Pedestrian-vehicle accidents occur most frequently at intersections and at other areas where there is a large volume of foot and vehicular traffic. However, factors that contribute to pedestrian-vehicle accidents are not limited to congestion. The characteristics associated with the vehicle and the driver, as well as those of the pedestrian, can increase the statistical likelihood that accidents may occur; the characteristics of the roads themselves and the type of traffic also impacts on the number of such accidents (Campbell et al., 2004). In particular, the physical features
22
and land-use qualities, including the presence of crossings, and roundabout design, in different areas can contribute to higher rates of pedestrian-vehicle accidents (Campbell et al., 2004). These findings have been supported by Sideris (2006), who claimed that pedestrian-vehicle clashes are influenced by: (1) the social and behavioural characteristics of drivers and victims; (2) road design characteristics; (3) vehicular and pedestrian traffic characteristics; and (4) area socio-demographic and physical characteristics. Both authors provided extensive discussion regarding each factor, and the manner in which each influences the prevalence of pedestrian-vehicle collisions.
In terms of the distance of pedestrian accidents from pedestrian crossing areas or junctions, Ward et al. (1994) claimed that a large number of cases of pedestrian accidents occurred away from road crossing facilities; with only a few taking place at these facilities, and with the largest number of pedestrian accidents occurring at traffic signals that have a pedestrian phase, or at pelican crossings. Such findings indicate that pedestrians are most at risk when they decide to cross in places with traffic signals with a pedestrian phase, at pelican crossings, or away from road crossing facilities. The findings in this case are similar to those of the Department for Transport (2004), which indicated that 40% of pedestrian collisions in 2003 occurred when pedestrians crossed the road away from a pedestrian crossing. In contrast, only 9% of collisions occurred on pedestrian crossings, and only 8% of those within 50m of a particular crossing.
With respect to the types of pedestrian crossing, Greenshields et al. (2006) organised the various advantages and disadvantages of different types of crossing: zebra, pelican, toucan, and parallel. The study was not empirical, however, and took a descriptive and narrative angle, providing guidance on (1) the legal instruments covering the different crossing types and (2) the various design standards of pedestrian crossing facilities. A more comprehensive study of mid-block pedestrian crossings in Great Britain was conducted by Hunt (1998), who documented that ‘80% of pedestrian casualties occurred while pedestrians were crossing the carriageway and, that more than 12% of these pedestrian casualties were at or within 50m of a Pelican or Zebra crossing’. Hunt also outlined the following findings:
• From 1975 to 1985, there had been an increase in the number of pelican crossings and a corresponding increase in the number of pedestrian casualties at, or close to, pelican crossings.
23
• From 1975 to 1985, there had been a decrease in pedestrian casualties at, or close to, zebra crossings, and there was a decrease in the number of this type of crossing.
• From 1985 to 1995, there was a decrease in pedestrian casualties at both zebra and pelican crossings.
• In terms of zebra crossings, there were fewer accidents within 50 metres of the crossings, although not on the crossings themselves; this was not the case with pelican crossings.
• Between 1990 and 1995, pedestrian casualties at pelican crossings ‘decreased at a similar rate to the decrease in pedestrian casualties in built up areas; over the same period the number of pedestrian casualties at Zebra crossings continued to fall more rapidly than those for built up areas – this is unlikely to be explained by a reduced number of Zebra crossings’.
Similarly, the Department of Transport (2004) claimed that, in 2003, more pedestrian collisions were recorded at mid-block signalised crossings in comparison to other types of pedestrian crossing. The study conducted by the AA Foundation (1994) on pedestrian risk indicated that signalised crossings reduce pedestrian accident risk by 50%, compared to crossings that are lacking in such facilities. Moreover, the study conducted by Ghee et al. (1998) found that lack of crossing facilities affected ‘older women more than anyone else as they were found to have difficulty understanding and monitoring the sequence of traffic movements and a tendency to monitor nearside and far side traffic independently as they crossed the road’.
Elliot and Broughton (2005) conducted an extensive review that centred on the impact of the methods and levels of policing on road casualty rates and driving violations, such as speeding, ignoring a red light, and being over the limit for alcohol. The authors concluded that the presence of legal enforcement reduced the number of collisions, driving violations, and casualties successfully. Moreover, the authors claimed that the most effective policing methods appeared to be stationary and highly visible in design. In terms of pedestrian enforcement, Martin (2006) claimed that there are no laws preventing pedestrians from crossing the road, and that the only laws being enforced in the UK are those relating to the prohibition of walking on motorways or slip roads and to not loitering on pedestrian crossings. He noted that the guidelines in the Highway Code only specify how to deal with pedestrian behaviour when crossing a road. In an
24
earlier publication, Smeed (1968, cited in Heraty, 1986) concluded that increased police presence had a positive impact on pedestrian and driver behaviour in areas of London that have automatic traffic signals.
Traffic engineering is essentially concerned with examining the characteristics and features attributed to an increase in accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles. Researchers have found that urban areas, specifically arterial roads, tend to be the focus of more pedestrian-vehicle accidents (Mile-Doan and Thompson, 1999). Arterial roads may be responsible for slightly less than half of the occurrences of accidents between pedestrians and vehicles, with other land-use locations being responsible for the majority (Campbell et al., 2004). Land-use characteristics, including mid-block intersecting connections, car parks, garages, and pavements, contribute to the larger portion of pedestrian-motor vehicle accidents (Campbell et al., 2004). In particular, pavements and crossings that lack traffic control lights have higher levels of pedestrian- vehicle accidents than marked crossing areas (Campbell et al., 2004). Zeeger et al. (2002) asserted that areas with high traffic and multi-lane roads have higher rates of pedestrian to vehicle accidents, even with marked crossings. It can therefore be established that there is a strong link between the number of incidents and the volume of traffic flowing through high incident areas (Zeeger et al., 2002). There was also an especially significant increase in higher speed areas with more than two lanes of traffic reported (Zeeger et al., 2002).