Content uploaded by Mosabbir Pasha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mosabbir Pasha on Nov 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
73:4 (2015) 77–83 | www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722
Full paper
Jurnal
Teknologi
Pedestrian’s Behaviour on Road Crossing Facilities
Md. Mosabbir Pasha*, Dr. Shakil Mohammad Rifaat, Abul Hasnat, Istiakur Rahman
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Islamic University of Technology, Bangladesh
*Corresponding author: mosabbir@iut-dhaka.edu
Article history
Received: 5 September 2014
Received in revised form:
3 December 2014
Accepted 3 January 2015
Abstract
Walking is a major mode of transportation in developing countries where most road users are pedestrians
who spend significant time on roads and using the road system. Walking almost inevitably involves crossing
a road, where the chances of conflict between pedestrian and motor vehicle is much higher. In Dhaka, the
capital of a developing country Bangladesh, pedestrians increase their accident risk when they decide to
cross the road way without using the road crossing facilities. When a relatively unsafe choice is made, the
pedestrian increases his accident risk and faces casualties. However, in Dhaka, it was not explored in the
past about what percentage of people cross the road by pedestrian foot over bridge/ underpass or by
jaywalking. Therefore, It is found that 40.2% of the pedestrians do not use road crossing facilities and 71%
pedestrians prefer underpass rather than using foot over bridge. The reasons pedestrians are not using road
crossing facilities are insufficient security, time consuming, poor entrance, hawker’s problem, discomfort,
takes a long walk etc. To improve this situation several steps should be taken, such as: Enhance lighting
facilities, prohibit commercial activities, adequate usage of roadside and median barrier, construct more
underpass rather than foot over bridge etc.
Keywords: Walking; pedestrian; risk; safety; jaywalking.
© 2015 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved
1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Walking, the simplest form of transportation has many benefits for
pedestrians and the society. Yet, pedestrians are a vulnerable group
of people and safety concerns are a significant barrier in one's
decision to walk [1]. With over 500 million cars and trucks in use,
the World Health Organization WHO reported that the world loses
over 1.2 million people annually and 50 million are injured because
of motor vehicle crashes. The estimated economic loss is more than
US$ 500 billion [2]. If explored in depth these statistics surely
reveal that a significant portion of economic loss and life loss are
associated with pedestrian involvement in crashes.
Bangladesh is one of the densely populated countries in the
world. It has a land size of 147,570 square km with a population
density of 1015 peoples per square km and population growth is
1.37 per annum. On the other hand Dhaka, the capital city of
Bangladesh has the population density approximately 10 times
higher than the overall population density of the country which is
8229 peoples per square km [3]. According to Dhaka Transport Co-
ordination Authority (DTCA) (2013) at present in Dhaka city more
than 15 million people are living and everyday this huge number of
peoples causes around 25 million daily trips by using several modes
of transport.
Among the various modes seen in Dhaka, walking is one of
the main modes of transport, with 60% of trips made by foot and
only 4% by car [4]. It is because 76% of all trips are under 5 km,
and 50% under 2 km [5], which makes walking is a convenient
mode of transport. As large numbers of people are pedestrian and
they are exposed to traffic, pedestrian risks are increasing day by
day.
If we look into statistics, the risk for the pedestrian can be
understood. According to Bangladesh Road Transport Authority
from 1999 to 2008, a total of 35,105 accidents occurred in
Bangladesh. In these 10 years, 13,516 pedestrians were killed in
traffic crashes in Bangladesh, representing 53% of all the people
that died in traffic crashes. Among 13,516 pedestrian fatalities,
3156 i.e. 24% happened in 4 metropolitan cities. In a particular
year, for example in 2008 in Dhaka city, 281 pedestrians died from
injuries suffered in collisions with motor vehicles which accounts
for 72% of all road users’ fatalities there. Also in 2008, 20%
pedestrian fatalities of the country occurred only in Dhaka city [6].
Another statistics showed that 80% pedestrian fatalities of the 4
major cities occurred only in Dhaka City [7].
