Measuring pedestrian exposure and risk in high-risk areas : final report.

Burbidge, Shaunna K. · 2016 · ROSA P / Utah. Dept. of Transportation. Research Division

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study addresses the gap in pedestrian safety research regarding human behavior and "near miss" incidents. While previous Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) efforts focused on built-environment characteristics and crash data, they failed to capture the decision-making processes of pedestrians. The research aims to quantify pedestrian exposure and risk at high-risk intersections by analyzing real-time video data to understand conflict dynamics and identify contributing factors to potential collisions. The methodology involved observing 2,062 individual pedestrian crossings at nine high-risk intersections identified by UDOT. Data was collected through two primary means: video footage from UDOT Traffic Operations Center cameras and on-site field observations. Researchers coded each crossing using a variation of the Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique, categorizing interactions as undisturbed, potential conflict, or minor/serious conflict. Variables recorded included pedestrian demographics, crossing behaviors (such as distractions and walking pace), and vehicle maneuvers. The study employed summary statistics for descriptive analysis and Multinomial Logistic Regression (MNL) to identify correlations between individual behaviors, built-environment characteristics, and conflict severity. Key findings indicate that while 83.5% of crossings were undisturbed, 14% had the potential for conflict, and 2% resulted in minor or serious conflicts. Vehicle behavior was a significant factor in these conflicts; 48.8% occurred when vehicles were turning right, and 17.1% involved vehicles stopping within the crosswalk. Pedestrian behavior also significantly influenced risk. Pedestrians exhibiting no distractions were 45% less likely to experience a potential conflict compared to those socializing. Conversely, pedestrians walking alone were over 400% more likely to experience a minor conflict than those in groups. Age was the only characteristic correlated with serious conflicts, with adults facing only 4% of the likelihood of serious conflict compared to seniors. Most pedestrians (95.2%) began crossing during the walk phase, indicating high compliance with signals. The study concludes that improving pedestrian safety requires addressing both visibility and behavioral exposure. Recommendations include improving crosswalk visibility through high-contrast paint and signage, employing innovative treatments such as leading arrows and ergonomic designs, and implementing exclusive pedestrian signal phasing at high-risk locations. These measures aim to reduce the exposure time between vehicles and pedestrians and mitigate the risks associated with distracted or isolated walkers. The findings provide a data-driven basis for UDOT to refine design standards and target countermeasures more effectively.

Key finding

Pedestrians walking alone are over 400% more likely to experience a minor conflict with a vehicle than those walking in a group, while undistracted pedestrians are 45% less likely to experience a potential conflict.

Methodology

naturalistic

Sample size: 2062

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• pedestrian behavior perception
• rail grade crossings
• child pedestrian
• driver vru interaction

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: crash risk outcomes, observational prevalence