Laserfiche WebLink
<br />pedestrian crashes after painting the crosswalks than before for the sites with ADT rates above 10,500. <br />The study could have been enhanced by including an analysis of crashes within a comparison group of <br />unpainted sites during the same time period. It is not clear whether pedestrian volumes may have <br />increased at the crosswalks after they were marked.(7) <br /> <br />In contrast to the studies described above, Tobey et al. reported reduced crashes associated with marked <br />crosswalks.(8) They examined crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of pedestrian <br />volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V). When the P times V product was used as a denominator, <br />crashes at unmarked crosswalks were found to be considerably overrepresented; crashes at marked <br />crosswalks were underrepresented considerably. Communication with the authors indicates that this <br />study included controlled (signalized) as well as uncontrolled crossings. It seems likely, therefore, that <br />more marked crosswalks than unmarked crosswalks were present at controlled crossings, which could at <br />least partially explain the different results compared to other studies. The study methodology was quite <br />useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for a variety of human and locational features. However, the <br />study results were not intended to be used for quantifying the specific safety effects of marked versus <br />unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway situations.(8) <br /> <br />In 1996, Ekman conducted an analysis of pedestrian crashes at zebra crossings compared to crossings <br />with traffic signals and also to crossings with no facilities.(9) Zebra crossings in Sweden (figure 2) <br />consist of high-visibility crosswalk markings on the roadway, accompanied by zebra crossing signs <br />(figure 3). The study included 6 years of collected pedestrian crash data from crossings in five cities in <br />southern Sweden along with pedestrian counts, traffic volume, and other information for each of the three <br />types of pedestrian crossings. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 2. A zebra crossing used in Sweden. Figure 3. Sign accompanying zebra crossings <br />in Sweden. <br /> <br />The rate of pedestrian crashes was found to be higher (approximately twice as high) at intersections which <br />had zebra crossings, compared to locations that were signalized or had no facilities. Further, pedestrians <br />age 60 and above were most at risk, followed by pedestrians below age 16 (see figure 4). The author also <br />controlled for motor vehicle traffic and found similar results.(9) <br /> 6