Bangladesh Police HQ conducted some road accident survey
from 1993 to 2000 in Bangladesh. They reported 45,616 casualties
during these 8 years. They showed that pedestrians are involved in
about 70% of road accidents [8].
All the statistics clearly demonstrate that pedestrians are the
most vulnerable road users in Bangladesh. One of the reasons is
that most of the pedestrians are not well educated and also unaware
of traffic rules. Sometimes the pedestrian do not use the facilities
provided for them to cross the road (i.e., overpass or underpass) due
to several reasons such as, height of the structures, installed on
improper locations, vendor problem, time consuming etc. Some of
the facilities are not well designed so that pedestrians are
discouraged to use it. Perhaps because of these reasons, a
significant number of pedestrians are often observed in jay walking
to cross the road. . In a survey interviewing pedestrians, it has been
found that the majority of the pedestrians prefer to cross on level
ground and medians, with females and younger pedestrians willing
to use non-level crossings [9]. For this reason pedestrians become
more vulnerable and do faults when crossing the roads. In an
investigation results show that pedestrians are found at fault in 59%
of the crashes, drivers in 32%, and both are found at fault in 9%
29%
71%
Demand of crossing facilities
FOB
Under pass
78 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
[10]. Also when crossing the level ground the waiting time may
increase and this affects the crossing behavior of the pedestrians.
Hamed (2010) studied the factors that influence a pedestrian’s
waiting time and frequency of attempts to cross streets. He found
that pedestrians’ expected waiting time has profound influence on
the number of attempts needed to successfully cross the street.
Hamed (2010) established that pedestrians who spend more time
waiting to cross from one side of the street to the median are likely
to have a higher risk of ending the waiting time than when they
cross from central refuge to the other side of the street [11]. In
another study, it was found that as signal waiting time increases,
pedestrians get impatient and violate traffic signal indications
which increases the risk of being struck by a motor vehicle [12].
Studies generally point out male pedestrians as those most
frequently involved in pedestrian crashes and elderly and children
as the most vulnerable pedestrians [13].
Location of pedestrian crossing facilities also plays an
important role of crash occurrences and crash related injuries. The
severity of the crashes increases in non-junction crosswalks
because the pedestrians always do hurry to cross the roads to save
time. So, they always cross the road in level ground instead of using
underpass and foot over bridge. In Israel a detailed analysis of
pedestrian accidents in 2006–2007, with an emphasis on the
infrastructure characteristics involved, was performed; it was found
that 75% of the fatalities and 95% of the injuries occurred in urban
areas, the majority of cases occurring on road sections (not at
junctions). About 80% of the accidents took place when a
pedestrian crossed the road, the majority of them at non-crosswalk
locations or at non-signalized crosswalks [14]. In another study it
has been found approximately 38.2% of the crashes occur at
crosswalk locations, while proportionately more (61.8%) of the
pedestrian accidents occur at non-crosswalk locations [15].
However, it is hypothesized that if enough road crossing
facilities are provided, the interaction between pedestrian and
vehicle would be less and pedestrian risk of involving in crashes
may be minimized. All the reasons discussed above of not using
pedestrian crossing facilities and the effect of pedestrian crossing
locations have been extracted from different studies which were
performed in different contexts. In Bangladesh, very few
researches have been conducted on pedestrians’ behavior, more
specifically, if there any on the usage of road crossing facilities. For
this reason, it has not been sorted out yet why the significant
numbers of pedestrians do jaywalking while crossing the roads.
The aim of this paper is to find out the pedestrians’ perception
on using road crossing facilities in Dhaka. This might be helpful to
develop a safe pedestrian environment and will reduce casualties.
For this purpose, the study is divided into two parts. In first part,
the present scenario of the utilization of road crossing facilities is
explored by taking real time data on several locations in Dhaka. In
the second part of the study, a questionnaire survey has been
prepared to examine the pedestrian perception on this issue.
Particularly, the analysis from the survey data will reveal the
measures needed to be taken to increase the usage of road crossing
facilities. It is expected that the results of this study could lead to
better understanding of pedestrian crossing behavior in Dhaka and
support policy makers in their decision making regarding the
improvement of road crossing facilities in Dhaka city.
