1. Causes of crashes affecting pedestrians
Michael Nieuwesteeg

2. Presentation outline Background – pedestrian trauma
Interviewing injured pedestrians
What causes pedestrian crashes
Tackling pedestrian injuries
New TAC programs for pedestrian and cycling safety

3. Pedestrian trauma Pedestrians # (%) Deaths per year 48 (16%)
# (%)
Deaths per year
48 (16%)
Hospital >14 days claims
(20%)
Hospital claims
530 (12%)
TAC costs
$65m (10%)

4. Pedestrian trauma Pedestrians comprise 11.3% of all serious casualties
Pedestrians in 40, 50 and 60 speed zones make up 8.8% of all serious casualties
60 zones intersections are particularly problematic
Almost even split between intersection and mid-block

5. Pedestrian trauma

6. TAC research with injured pedestrians
TAC commissioned exploratory survey research with its clients (persons compensated for road transport injury) who were injured as pedestrians in:
16-39 or 60+ age groups
40, 50 or 60km/h zones
The research sought to identify:
typical crash circumstances
risk factors in pedestrian crashes
issues that warrant further exploration
In recognition of the increasing share of pedestrian trauma in TAC statistics, the TAC’s road safety team sought to gain insight into the pedestrian crash problem. We saw this particular research as a first, exploratory step in this direction. To restrict the scope of the research, we determined to focus on those cohorts that had the biggest impact on the TAC: the elderly (who have the costliest claims) and adults aged (who are most likely to be intoxicated). These groups present substantial challenges to road safety organisations.
Research aims were kept simple and the sample size kept small, as we saw this as exploratory research. Our aims and sample frame could be refined in future waves of this research.
The TAC is fortunately placed in that it has access to persons injured in transport accidents. The TAC’s clients (ie. persons compensated for injuries sustained in transport accidents) already have an established relationship with the TAC through their claim manager, and have often been contacted for internal research purposes with a focus on client satisfaction.
In 2008 I was involved in the first TAC attempt at surveying its clients for road safety purposes. This was a research project that invovled surveying 500 TAC clients injured while motorcycling. The success of that project has encouraged us since, leading to the research project I am sharing with you today.
Pedestrian crashes are generally poorly understood for obvious reasons: police reports of crashes are usually compiled after the injured pedestrian has been whisked off to hospital. The police will have very little evidence available other than a statement from the vehicle driver, and possibly from an eyewitness. Hence our interest in studying crash circumstances.

7. TAC research findings Crash types by age of injured pedestrian
% of crashes
Pedestrians aged 16-39
Pedestrians aged 60+
Number of crashes (n)
Pedestrian crossing road
75% 78
71% 71
79%
Crossing intersection
40% 38
35% 41
46%
Crossing mid-block
31% 37
34% 24
27%
Crossing roundabout 5% 3 3% 6 7%
Pedestrian not crossing road
26% 32
29% 19
21%
Car off-road / out of control 10 9% 4 4%
Standing/Walking on road 7 6% 1 1%
Private/Friendly
Car-park
Driveway cross-over footpath 2 2%
Struck while boarding/alighting
Fall while boarding/alighting
Other

8. TAC research findings Intersection crashes
58% involved vehicle turning right, usually exiting, ped usually on far side of road (completing crossing)
Driver usually at fault
In many of these crashes where the driver was at fault there were elements present that made visibility difficult (low light, dark clothing, rain)
Limited understanding of impact of traffic lights. Red-light running appears to be uncommon
Band-aids

9. TAC research findings Mid-block crashes
70% involved pedestrian being hit on near side
20% involved reversing vehicles
In 64% of cases an intersection was within 50 metres
In a third of cases the vehicle had just pulled out of a parking spot or turned into road
22% involved pedestrians who were crossing at a signalised pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing

10. TAC research findings Other factors
A quarter of younger group had consumed alcohol pre-crash
Pedestrians usually injured while on routine trips in familiar locations
Distraction, which was an issue for the younger group, often co-occurred with impairing factors and mid-block crashes
Difficult light or weather conditions seem to contribute more to the intersection than mid-block crashes, probably by adding another level of difficulty to an already complex driving task

