My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#02 - Cross Walk Discussion
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020's
>
2024
>
04-09-24 W
>
#02 - Cross Walk Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2025 1:20:56 PM
Creation date
8/16/2024 2:15:42 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
240
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />0 <br />10 <br />20 <br />30 <br />40 <br />50 <br />Zebra <br />Crossing <br />Signalized <br />Crossing <br />No Facilities <br />Cr <br />a <br />s <br />h <br /> <br />R <br />a <br />t <br />e <br /><16 years <br />16-60 years <br />60+ years <br /> <br />Figure 4. Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group. <br /> <br />In a 1999 study involving the relationship between crashes or conflicts and exposure, Ekman and Hyden <br />compared intersections with and without zebra crossings on major streets in the cities of Malmö and <br />Lund, Sweden. Among other conclusions, the study found that “Zebra crossings seem to have higher <br />crash rate than approaches without zebra,” and “The increased crash rate for approaches with zebra <br />crossings is only valid on locations where the car flow is larger than 10 cars per hour.” Conflict rates <br />were about twice as high with zebra crossings compared to crossings with no control. The authors <br />reported that the dataset did not include enough sites with car exposure greater than 250 cars per hour. <br />The study also found that the positive effects of pedestrian refuge islands “seem to be stronger than the <br />negative effect of zebra crossing, at least in the lower region of car exposure.” This finding supports the <br />safety benefit of having a raised pedestrian refuge island at pedestrian crossings.(10) <br /> <br />Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto, Canada intersections.(11) The <br />basis for selecting the particular intersections was not described. A before-after study was conducted, and <br />it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to increase after <br />crosswalks were installed. It is not apparent from the graphs that there was any change in slope <br />associated with the time of painting the crosswalks; it would appear that marking the crosswalks did not <br />have much of an effect on crashes. However, the author points to an increase in tailgating crashes at the <br />intersections after crosswalk painting. He also reports that the increased crashes during the after phase <br />seemed to be entirely explained by an increase in crashes involving out-of-town drivers. Perhaps the <br />increase in crashes by out-of-town motorists was because they were not expecting any change in <br />pedestrian or motorist behavior of the local residents, who may have been more familiar with the new <br />markings. However, no behavioral data was included in the study. <br /> <br />In summary, there are no clear-cut results from the studies reviewed to permit concluding with confidence <br />that either marked or unmarked crosswalks are safer. The selection bias (on where crosswalks are <br />marked) could certainly affect the results of a given study. Units of pedestrian crash experience were also <br />inconsistent from one study to another. Another important question relates to whether analyzing sites <br /> 7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.