Content uploaded by Dago Antov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dago Antov on Mar 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
INVESTIGATING DRIVERS’ BEHAVIOUR AT NON-SIGNALIZED PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS
Dago Antov
1
, Tiia Rõivas
2
, Harri Rõuk
3
1
Stratum OÜ, Juhkentali 34, 10132 Tallinn, Estonia. E-mail: dago.antov@stratum.ee
2
University of Tartu, Institute of Geography. Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: tiia.roivas@ut.ee
3
Tallinn University of Technology, Institute of Transportation.
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia E-mail: harri.rouk@ttu.ee
Summary
Pedestrian safety is one of the most serious problems in Estonian traffic. One of the alarming issues in Estonian road
safety is the pedestrian safety. Thus, every third person killed on the roads is a pedestrian. The main goal of this paper
was to find which factors could affect on drivers attitude to give way to pedestrians at non signalized crossings. In the
result of obtained data we could follow up, that the main factor influencing on drivers willingness to give way at non-
signalized urban crossings was motor vehicle traffic volume.
The second part of the study involved drivers speed choice at the vicinity of pedestrian crossings. Here we considered
that:
1. The driving speeds at crossings are rather high. At almost 60 % of runs the speed was higher than a speed limit.
2. The change in speed at the vicinity of zebra crossing is minor. The situation is especially critical at the crossings with
speed limit of 70 km/h. On these sites an average speed is dangerously high at the whole vicinity of zebra crossing and
does not allow breaking safely when driver occurs the pedestrian waiting at the roadside.
1. Introduction
Road accidents and their consequences are a significant social problem, as well as one of the indicators of the
sustainable development of urban systems. More than 10,000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed every year in EU
countries, representing more than 20 % of all road deaths. The small proportion of pedestrian and cyclist casualties that
occur in rural areas are relatively severe and should not be forgotten, but this review is concerned with the majority,
which occur in urban areas.
Pedestrian safety is also one of the most serious problems in Estonian traffic, especially in urban areas. If one compares
Estonia’s figures with those of the neighbouring country Finland, the pedestrian road traffic risk in Estonia is somehow
2–4 times higher. The situation is extremely alarming in urban areas, which share about 85 % of all pedestrian accidents
in Estonia. It is documented that every fourth urban pedestrian accident occurs at non-signalized pedestrian crossings,
often referred as zebra crossing, or in their vicinity.
It is a well studied fact that the road traffic risk of pedestrian fatality or injury is related to drivers’ behavioural aspects,
such as choice of speed when approaching a crossing and also the driver’s willingness to yield to pedestrians at non-
signalized crossings.
2. International comparison
After establishing the independence during last 15 years the motorization level has been raised rapidly in Estonia - from
154 (2000) to 367 (2005) registered cars per 1000 inhabitants. This rapid motorization has caused a number of negative
consequences, like pollution and road accidents. Even if the safety development characteristics during the last decade
have been generally positive, the differences in road safety situation between the old EU member states and Estonia are
remained rather big. Even if Estonia has had a visible progress in road safety the country remains among the countries
with poorest road safety data in the EU. One of the alarming issues in Estonian road safety is the pedestrian safety.
Table 1. Per capita risk of death of pedestrians in EU-15 countries in 1996 and Estonia (average of 1998–2003)*
Country Population,
mill.
Number of fatalities Fatalities per million
of population
Percentage of
fatalities where
pedestrians
involved
Total Pedestrians
Total Pedestrians
Austria 8,02 1027 157 128 20 15
Belgium 10,18 1336 155 131 15 11
Germany 81,91 8758 1178 107 14 14
Denmark 5,29 514 68 97 13 13
Spain 39,68 5483 960 138 24 18
France 58,21 8541 1043 147 18 12
Finland 5,13 404 70 79 14 17
Greece 10,48 2063 469 197 45 23
Italy 57,25 6688 987 117 17 15
Ireland 3,58 453 113 127 32 25
The Netherlands 15,60 1180 109 76 7 9
Portugal 9,82 2730 624 278 64 23
Sweden 8,82 537 74 61 8 14
UK 58,29 3740 1039 64 18 28
Estonia* 1,35 228 72 169 53 32
The per capita risk of death of pedestrians in EU-15 countries in 1996 is shown in Table 1. Data is from IRTAD
(International Road Traffic and Accident Database – http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/english/irtadlan.htm)
and Estonian Road Administration annual statistics. These Figs represent the pedestrian’s per capita risk. To obtain a
better understanding of the risk to pedestrians, each country needs to collect information on the amount of walking
which is not available today.
