Article citation information:
Pashkevich, A., Nowak, M. Road safety risk
assessment at pedestrian crossings: a case study from Sułkowice. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport. 2017, 95,
159-170. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.95.15.
Anton PASHKEVICH[1],
Michał NOWAK[2]
ROAD SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT AT
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS:
A CASE STUDY FROM SUŁKOWICE
Summary. Pedestrians are vulnerable road
users; therefore, they require special attention. In the pedestrian
infrastructure, the greatest risk involves pedestrian crossings because they
are the conflict points with vehicular traffic.
A method to assess pedestrian crossing infrastructure
in terms of road safety is presented. The method involves observation of the
associated infrastructure and environment, as well as measurements of vehicular
and pedestrian behaviour.
The assessment involved 17 pedestrian
crossings along a main road in the town of Sułkowice, Poland, with the aim of
demonstrating the universality of the procedure. Only two of the crossings were
found to have the lowest risk, while five were considered as high risk; none
was assigned the highest risk score.
Keywords: risk assessment; pedestrian road
safety; pedestrian crossing.
1. INTRODUCTION
Transport is an inalienable
constituent of the development of human civilization. Since the 19th century,
vehicular transport has become a dominant presence, while the number of
vehicular journeys is constantly increasing. The majority of efforts are directed
at improvements in the roadways for vehicular transport, but one must not
forget about unprotected road users, amongst whom pedestrians are the most
vulnerable. Indeed, pedestrians constitute a very significant proportion of
victims of road accidents: in 2014, there were 1,079,800 vehicular accidents in
the EU, resulting in the death of 5,772 pedestrians [1]. This high number of
killed pedestrians is alarming because, in modern countries, the majority of
traffic is along pavements. The riskiest places are those that involve traffic
conflicts, namely, pedestrian crossings. Therefore, the presence of appropriate
infrastructure is critical for protecting the safety of vulnerable road users.
Previously, it was
found that the “safe” collision speed was only about 30 km/h [2]. As presented
in Fig. 1, the risk to
pedestrians does not increase linearly, but with some “kinks”, which may be
attributed to the evolutionary development of human beings. Jamroz and
colleagues [3] have recently presented the correlation between vehicle speed
and the risk of injury to pedestrians, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Results of vehicle-pedestrian collision at various
speeds: cumulative amounts
(in percentages) of lightly wounded (blue), severely wounded (green) and killed
(yellow) are shown
1.1. Purpose
The large number of collisions involving
pedestrians has inspired research to assess the factors responsible for
increasing and decreasing accident rates. The majority of vehicle-pedestrian
accidents take place while pedestrians venture onto the roadway at points when
and where they should not. However, the second most dangerous areas for
pedestrians are marked crossings, over which road administrators having
profound influence regarding their location and engineering controls to assure
safe passage.
Herein, we provide an assessment of existing
pedestrian crossings along a secondary road in a residential area to
demonstrate the usefulness of our method. Amongst the analysed factors are (1)
traffic load (both vehicular and pedestrian) and speed measurements, (2)
visibility factors, (3) general infrastructure information, (4)
safety-enhancing infrastructure, and (5) the behaviour of pedestrians and
drivers.
This exploratory analysis may
include not all of the factors needed for a perfect assessment. That said, at
present, we are working towards improving the scoring system by adding
additional parameters and eliminating some of the subjective evaluations.
1.2. Location
Sułkowice is a town with slightly over 6,500
inhabitants, which is located about 35 km south of Cracow, Poland. The town is
mostly stretching along road number 956, a two-lane secondary (voivodeship)
road with annually averaged daily traffic (ADT) of 9,877 vehicles (measured in
2015 between pedestrian crossings labelled 10 and 11 on Fig. 2) [4]. Over 90% of the 9,877
vehicles are passenger vehicles, with only 2.0% being lorries over 3,500 kg.
The road is used for both local and transit traffic.
Fig. 2. Map of Sułkowice and location of the analysed pedestrian
crossings.