2.0 PRESENT SCENARIO OF ROAD CROSSING
FACILITIES IN DHAKA CITY
According to Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) (2013) at
present in Dhaka city there are total 34 foot over bridges (FOBs)
and 4 under passes. Among them 19 are steel made and another 15
are Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) Structures. The four under
passes are also RCC structures.
To observe the present situation 17 road crossing facilities in
different location were visited. The conditions of the facilities were
not good. In most of the places the entrance to the facilities were
blocked by vendors, so that it was very tough for the pedestrians to
use the facilities. Some of the foot over bridges were occupied by
hawkers, so that not enough space is available for the pedestrians
to walk safe and conveniently. Almost all foot over bridges (FOBs)
and underpasses were very dirty and some people throw waste on
them.
At night time the road crossing facilities become unusable
because of insufficient lighting facilities. Sometimes unwanted
incident occurs (such as, hijacking) due to the lack of security
personnel. Also at night time the number of traffic reduces, for this
reason pedestrians are more encouraged to cross the road without
using the road crossing facilities.
An investigation was done to observe the percentage of
pedestrians who use the road crossing facilities and those who do
not. This investigation was limited to only 7 road crossing facilities
due to time and manpower constraints. They are situated at
different locations of Dhaka city so they are representative of
crossing facilities in Dhaka City.
For example, Farmgate area is a commercial zone with
activities such as cinema hall, bus terminals and students tutoring
centers. It is one of the busiest places in Dhaka city. New market
and Science lab are recognized as shopping zones. Karwan Bazaar
is an institutional zone where governmental and non-governmental
offices are located. Notun Bazar is an area beside the diplomatic
zone where several universities and colleges are situated. Uttara is
mostly residential area, because commercial activities in this area
are very less. Abdullahpur is one of the entry points to Dhaka city.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the seven locations from where
data was collected. In each of the seven locations, data has been
taken for one hour duration. However, the time of data capture was
different for different locations due to shortage of manpower.
Though the crossing behavior of the pedestrians may vary
with the time of day, however, this issue might not play a vital role
in our study as our goal was limited to finding out the percentage
of pedestrians not using the road crossing facilities.
79 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
Figure 1 The locations of the 4 road crossing facilities.
Figure 2 The locations of the 3 road crossing facilities.
80 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
Figure 3 Pedestrians are crossing the busy roads without using the crossing facilities.
The numbers of pedestrians counted at the 7 road crossing
facilities are 22628. Overall 59.8% of the pedestrians were found
to be using facilities, while the remaining 40.2% of the people did
not use the pedestrian FOB/underpass. A pedestrian is considered
as a sample if the target person is within 15.24m distance in either
direction from the crossing facilities. It means if a pedestrian does
not use the crossing facilities it is considered that the pedestrians
outside the 15.24m distance, we excluded him from the
investigation.
It has been observed that in most of the locations pedestrians
are crossing the busy roads without using the crossing facilities
(Figure 3). Table 1 shows the number of pedestrians using road
crossing facilities.
Table 1 Percentage of pedestrian using crossing facilities
Location
Date
Time
Crossing facility type
Number of pedestrian
% of pedestrians not using
facilities
Using
facilities
Not using
facilities
Farmgate
22.03.13
2.00-3.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
1588
760
32.4%
Science Lab
23.03.13
4.00-5.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
1640
820
33.3%
New market
24.03.13
5.00-6.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
1508
2040
57.5%
Karwan Bazar
25.03.13
6.00-7.00 pm
Underpass
1644
488
22.9%
Uttara
15.05.13
5.00-6.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
2280
2080
47.7%
Abdullahpur
17.05.13
2.00-3.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
2452
1612
39.7%
Notun Bazar
18.05.13
7.00-8.00 pm
Foot Over Bridge
2420
1296
34.9%
Total
13532
9096
40.2%
At Farmgate and Science Lab area the pedestrians not using
FOBs are 32.4% and 33.3% respectively. These two locations show
the lower percentage of jaywalking since median barrier is placed
at the middle of the road. Moreover, pedestrians are also confined
within the pedestrian path by road side barriers offering less chance
to cross the road illegally. It is also observed that the number of
vendors is less and space for entry is enough wide.