Table 2. Pedestrian accidents, Estonia 1998–2002
All
1998–2002
Pedestrian
1998–2002
Share of pedestrian
accidents
Total
1142 361 32%
Total urban
323 160 50%
Total signalized crossing
23 22 96%
Urban
non signalized crossing 15 14 93%
intersections 43 17 40%
road sections 300 138 46%
Rural
Total rural roads 818 201 25%
signalized crossing 0 0 -
non signalized crossing 0 0 -
intersections 41 9 22%
road sections 777 192 25%
Due to the data of Estonian Road Administration during the period of 1998 and 2002 the police reported 1142 fatalities
on Estonian roads. Of these, pedestrians accounted for 361 fatalities (Fig 2). Thus, every third person killed on the roads
is a pedestrian. In Estonia, the police only record pedestrian accidents in which at least one vehicle was also involved.
The police do not record single pedestrian accidents, such as falls or collisions with bicyclists.
Thus taking account the risk data of old EU countries in 1996 and when comparing the pedestrian risk indicators with
Estonian ones, we can get that the pedestrian fatality risk is somehow three times higher, than in old EU in average and
even 7–8 times higher than in countries with the best safety characteristics, like the Netherlands and Sweden.
Pedestrian risk is especially high in urban areas, where pedestrian accidents obtain almost half of all registered injury or
fatality accidents. But the biggest city, capital Tallinn, with the population of 400,000 inhabitants, shows the share of
pedestrian fatalities of all fatal road accidents even as 63 % (Table 3).
Table 3. Road accidents in the City of Tallinn, Estonia (1999–2002)
Road accidents, 1999–2002 Percentage, %
Accidents
Fatalities Injuries Accidents Fatalities Injuries
Tallinn
of which:
1853 97 2109 100 100 100
Pedestrian accident
1056 61 1035 56 63 49
Cycle accident
158 3 158 9 3 8
Other accident types
639 33 916 35 34 43
The problems associated with pedestrian safety are far greater than are reflected by the official safety statistics. This is
one reason why analyses of pedestrian safety are necessary.
3. Pedestrian risk and motor vehicle’s speed
The choice of exposure is crucial to any comparison of own risk across different modes of transport. The reason for this
is that the speeds and durations of the individual trips differ between the various modes of transport.
Walking and cycling are about 7–8 times more dangerous per person kilometre than is travel by private car, whereas
travel by private car is more dangerous per trip than walking. Cycling is twice as dangerous per person hour travelled
relative to walking and private car travel. If trips of less than 300 metres are included, the number of casualties per
million pedestrian trips drops to 1,1 (instead of 1,7). The other Figs of the table do not change significantly if trips of
less than 300 metres are included [1]. About 70–75 % of all pedestrian casualties are falls.
Fig 1 illustrates how the fatality and injury risk of pedestrians is depending on motor vehicle’s speed at a collision
situation. It could be obtained, that the pedestrian fatality and injury risks are highly depending on collision speed. Thus
the probability of staying alive in collision is about six times higher when collision speed is 30 km/h instead of 50 km/h.
On 70 km/h collision speed the probability of being killed in accident is almost 95 %, when only 15 % on collision
speed of 40 km/h [2]. But all these speeds are common on zebra crossings, as speed limits, and the actual speeds of
individual motor vehicles could be even much higher.
4. International risk evaluation of zebra crossings
According to the Estonian Road Traffic Act, a zebra crossing is a part of the road, which is provided for pedestrians
when crossing the carriageway and which is specially marked. If there is a zebra crossing in the vicinity, pedestrians
must use it when crossing carriageways. Drivers approaching a non-signalised zebra crossing must adapt their speed so
as they can stop in order to give way to pedestrians who are just entering the crossing. If necessary, drivers shall stop to
allow pedestrians to pass. Drivers approaching a zebra crossing must not overtake or pass another vehicle if that vehicle
obstructs a full view of the crossing.
In Estonia like in many other countries, zebra crossings consist of broad stripes which are parallel to the direction of the
road. There are no special regulations where non-signalised zebra crossings could be established on roads with certain
speed limit. Thus the most of zebra crossings are located at urban streets with regular speed limit of 50 km/h, but
sometimes we can found zebra crossings also on streets or roads with special speed limit of 70 km/h. Also there is a
usual practice to mark zebra crossings on intersections.