Source: The authors, based on
openstreetmap.org
The 17 marked pedestrian crossings
along the road are identified in Fig. 2. All of the pedestrian traffic is
at road level, while the street is equipped with kerbs and pavements; there are
no separate bicycle pathways. The majority of the analysed crossings are
located in the vicinity of intersections with local roads. Only one crossing
(labelled ‘1’) is next to a major intersection. It must be noted that vehicular
traffic is decreasing throughout the analysed area: an ADT of 4,338 vehicles
was noted at the next analysed stretch, beyond Sułkowice (beyond the pedestrian
crossing labelled ‘17’) [4].
1.3.
Road safety statistics
The number of accidents in Poland is
one of the highest in the EU. Numerous actions, starting with driver and road
user education, improvement in the infrastructure and increased law enforcement
led to a decrease in the number of those killed by 42% between 2002 and 2012.
However, the risk still remains very high. Table 1 summarizes selected statistical
data based on reports from the police [5] and statistics from the European
Commission [1].
In comparison with the rest of
Poland, Sułkowice may be considered as relatively safe in terms of traffic
accidents: no persons were killed on the town roads in the analysed three-year
period. This is an important observation because the town is located along a
main road and there are numerous places where pedestrians must cross it. An
additional insight allows for the analysis of the accidents’ severity, in terms
of the number of killed or injured per accident, which remains fairly constant
in Poland; however, in Sułkowice, it has increased. These facts suggest that
the imposed road safety methods are not sufficient. Due to the small sample
size in Sułkowice and the relatively short analysed periods, such statistical
analyses should be treated with caution.
Table 1. Road safety statistics in Sułkowice and in Poland
|
Area |
Sułkowice |
Poland |
||||
|
Population |
6,537 |
38,478,602 |
||||
|
Accidents |
||||||
|
Year |
Number |
Per
1,000 inhabitants |
Number |
Per 1,000 inhabitants |
||
|
2012 |
6 |
0.92 |
37,046 |
0.96 |
||
|
2013 |
9 |
1.38 |
35,847 |
0.93 |
||
|
2014 |
7 |
1.07 |
34,970 |
0.91 |
||
|
Injured persons |
||||||
|
Year |
Number |
Per
1,000 inhabitants |
Per
100 accidents |
Injured |
Per
1,000 inhabitants |
Per
100 accidents |
|
2012 |
6 |
0.92 |
100.00 |
45
792 |
1.19 |
123.61 |
|
2013 |
10 |
1.53 |
111.11 |
44
059 |
1.15 |
122.91 |
|
2014 |
15 |
2.29 |
214.29 |
42
545 |
1.11 |
121.66 |
|
Killed persons |
||||||
|
Year |
Number |
Per
100,000 inhabitants |
Per
100 accidents |
Number |
Per
100,000 inhabitants |
Per
100 accidents |
|
2012 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3
571 |
9.28 |
9.64 |
|
2013 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3
357 |
8.72 |
9.36 |
|
2014 |
0 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
3
202 |
8.32 |
9.16 |
2. METHODOLOGY
In this study, we utilized the risk
factor analysis developed by Antov and colleagues [6,7]. With these authors’
permission, the factors were modified and expanded to suit the purpose of this
paper.
2.1. Analysis characteristics
All of the measurements were
conducted in spring 2015, during regular work days, between the hours of 06:30
and 08:00 (morning traffic peak). The observations and measurements were not
covert. Vehicle speed was measured for 20 randomly selected vehicles in the
vicinity of four crossings. Speed was assessed as the time of travel between
two stationary objects with a known distance in either direction; as this
measurement method offers limited accuracy, in future studies, permission to
use radar will be sought. The violation of traffic laws by the drivers was also
recorded, such speeding, failure to yield to a pedestrian and illegal passing
(note that in our factorial assessment, only speed played a role).
Each of the pedestrian crossings was observed
for 15 minutes. The number of pedestrians violating traffic laws (such as
running across the crossing, failure to observe the roadway before entering it
and stopping on the crossing) was recorded.
The risk factors matrix was based on
the following 26 factors, consisting of 23 engineering and environmental
features, and three behavioural factors.
In addition to engineering factors,
it is very important to assess the behaviour of both drivers and pedestrians.
Risk factor W of the pedestrian
crossing is the product of all of the above factors:
Based on these calculated risk
factors, four levels, as shown in
Table 2, were established [6]. While
crossings with the factor W below ‘5’ are considered safe
(risk level ‘4’), at the opposite end of the scale are highly dangerous
crossings (risk level ‘1’, when W is above ‘15’).