On the contrary, at New Market area, 57.5% pedestrians are not
using the pedestrian over bridge. In this area, though both roadside
barrier and median barrier are observed, however, these measures
are unsuccessful to resist pedestrian from jaywalking because these
structures are not working properly due to the lack of periodic
maintenance. It is also noticeable that the entrance to the foot over
bridge (FOB) is occupied by many vendors and hawkers who are
selling different goods and obstruct the access of pedestrians to use
the overpass. The scenario is same at Uttara FOB where near half
of pedestrians are not using pedestrian overpass.
Among the seven locations, we found the least percentage of
pedestrians not using the road crossing facilities in Karwan bazar
area to be 22.9%. It is noted that this is the only underpass
considered in this study. Near this location, road side barrier was
provided beside pedestrian path so that people cannot enter to the
mid-block section. However, still some pedestrians are coming out
from footpath and cross the road by the damaged portion of the
barrier. Also there was not any median barrier provided at the
middle of the road. The reasons behind the lowest percentage of
81 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
people are not using pedestrian underpass is because there are no
hawkers; entrance is quite wide, lighting facilities are very good
and presence of beggars is less. In another survey, we have found
that 71% people prefer underpass to over FOBs. Pedestrians think
it’s less time consuming, safe, enough lighting; entrance is not
narrow and congested, less beggar and hawker problem while
comparing with those of the FOBs.
In Abdullahpur and Notun Bazaar areas percentage of people
not using the road crossing facilities were 39.7% and 34.9%
respectively. In these locations, roadside barrier was not provided
which encourages pedestrians to come out of the road very easily
and cross the road at midblock. However, comparing with New
Market and Uttara areas the percentages of not using the overpass
are still less at these two areas, perhaps, because of different road
environment condition. Continuous flow of traffic is observed near
the FOB at Abdullahpur and Notun Bazaar. On the contrary, the
scenario is reversed in Newmarket and Uttara areas, where buses
and cars are at low speeds due to adverse road conditions; this
encourages pedestrians to stop vehicles which enhance jaywalking.
Figure 4 Comparisons between Underpass and FOBs
Figure 5 Entrance of the foot over bridge and FOB’s are occupied with hawkers and beggars.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection and Pedestrian Profile
To analyze the situation why a significant percentage of pedestrians
are not using the road crossing facilities, a questionnaire survey was
conducted among the pedestrians. A total of 300 pedestrians were
random sampled to get representative sample from the population.
The socio-economic and demographic profile of the pedestrian
sample is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Profile of respondents (%)
Gender
Male: 72
Female: 28
Age
Below 25: 34.72
25-35: 24.44
35-45: 20.03
45-55: 18.4
Over 55: 4.4
Literacy
Illiterate: 11.8
Primary: 19.4
Secondary: 47.2
Post-Secondary: 21.52
Income
Below 12,000: 31.94
Below 25,000: 38.8
Below 35,000: 18.05
Below 50,000: 4.86
Over 50,000: 3.47
Dwelling condition
Personal: 9.72
Rental: 58.33
Slum: 20.1
Office quarter: 11.1
Others: 1.38
29%
71%
Demand of crossing facilities FOB
Under pass
82 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
3.2 Questionnaire
A questionnaire was designed to find out the reasons for not using
the pedestrian overpass and underpass. For this purpose, 12
possible causes were identified from field investigation which
discourages pedestrians to use these facilities and promote jay
walking. The possible reasons are shown in Table3. The perception
of using road crossing facilities was assessed by a 5 point Likert
scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”.
For analyses, numerical scores 1 to 5 were assigned to indicate
the reason for not using road crossing facilities. For an example, if
a pedestrian answers “Strongly Agree” to the question 1 to question
12, then the minimum value will be 12 and if he answers “Strongly
Disagree”, then the maximum value will be 60. Based on the mean
value for each statement, the results are ranked to show which
factors are the prime reasons for not using pedestrian foot over
bridge or under pass.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As earlier stated most of the pedestrians prefer underpass rather
than FOBs and the objective is to find out why 40.2% of pedestrians
are not using the road crossing facilities.