The risk to pedestrians crossing roads at various points in traffic systems has been studied in a series of studies from
England [3, 4], Norway and Sweden [5]. The same method was used in all these studies. The number of accidents in
which crossing pedestrians was involved was compared to the number of pedestrians crossing with a fixed period (12
min. counts outside the rush hour were used). One study found that the risk involved in crossing road sections at up to
45,7 metres from a zebra crossing including the crossing itself was 30 % higher than that at over 45,7 metres from a
zebra crossing, whereas three other studies found that the risk was up to 50 % lower. Three studies found that the risk
involved in crossing roads at or near non-signalised junctions, at distances of up to 18,3 metres from the junctions and
up to 45,7 metres from a zebra crossing was up to 127 % higher in comparison to that at non-signalised junctions
lacking zebra crossings, although two other studies found that the risk was up to 35 % lower. The effects of other
circumstances, such as central islands, road lighting and road width were not eliminated in the studies.
In New Zealand, the risk to crossing pedestrians has been found to be 15 % lower at non-signalised zebra crossings, in
comparison to crossing roads at any other point. Pedestrian exposure was estimated through interviews. No allowance
was made for possible differences in the occurrence of other measures, quantities of car traffic and speed of car traffic
[6]. A before-and-after study of the construction of 62 zebra crossings in London showed that the safety effects of the
crossings was dependent on the accident rate (all accidents) during the before period. At places where there had been
fewer than 2 accidents per year on a 100 metre section with the crossings located at the centres of the sections, the
number of pedestrian accidents increased significantly by 50 %. In contrast to this, the number of pedestrian accidents
dropped significantly by 50 % on sections where there had been more than 3 accidents per year. There was an attempt
to reduce the effects of bias in the results [7].
An American with/without accident study of pedestrian crossings marked with 2 continuous white lines (parallel to the
stop lines, but without zebra stripes) at 400 non-signalised junctions showed that the risk to crossing pedestrians was
about twice as high at the pedestrian crossings in comparison to unmarked crossings. The pedestrian crossings at the
400 junctions were marked only on one arm of the primary road, whereas the other arm was unmarked. Only pedestrian
accidents occurring at the crossings themselves were included in the study, which is critical, as the location of the
unmarked crossings must therefore be determined and accidents occurring in the vicinities of the crossings are
important in a risk assessment. The traffic was counted for 24 hours at 40 systematically-selected junctions. At these 40
junctions, the risk to crossing pedestrians was only 40 % higher at pedestrian crossings in comparison to unmarked
crossings [8].
Draskóczy and Hydén [9] point out that the give-way rules possibly influenced the effect of the pedestrian crossings.
Even though most studies indicate a negative safety effect of pedestrian crossings, there are exceptions, e.g., from
England and Norway. England and Norway have clear give-way rules which require vehicles to give way to
pedestrians, whereas other countries, such as Sweden had no such rules. Draskóczy and Hydén thus suggest introducing
clear give-way rules in the Swedish Road Traffic Act, so that zebra crossings should reduce the number of accidents in
which crossing pedestrians are involved.
Swiss traffic regulations were amended in 1994, so that vehicles must give way when the behaviour of a pedestrian
clearly indicates that he or she intends to use a zebra crossing. Earlier, pedestrians needed to signal to drivers that they
wished to cross the road. It was possible to conclude on the basis of behaviour studies that the average number of
vehicles that drove past before waiting pedestrians crossed the road dropped from 2,6 in the before period, to 1,5 in the
after period. The proportion of motorists who stopped/braked and allowed pedestrians to cross the road increased from
12 % in the before period, to 32 % in the after period one year after amendment of the give-way rules [10]. Based on
literature, Varhelyi [11] notes about non-signalised zebra crossings:
1. The presence of pedestrians at zebra crossings has little or no influence on the speed of approaching vehicles
2. Between 4 % and 30 % of vehicle drivers give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings.
3. Drivers are more willing to slow down or stop for crossing pedestrians when the approach speed of the vehicle is low.
A Swedish interview survey showed that crossing pedestrians feel safer at zebra crossings than they are away from
them [12]. This should possibly be considered in the context that pedestrians walk about 10 % faster when crossing a
road away from a zebra crossing than they do at such crossings [13].