Table 2. Risk levels
|
Risk score W |
W³15 |
10<W£15 |
5<W£10 |
W£5 |
|
Risk level |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Risk description |
Dangerous
crossing |
High risk |
Moderate risk |
Safe crossing |
Each of the evaluated 17 pedestrian
crossings was assessed based on the 26 parameters described above. The safety
risk is presented in Table 3 and charted in Fig. 3.
The infrastructure was found to be
in average condition, with only a few outliers: both positive (additional signs
and markings) and negative (absence of street lighting). The measured traffic
speed exceeded the local speed limit of 40 or 50 km/h (the maximum measured was
76 km/h in a 40 km/h zone). This is believed to be caused by several factors,
among which the following must be noted: (1) lack of driver discipline, (2)
insufficient driver education, (3) poor enforcement, (4) geographic and
municipal specificity, and (5) an inappropriately low speed limit in areas
almost devoid of housing, which, in our opinion, conditions drivers to disobey
the speed limits where they are needed. The differences between measurement
points were low.
The majority of the crossings had
low risk scores (second risk level). Based on the utilized method, they are
generally safe. A low number of incidents and accidents confirm the assessment.
However, one must note that three of the analysed points are at the upper
border of the risk level, while even one negative occurrence, such as the
worsening of the road markings, can increase vehicular speed or unsafe
pedestrian behaviour, thus resulting in the classification of a high-risk area.
Table 3. Safety risk assessment of pedestrian crossings in
Sułkowice.
|
Crossing no. |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
Engineering |
7 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
|
Behavioural |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
Safety level W |
8 |
5 |
11 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
3 |
11 |
10 |
8 |
4 |
12 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
13 |
11 |
|
Risk level |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
Only two crossings can be considered as safe, based on the utilized
method, due to the presence of additional engineering features and very good
marking conditions. Five crossings were found to be unsafe, mostly because of
high speed and the lack of engineered traffic calming measures. The crossing
labelled ‘12’ is of particular concern because it is located near a preschool
and, somewhat surprisingly, located too far from any street lighting. Other
crossings were scored in the low risk range, but it must be noted that, in the
case of two of them, even one additional negative factor could result in a
high-risk score.
Fig. 3. Safety risk assessment of pedestrian crossings in
Sułkowice; safety risk score W
The photographs shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 demonstrate examples
of safe and unsafe pedestrian crossings, respectively. The low-risk score
(fourth safety level) of the crossing labelled ‘7’ (Fig. 4) can be attributed to
additional horizontal and vertical markings. The use of a red background is
likely to catch drivers’ attention and increase their vigilance [10]. Contrariwise,
the crossing labelled ‘16’ (Fig. 5) has one of the
highest risk scores; due to its poor design, it ends up at an island separating
a bus stop from the road (thus, pedestrians are forced to break traffic laws).
The absence of additional warnings increased the risk score.
In summary, the utilized method seems to meet expectations and permits
the evaluation of the perceived risk at pedestrian crossings, based on both
engineering and behavioural factors. Simultaneously, one must admit the
weaknesses of the assessment procedure: namely, subjective parameters,
particularly when evaluating pedestrian behaviour. The shortness of the
observation periods definitely did not allow for all behavioural factors to be
identified.
|
Fig. 4. A pedestrian crossing (labelled ‘7’ on the map in Fig. 2) is an example of a safe crossing due to enhanced horizontal and
vertical markings |
Fig. 5. A pedestrian crossing (labelled ‘16’ on the map in Fig. 2) is an example of an unsafe crossing, as it leads to a
bus stop separation island, without any additional safety features |
4. CONCLUSIONS
Improving safety at pedestrian
crossings can be effectively accomplished by engineering work focused on
calming vehicular traffic. In particular, raised crossings, road narrowing and
safety islands were found to be highly effective [9]. Moreover, the use of
additional horizontal markings is an inexpensive and efficient way to alert
drivers of an oncoming dangerous section. Conversely, the removal of pedestrian
crossings is definitely not advised as this would transform the road into a
barrier, which in turn would decrease safety [11].