The mean responses of all the questions vary from 1.71 to 2.76
which lie in between ‘neutral’ and ‘strongly agree’. In general, this
result implies that the respondents agree with the possible reasons
of not using the pedestrian facilities identified from field
investigation.
Based on the questionnaire survey it has been found that
insufficient security (mean=1.71) has been identified as the top
reason(R=1) of not using pedestrian foot over bridge or underpass.
The reason is true particularly during night time as no lighting
facilities are observed on any pedestrian overpass which increases
the chance of mugging. Also most of the times, railings of the foot
over bridges are covered by commercial advertisements which
restrict the vision of the security personnel to vigil the FOB.
Time is another important factor which discourages
pedestrians to use the road crossing facilities. Mean value is 1.81
for “using road crossing facilities is time consuming’’ and 61%
pedestrians strongly agree with this statement. Perhaps the
pedestrian are always in hurry which may discourage them to climb
the foot over bridge.
The mean value of the “entry access is poor” is 1.83. Often the
surrounding environment of the entrance of FOB or underpass is
not good. Waste is often dumped near the entrances and bad odor
comes from the waste. Some people simply feel uneasy or
discomfort of not using the pedestrian foot over bridge perhaps
because of not feeling physically comfortable (mean=1.91).
Presence of beggars and hawkers are also a reason of less usage of
pedestrian overpass and underpass.
Interestingly “the climbing height of the facilities” is not a
major cause for the less use of pedestrian foot over bridge or
underpass as implied by the respondents (mean=2.76). Similarly,
the absence of median barrier or roadside barrier has been less
emphasised for not using the road crossing facilities (mean=.2.56).
Narrow and congested condition are not prime reasons of not using
road crossing facilities (mean= 2.31).
Table 3 Views of respondent
Possible causes of not using road crossing facilities
Strongly
Agree
(%)
Agree
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
Mean
1. I feel uneasy or discomfort to use road crossing facilities.
55
8
28
9
-
1.91 (R=4)
2. It is more time consuming.
61
9
19
10
1
1.81 (R=2)
3. The road crossing facilities are very dirty.
42
21
31
5
1
2.02 (R=5)
4. The climbing height of using the facilities is a problem.
21
10
44
22
3
2.76 (R=11)
5. Hawkers’ problem.
63
1
12
19
5
2.02 (R=5)
6. Insufficient security.
71
2
17
10
1
1.71 (R=1)
7. Takes a long walk
62
4
8
21
5
2.03 (R=6)
8. Entry access is very poor.
69
1
11
16
3
1.83 (R=3)
9. Too much narrow and congested
36
16
33
11
4
2.31 (R=9)
10. Can cross the road easily because no guard rail or restriction is
provided.
28
11
39
21
1
2.56 (R=10)
11.Numbers of beggar is too high
33
23
35
9
-
2.20 (R=8)
12.Unsocial or illegal activities
31
25
39
5
-
2.18 (R=7)
Note: Mean calculated considering Strongly Disagree=5, Disagree=4, Neutral=3, Agree=2, Strongly Agree=1., “R” means “Rank”
83 Md. Mosabbir Pasha et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 73:4 (2015) 77–83
5.0 CONCLUSION
This study reveals the perception of pedestrians on the use of
pedestrian crossing facilities. Based on the study it is identified
that insufficient security is the prime concern of pedestrians to
use pedestrian foot over bridge or underpass. Security should be
increased so that pedestrians do not fear for the hijacking and
mugging problem.
Field observation suggests that the maintenance of roadside
barrier and median barrier should be improved to separate
pedestrian movements from vehicular traffic and to encourage
pedestrians to use road crossing facilities. Also there are other
sectors which should be improved such as: pedestrian awareness,
social awareness, design improvement etc.