5. Motor vehicle user behaviour at the vicinity of zebra crossings
In the context of the provision being made for them and the changes in behaviour being required and asked of drivers
and pedestrians themselves need to be educated and encouraged to take steps that are open to them to reduce their own
exposure to risk in the course of the increasing use they are being encouraged to make of walking and cycling as means
of transport. They need to be fully consulted and informed about the routes being created or improved for them, and
especially of any situations in which, for the sake of safety, any route is made somewhat less attractive or convenient in
some other respect. Both pedestrians and cyclists also need to be encouraged to use reflective clothing and devices that
increase their conspicuity to drivers. In all these ways it should be possible to achieve considerable increases in the use
of healthier and more environmentally friendly means of transport and still reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries
among pedestrians, and thus contribute to sustainable safety.
Because of differences in design, behaviour patterns, knowledge of safety design and planning, concerning zebra
crossings, it is difficult to assess the rapid safety effect of reconstructing zebra crossings in Estonia. Effects of up to
±50 % on the number of accidents involving crossing pedestrians have been attained or estimated through the
construction of zebra crossings on road sections. Zebra crossings on road sections should be marked at the point where
it is safest for pedestrians to cross the road. Also at junctions, zebra crossings give the best safety effect for pedestrians
when they are carefully planned. When located and redesigned optimally, zebra crossings should be considered by
pedestrians to be "guides to the safest route".
5.1. Motorists’ observance of their obligation to give way at zebra crossings
The idea behind zebra crossings is to reduce the risk for crossing pedestrians and to reduce their waiting time. Technical
approaches that can increase the proportion of motorists who do observe pedestrian rights of way should be investigated
more closely. In this research we were interested in drivers’ behavioural aspects at zebra crossings with clear give way
obligation. The field survey was conducted in the capital city - Tallinn and some other bigger cities, at 16 crossings with
rather different shape. The main goal of surveillance was to find which factors could affect on drivers attitude to give
way. The survey was conducted at the daytime, at off peak hours with different traffic and pedestrian volume during
one hour surveillance periods, twice in each crossing. The situation when there was a pedestrian or a group of
pedestrians clearly representing their wish to cross the road. The determined parameters in the mentioned situations
were: the sequence number of the motorist stopped at zebra crossing and thus giving way to pedestrian(s) counting
started when pedestrian walked to the crossing and first motor vehicle approaching the crossing. Such situations were
defined as contacts. Also some other background data like the number of pedestrians waiting to cross at same time
(pedestrian group size), hourly pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic were determined.
Fig 1. Dependence between the average sequence number of the first stopped car (SN) and pedestrian group size.
We were also interested which of surveyed factors could possible have influence on drivers attitude to give way. Thus
some regression analysis was performed. When comparing the average sequence number of the first stopped car (SN)
and other obtained in survey data, we could assume that pedestrian group size (Fig 1), as well as pedestrian traffic
volume (Fig 2) had only minor influence on driver’s behaviour, when motor vehicle traffic volume was found to be the
main factor here (Fig 3). This result is also illustrated with Figs below. Thus we can follow up that in more strain traffic
situations drivers are much less favourable to give way than in low volume traffic.
Ped estri an grou p s ize
y = 0,04 29 x + 2,5 97 2
R
2
= 0,0 00 8
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
1,0 1 ,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
SN
Fig 2. Dependence between the average sequence number of the first stopped car (SN) and pedestrian traffic volume
Fig 3. Dependence between the average sequence number of the first stopped car (SN) and motor vehicle traffic
volume.
5.2. Motorists choice of speed at the vicinity of zebra crossings
The former surveys contain indications that, when installing zebra crossings and road lighting, the safety effects
obtained for pedestrians depend on the speed level of vehicular traffic and the quantity of traffic. It is thus important to
determine the speed values at crossings, but especially does the crossing itself has any influence on drivers speed choice
when approaching the crossing.
It should be highlighted that the technical data was obtained from another survey, which aim was to analyse data about
real speeds and delays when moving on urban street network. The equipped with GPS receiver, video recorder and data
storage devices car used the in-flow driving method at previously chosen routes in Tallinn. The car speed and location
was fixed in every second during the movement. Later the location of non-signalized crossings located at the chosen
routes was assigned and thus it was possible to survey the actual driving speeds at the vicinity of zebra crossings. It is
important to understand that situations with waiting for crossing pedestrians (contacts) were eliminated from the survey
this time, as we were interested only on empty crossing influence on speed choice.
