

11. Griffith

12. Griffith

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Results: East College

20. 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

21. 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

22. Results: Griffith

23. 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

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

25. 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

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

27. Thank You
Questions or comments?