According to the assessment of 17
pedestrian crossings along a secondary two-lane road in the town of Sułkowice,
two have the lowest risk scores and five have high-risk scores. Additional
markings to warn drivers and the proper design of crossings are amongst the key
safety parameters that decrease risk scores in this context, while the absence
of engineered traffic-calming features, such as raised crossings, can
significantly increase risk.
The methodology employed in this
study, based on 26 factors, is, in the main, objective and can be utilized in
any environment. The methodology is currently subject to more extended
evaluation and modifications to include additional factors and adapt some of
the weights in order to minimize subjectivity. Nevertheless, it must be remembered
that every pedestrian crossing is unique, while safety is associated with both
the infrastructure and the behaviour of all road users.
References
1.
European
Commission. 2016. “Statistics: accident data”. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm.
2.
Ashton S.J., G.M. Mackay.
1979. “Some characteristics of the population who suffer trauma as pedestrians
when hit by cars and some resulting implications”. In: Proceedings of the 45th
International Research Council on Biomechanics of Impact International
Conference, 39-48. Gothenburg, Sweden.
3.
Jamroz
Kazimierz, et al. 2014. Ochrona Pieszych.
Podręcznik dla Organizatora Ruchu Pieszego. [In Polish: Pedestrian Protection. Handbook for
Organizers of Pedestrian Traffic]. Gdańsk, Cracow and Warsaw, Poland:
Ministry of Infrastructure and Development. ISBN 978-83-7610-527-7. DOI:
10.13140/2.1.3172.9447.
4.
Generalna
Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad. [In Polish: General
Directorship for National Roads and Motorways]. Available at:
https://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/2551/GPR-2015.
5.
Policja
Statystyka. Wypadki Drogowe - Raporty
Roczne. [In Polish: Police Statistics. Road Accidents - Annual Reports].
Available at: http://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,Wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html.
6.
Dago Antov, Tiina
Rõivas, Maria Pashkevich, Erik Ernits. 2014. “Safety assessment of
pedestrian crossings.” Urban Street
Design and Planning Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, 2: 41-54. ISSN 2051-6827.
7.
Dago A., T. Rõivas, I.
Antso, P. Sürje. 2011. “A method for pedestrian crossing risk assessment”. In: 17th International Conference on Urban
Transport and the Environment: Urban Transport XVII: 587-600. Wessex Institute.
6-8 June 2011, Pisa, Italy. ISBN 978-1-84564-847-3.
8.
Mosböck Harald,
Tomasz E. Burghardt. 2016. “The importance of road markings for road safety and
modern traffic management”. In: First
European Road Infrastructure Congress, in press. 18-20 October 2016, Leeds,
UK.
9.
Francesco Bella,
Manuel Silvestri. 2015. “Effects of safety measures on driver’s speed behavior
at pedestrian crossings”. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 83: 111-124.
10.
Räsänen Mikko, Heikki Summala, Eero Pasanen. 1998. “The safety effect of sight obstacles and road-markings at bicycle
crossings.” Traffic Engineering and
Control 39(2): 98-102.
11.
Hamilton-Baillie
Ben, Phil Jones. 2005. “Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban
design”. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, 18(5): 39-47.
12.
Yannis G., A. Theofilatos, P. Alevizou. 2017.
“Critical factors of motorcycle accidents in Greece”. European Transport/Transporti Europei 63(6). ISSN 1825-3997.
13.
Awan Faisal Mushtaq, Malik Muneeb Abid, Anwar Khatib,
Junaid Tariq. 2017. “Impacts of dilemma zone situations and red light running
on the safety at signalized junctions.” European
Transport/Transporti Europei 63(8). ISSN: 1825-3997.
14.
Camacho Tiago, Marcus Foth, Andry Rakotonirainy,
Markus Rittenbruch, Jonathan Bunkerm. 2016. “The role of passenger-centric
innovation in the future of public transport”. Public Transport 8(3): 453-475. DOI:10.1007/s12469-016-0148-5.
15.
Pour Alireza Toran, Sara Moridpour, Abbas
Rajabifard and Richard Tay. 2017. “Spatial and temporal distribution of pedestrian
crashes in Melbourne metropolitan area”. Road & Transport Research 26(1). ISSN: 1037-5783.
Received 08.02.2017; accepted in revised form 28.04.2017
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License