Motor traffic volum e (vehi cle s in ho ur)
y = 0,00 13 x + 1,4 83 1
R
2
= 0,7 11 1
0,0 0
1,0 0
2,0 0
3,0 0
4,0 0
5,0 0
6,0 0
0 50 0 1000 15 00 20 0 0 25 00
SN
Pe de s tria n traffic (pe d/ho ur)
y = 0,00 06 x + 2,5 25 5
R
2
= 0,0 21 2
0,0 0
1,0 0
2,0 0
3,0 0
4,0 0
5,0 0
6,0 0
0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 500 6 00 7 00 80 0 90 0
SN
Each route was driven at least six times, mainly at off peak hours, where speed choice was relatively free. When
eliminating the contact situations with pedestrians the total number of measured situations was 120, at 29 crossings, of
which on 24 was introduced the speed limit of 50 km/h and at 5 crossings - 70 km/h. The speed was measured at 4
locations at the crossing vicinity - at 100 m (coded here as -100) and 50 m (coded as -50) before the crossing, at
crossing (coded as 0) and at 50 m after the crossing (coded as +50).
The main results of data analysis are presented as follows:
1. The average speeds at crossings are rather high. At almost 60 % of runs the speed was higher than a speed limit.
Only at 12 % of runs the speed was less than 40 km/h. The situation was especially dangerous at crossings were the
speed limit of 70 km/h is allowed. The smallest measured speeds were between 55 and 60 km/h!
The running speed distribution measured at crossings is presented at the Fig 4.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Sp eed gap, kmh
Per cent of runs
Limit 70 km /h
Limit 50 km /h
Fig 4. Running speed distribution measured at crossings.
2. The change in speed at the vicinity of zebra crossing is minor. When comparing average speeds of different runs
at the vicinity of zebra crossings we got a picture as shown on Table 4.
Table 4. Average speed at the vicinity of all pedestrian crossings, km/h
Speed limit,
km/h Distance (m):
-100 -50 0 +50
50
Average 47,2 45,7 44,6 44,7
max 63 56,1 55,1 56,5
min 32,4 27,7 27,1 15,6
70
Average 70,1 70,4 69,9 70
max 77,4 78,1 78,1 78,5
min 60,8 60,2 57,6 57,6
It is important to note, that when comparing speeds at -100 and 0 only in 59 % of cases the speed at crossing was less
than at -100. Respective data at -50 and 0 show the 57 % of cases. Thus nearly at half of measured cases the speed was
not lowered at crossing when comparing with speed at 100 and 50 m to the crossing.
The data obtained from the survey shows also that the braking, if ever, starts near the crossing. After passing the speed
comes regularly up again in a very short distance after zebra crossings. The typical speed change at the vicinity of
crossings is illustrated at the Fig 5.
Fig 5. Typical speed change at the vicinity of crossings
The situation is especially critical at the crossings with speed limit of 70 km/h. On these sites an average speed is
dangerously high at the whole vicinity of zebra crossing and does not allow breaking safely when driver occurs the
pedestrian waiting at the roadside. Thus these sites do not follow the traffic rules of giving way and should be
discarded.
6. Summary and Conclusion
This report is based on field surveys and data analyses about pedestrian safety. The key topics are; accident and risk
developments for pedestrians, motorists’ behavioural aspects at zebra crossings, particularly their obligation to give way
and also speed choice at the vicinity of zebra crossing, as well as safety effect for pedestrians of zebra crossing design.
The key results are summarized below:
1. The pedestrian casualty risk in Estonia is in average approximately 2–6 times higher than in other old EU countries.
2. 44 % of pedestrian casualties occurred in urban areas during the period of 1998–2002. Pedestrian accidents are
predominant in urban areas.
3. One of risky sites for pedestrians remains to be pedestrian crossings.
4. The driver’s attitude to give way at pedestrian crossings is low in Estonia. This attitude is poorly depending on
pedestrians, but strictly on motor traffic volume. In the situation of give way obligations drivers are first worried
about the time lost at crossing and potential risk of rear-end collisions, after when comes risk of pedestrian
collision.
5. Even if there are clear regulations for motorists to give way, a number of drivers simply ignore this regulation.
Thus in average only every third driver stops at crossing when there is a pedestrian indicating his/her wish to cross
the road.
6. The average speed and speed distribution of motorized vehicles has a major influence on pedestrian safety. There is
a clear relationship between the permitted speed and the severity of pedestrian injuries in accidents. The proportion
of fatalities among pedestrian casualties increases in step with increasing permitted speed. In other words – speed
kills.
7. Existing shape of pedestrian crossings does not have big influence on drivers’ speed choice. An average driving
speed on pedestrian crossings is high and this speed is not significantly lowered when approaching the pedestrian
crossing.