Type of road crossing facilities plays an important role to
increase the efficiency of it. According to our study 71%
pedestrians want underpass rather than FOBs. Thus, we propose,
if possible, to build more underpass rather than overpass.
Nonetheless, several steps have to be taken to improve the
surrounding environment of the FOBs which ultimately increase
their usage. The steps are as follows:
Foot over bridge should be accessible very easily. It means
the entrance should be wide enough and convenient approach to
facilities so that pedestrians can use it without discomfort and
hindrance.
Foot over bridge should be free from all kinds of commercial
and illegal activities. Such as: it should be free from hawkers,
beggars, prostitutes etc. Billboard and advertisement should be
banned in foot over bridge.
Foot over bridge should have appropriate roofing facilities
so that pedestrians can use it during the rainy season as well as in
the hot summer.
Lighting facilities should be increased so that pedestrians
can use the facilities at night without hesitation and discomfort.
Foot over bridge should be aesthetically beautiful.
Public awareness campaign should be organized by the
government and different road authorities. Variable message sign
can be used to warn the pedestrians about the bad impact of not
using road crossing facilities.
Based on the situation observed and survey the most
important sector should be improved is law enforcement.
Government should take proper steps so that if any pedestrians
do not use road crossing facilities or cross the road illegally he or
she should be fined. Unfortunately, till now no fines are imposed
to pedestrians in Bangladesh due to jaywalking, perhaps, the
government is afraid of becoming unpopular to citizens from
political perspective.
References
[1] Chen, L., C. Chen, and R. Ewing. 2014. The relative effectiveness of
signal related pedestrian countermeasures at urban intersections—
Lessons from a New York City case study. Transport Policy. 32: 69–78.
[2] World Health Organization. 2010. World Health Organization (WHO)
Report.
[3] Bangladesh bureau of statistics. 2011. Bangladesh Population &
Housing Census.
[4] Hoque, M., and J. Alam. 2002. Report on Urban Transport Issues and
Improvement Options in Bangladesh.
[5] Barkat, A., W. Karim, A.H. Sarker, S. Hoque, and A. Poddar. 2004. After
Study On The Impact Of Mirpur Demonstration Corridor Project:
HDRC (Gabtoli-Russel Square) Prepared For Dhaka Transport
Coordination board on September.
[6] Bangladesh Road Transport Authority. 2008. RTA Annual Report 2008.
[7] Hashib, A. A., M. S. Zaman, M. I. Arin, S. M. Rifaat and M. Al-Amin.
2012. A study on the students’ perception of pedestrian risk. ICETCESD
2012. 513–516.
[8] Hoque, M. M. 2004. The Road to Road Safety: Issues and Initiatives in
Bangladesh. Regional Health Forum. 8(1): 39–51.
[9] Mfianga, D. A.,Implications of pedestrians stated preference of certain
attributes ofcrosswalks. Transport Policy. 32:156–164.
[10] Gudmundur, F., Ulfarsson, S. Kim, and K. M. Booth. 2010. Analyzing
fault in pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes in North Carolina. Accident
Analysis & Prevention. 42(6): 1805–1813.
[11] Hamed, M. M. 2010. Analysis of Pedestrians’ Behavior at Pedestrian
Crossings. Safety Science. 38: 63–82.
[12] Tiwari, G., S. Bangdiwala, A. Saraswat, and S. Gaurav. 2007. Survival
Analysis: Pedestrian risk Exposure at Signalized Intersections.
Transport Research Part F. 10: 77–89.
[13] Al-Madani, H., and A. Al-Janahi. 2006. Personal exposure risk factors
in pedestrian accidents in Bahrain. Safety Science, 44: 335–347.
[14] Gitelman, V., D. Balasha, R. Carmel, L. Hendel, and F. Pesahov. 2012.
Characterization of pedestrian accidents and an examination of
infrastructure measures to improve pedestrian safety in Israel. Accident
Analysis & Prevention. 44(1): 63–73
[15] Kim, K., I. M. Brunner, E. Yamashita. 2008. Modeling fault among
accident—Involved pedestrians and motorists in Hawaii. Accident
Analysis & Prevention. 40(6): 2043–2049.
