pedestrians?

Kearney, Joseph K.; Plumert, Jodie M. · 2017 · ROSA P / Safety Research Using Simulation (SAFER-SIM) University Transportation Center

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 investigates whether prohibitive warnings delivered via mobile devices can improve road-crossing safety for pedestrians distracted by texting. Motivated by rising pedestrian fatalities and the known risks of mobile device distraction, the research aims to inform the design of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) communication systems. Previous research by the authors found that while "permissive" alerts (indicating when it is safe to cross) improved gap selection, they caused pedestrians to neglect visual monitoring of traffic. This study tested "prohibitive" alerts (warning when a crossing is unsafe) to determine if they could enhance safety without inducing the same level of visual disengagement. The experiment utilized the "Hank" immersive virtual environment, a large-screen simulator with stereo projection and real-time motion tracking. Forty-seven undergraduate participants were assigned to one of three between-subjects conditions: control (holding a phone but not texting), texting (responding to automated messages), or warning (texting while receiving an auditory alarm if they initiated a crossing into an unsafe gap). The warning system detected crossing initiation via head motion tracking and triggered an alarm if the time to arrival of the next vehicle was less than 2.5 seconds. Participants completed 20 road-crossing trials each. Performance metrics included gap selection, waiting time, movement timing, collision rates, and gaze direction, with the latter estimated using a support vector machine algorithm based on head orientation. The results indicated that prohibitive warnings improved gap selection safety. Participants in the warning condition waited significantly longer and chose larger gaps than those in the texting and control groups. Logistic regression analysis confirmed that the warning group had more conservative gap acceptance thresholds. However, the warnings did not significantly alter movement timing, road-crossing duration, or collision rates compared to other groups. Notably, participants in the warning condition spent the least amount of time attending to traffic (41.91%), significantly less than the control (96.14%) and texting (59.50%) groups. Furthermore, despite the warnings being highly predictive of risk, participants rarely aborted their crossings upon receiving an alarm, often continuing into dangerous gaps. The study concludes that while prohibitive warnings encourage safer gap selection, they do not fully mitigate the attentional deficits associated with texting. The finding that warned pedestrians still neglected visual monitoring of traffic and failed to abort unsafe crossings suggests that prohibitive alerts alone may be insufficient for ensuring safety. These results highlight the complexity of designing V2P systems, indicating that alerts must be carefully calibrated to avoid creating over-reliance or false security, and that further research is needed to understand how pedestrians integrate warning information with visual situational awareness.

Key finding

Pedestrians receiving prohibitive warnings chose significantly larger gaps and waited longer to cross than non-warning groups, but they also paid less attention to traffic and rarely aborted crossings after receiving a warning.

Methodology

simulator

Sample size: 47

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
• vru facing ehmi
• rail grade crossings
• driver vru interaction