8. Especially bad situation is recognized at pedestrian crossings where the speed limit for motorists is 70 km/h. The
normal regulation of giving way to pedestrians does not apply here usually. The drivers are regularly ignoring the
give way obligations, do not lower speed and pedestrians are in case of crossing the road just having the big enough
gap between motor vehicles.
9. There is big need to reconstruct pedestrian crossing in a modern safe way. Some crossings should be liquidated or
replaced by signalized one, especially where safety standards are impossible to apply or higher than regular speed
limit wanted to keep.
-3,0
-2,5
-2,0
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
-100 -50 0 50
Distan ce to crossing, m
Speed change, km /h
50
70
Altogether, the main task considering pedestrian safety is to lower the casualty rate for crossing pedestrians. Most of the
pedestrian accidents occur in urban areas. Elderly pedestrians, drunken pedestrians and pedestrians in darkness are
important target groups in treatments against fatal accidents. Thus this is highly needed to introduce new modern
standards in pedestrian crossing design in order to lower speeds and improve driver’s visibility at the vicinity of
pedestrian crossings.
References
1. ZILMER, A.L. Rapport om ældres falduheld i trafikområder i Odense Kommune, Odense Magistrat 2. afdeling,
Odense, Danmark. 1992 (in danish). Report on elderly traffic accidents in Odense Kommune.
2. NILSSON, G. Relationship Between Speed and Safety: Calculation Method. The Speed Review: Appendix of Speed
Workshop Papers. Federal Office of Road Safety, Report CR127A, Department of Transport and Communications,
Canberra, 1993. I have only an electronic copy of this paper, without pages numbering!
3. JACOBS, G., WILSON, D. A Study of Pedestrian Risk in Crossing Busy Roads in Four Towns. Road Research
Laboratory, Report LR 106, Crowthorne, UK. 1967. I have only an electronic copy of this paper, without pages
numbering!
4. MACKIE, A.M., OLDER, S.J. Study of Pedestrian Risk in Crossing Busy Roads in London Inner Suburbs. Traffic
Engineering and Control, Vol 7, 1965. p. 376–380. Journal!
5. EKMAN, L., KRONBORG, P. Traffic Safety and Pedestrians and Cyclists at Signal Controlled Intersections.
Institutet för transportforskning, Stockholm, Sweden. 1995. Paper is in English but the report series holds just
Swedish title!
6. KEALL, M.D. Pedestrian Exposure to Risk of Road Accidents in New Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
Vol 27, No 5, 1995. p. 729–740. Journal!
7. LANDLES, J.R.: The Overall Effect on Accidents at Sites Where Zebra Crossings Were Installed. Traffic
Engineering and Control, Vol 24, Jan, 1983. p. 9–11. Journal!
8. HERMS, B.F. Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks. Highway Research
Record, No 406, 1972. p. 1–13. Journal!
9. DRASKOCZY, M. , HYDEN, C. Pedestrian Safety Measures – Past and Future. Paper Presented at ICTCT’s
Workshop on Pedestrians Problems. Prague, Czech Republic, 1994. I have only an electronic copy of this paper,
without pages numbering!
10. EWERT, U. New Pedestrian-crossing Regulation: Changes in the Behavior of Pedestrians and Car Drivers. Paper
Presented at ICTCT’s 8. Workshop Safety of Urban Transport with Focus on Pedestrian Problems. Paris, France, 1995.
I have only an electronic copy of this paper, without pages numbering!
11. VARHELYI, A. Drivers’ Speed Behavior at a Zebra Crossing. KFB-Meddelande 1996:16, Lunds tekniska
högskola, Lund, Sweden. 1996. Paper is in English but the report series holds just Swedish title!
12. DANISH ROAD DIRECTORATE. Pedestrian Safety. Analyses and Safety Measures. Report 148. 1998.
13. DEWAR, D.; KNOBLAUCH, R.; NITZBURG, M.; PIETRUCHA, M. TEMPLER, J. Older Pedestrian
Characteristics for Use in Highway Design. Federal Highway Administration, USA, 1995 I have only an electronic
copy of this paper, without pages numbering!
When shortening the paper on limits, these titles should be skipped!
RAYNER, D.S. Some Safety Considerations in the Conversion of Zebra Crossings to Pelican Crossings. Traffic
Engineering and Control, Vol 16, 1975, p. 123–124. is it the Journal?
STEWART, D. Pedestrian Guardrails and Accidents. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol 29, Sept, 1988. p. 450–455.
is it the Journal?
