Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Driver response to a disabled pedestrian using a dangerous crosswalk Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992) 12, 345-354 W. Andrew Harrell 學生:董瑩蟬.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Driver response to a disabled pedestrian using a dangerous crosswalk Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992) 12, 345-354 W. Andrew Harrell 學生:董瑩蟬."— Presentation transcript:

1 Driver response to a disabled pedestrian using a dangerous crosswalk Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992) 12, W. Andrew Harrell 學生:董瑩蟬

2 Purpose This paper investigated the driver behavior when present pedestrian. The pedestrian used a cane or not, and the fatality sign present or absent on the road side. They want to know the driver that stop for pedestrian situation.

3 Reference If the stop sign become to the yield sign that may increased the pedestrian-vehicle accidents. (Polus, 1985 ) Polus et al. (1971) found the warning sign it reducing pedestrian accident times at night more than at daytime.

4 Reference Malenfant et al. (1985) found the driver more yield pedestrian to cross when the sign present to him. Pancer et al. (1979) found the driver were more willing disabled pedestrian than non- disabled pedestrian.

5 Method Subjects –There are 604 driver in this experiment –Only collect the westbound driver. Sites –The experiment site was an four lane street in the Alberta. –The pedestrian crossing on the zebra. –There is an 4.6m wide × 19.4m length for sign crossing. And 5.5m × 23m for no sign crossing. –The speed limit was 50 km/h

6 Method Sign –The sign was an 80 cm high and 67 cm wide, and the letters are 25 cm high. –The sign was 3.7 m above the ground. –The sign set on the road side before 22.2m the crosswalk.

7 Method Independent variable –Road side with Sign v.s no sign –Pedestrian carried Cane v.s no cane –Driver age, gender –The traffic volume: before and after the observation five min. –Time of observation: the spring of 1991 from Monday through Friday. The observation time from

8 Method Dependent variable: measure of motorist yielding –First vehicle stopping: the first designated motorist stop for pedestrian cross or not. –Elapsed time: when the first vehicle failed to stop that record the time. The time between the pedestrian stepped and vehicle stop. –Number of vehicles passing: the number of vehicles passing zebra until a vehicle stopped.

9 Method Procedure –The pedestrian wait to crossing for more than 100m before each zebra. –A pedestrian attempted to cross the street when a designated vehicle approached. –The trial start with the vehicle passed 80 m from the intersection. –As the vehicle approached zebra, the pedestrian was step off the sidewalk at the same time. –The pedestrian proceed when thy think can safe cross road. –The pedestrian has two situation include carried cane and no cane. –The co-observer behind the pedestrian 10 yards.

10 Result The 116 (70.3% male and 29.3 Female) driver stopped for pedestrian. And they mean age was years old. The mean traffic volume was 14.5 vehicles for per minute. The fatality sign cross situation traffic volumes (15.58 vehicles per minute) significantly higher than on sign situation (13.42 vehicles per minute). (F(1,115)=24.65, p<0.001) The observation result showed the afternoon has higher traffic volumes. (r=0.2, P<0.05)

11 Result

12

13 Result-number of vehicles passing The mean vehicle passing was 5.21 (S.D.=5.95) until the vehicle stop for pedestrian cross. When the pedestrian carried the cane that situation has significant fewer vehicle passing. (cane=3.29, no cane=7.12) The cane and sign interaction were showed in table 2. The Newman-Keuls result showed the pedestrian no cane (8.66) and sign present that situation was significant different with other situation on the number of vehicle passing.

14 Result-first vehicle stopping The first vehicle stop for pedestrian cross probability was There were positive correlation between traffic volume and stopping. (r=0.21, p=0.01) The first vehicle stop for pedestrian with cane (0.22)that was higher than pedestrian lack cane(0.02). The cane and sign interaction was significant main effect. The pedestrian used cane and the sign present were significant different with other situation.

15 Result- Elapsed time until a stop The vehicle stop for pedestrian cross that were ca second. The pedestrian carried cane waiting time (18.84 s) that was significant short than absent (37.45 s). The cane and sign has significant interaction. The Newman-Keuls result showed the pedestrian no cane (47.84) and sign present that situation was significant different with other situation on the wait vehicle time.

16 Discussion Riley et al. (1982) found the diamond shape catch more attention for driver. Rodriquez (1991) showed that warnings with octagonal shape and red lettering that can catch more attention for driver. MacDonald et al. (1991) found the sign will be ignored when the sign was static condition.

17 Conclusion The driver more stop for pedestrian with cane than without cane. The fatality sign present for driver that were without change drivers behavior to yield pedestrian. The driver stop for pedestrian to cross that situation were few.


Download ppt "Driver response to a disabled pedestrian using a dangerous crosswalk Journal of Environmental Psychology (1992) 12, 345-354 W. Andrew Harrell 學生:董瑩蟬."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google