11. TAC research findings Age differences
Younger group significantly more likely to be at fault, to have consumed alcohol, to be distracted, stressed, tired
Younger group more likely to be injured in poor light conditions
Older pedestrians less likely to cross mid-block

12. Roundabout and other crashes
TAC research findings
Issue
Younger
Older
Intersection
Mid-block
Roundabout and other crashes
Pedestrian at fault
34%
12%
16%
43%
18%
Familiar with location
90%
89%
91%
93%
83%
Heavy or congested traffic
23%
10%
11%
19%
26%
Poor light conditions
46%
22%
44%
Raining 8%
14% 5%
Tired/fatigued
15% 3% 6% 9%
Stressed/anxious 2% 7%
Distracted
24%
Impaired by alcohol
25%
Impaired by drugs 0% NA
Impaired mobility
Summary of risk factors
Older peds are unlikely to be at fault, distracted or impaired, and impaired mobility is not a large problem in terms of the overall pedestrian injury issue.
Younger peds are more likely to be involved in crashes in which we find more complex conditions

13. A system view
Limits of human performance - functionality - biomechanically in collisions
Limits of vehicle performance - crash avoidance - crashworthiness
Physical design of roads and roadsides
Vital role of speed
TAC believes almost all crashes can be avoided by creating a system that recognises and caters for the limits of human and vehicle performance and the role of speed in crash causation and injury severity. The most dependable method to achieve this is through the design of roads and roadsides.

14. Modified Behavioural Sequence Model
Function/event sequence
Search
Detection
Evaluation
Decision
Human action
Vehicle/system action
Response
Predisposing factors
Driver factors
Ped/cyclist factors
Vehicle factors
Environment factors
Post-crash factors
Safe System
Pedestrian/cyclist crash causation is complex and multifactorial. Fortunately, similarities and discrepancies among such crashes are such that a typology of pedestrian/cyclist crash causation can be developed.
This is a promising finding because it posits the notion that a finite number of factors or combinations can be found that sufficiently explain the cause of a majority of pedestrian/cyclist crashes.
In 1971, Snyder and Knoblauch introduced the Behavioural Sequence Model, which includes two main features:
The function/event sequence: dealing with the sequence that leads to the pedestrian crash; and
Influencing/predisposing factors: dealing with factors which influence the behaviour within the sequence.
The function/event sequence feature attempts to construct general, but not simplistic, sequence of events that applies to all pedestrian/cyclist crashes. While the specific events may vary for each crash, certain functions are performed by the participant road users that may result in the events leading to a crash, or prevent a contingent collision. These basic functions are
Search: referring to the focus of the driver's and pedestrian’s/cyclist’s attention and their behaviour that influence their perception of the environment.
Detection: referring to their actual perception of the environment. Successful detection means that they are aware of the other party.
Evaluation: referring to their evaluation of what they have perceived (the other party and their surroundings); if "successful," results in recognition of the threat of a collision and the need for action to avoid it.
Decision: referring to the determination of the action necessary to avoid a collision.
Human action: referring to the motor behaviour of the driver and pedestrian to implement the avoidance decision.
Vehicle action: referring to the response of the vehicle to the motor behaviour of the driver.
Snyder and Knoblauch proposed four main class of predisposing factors that influence the function/events in the behaviour sequence. They argue that to understand the cause of pedestrian crashes, the specific variables in these groups that influence the function/event sequence must be known. The main classes are
Driver factors
Pedestrian/cyclist factors
Vehicle factors
Environmental factors (includes physical environment and speed regime)

15. When the system fails…

16. When the system fails… Sequence Hypotheses System Support Intervene
Seek
Ped: maybe
Driver: did (?)
Signal timing (haste)
Design (distraction?)
Detect
Ped: maybe?
Driver: didn’t
Raised crossing; Lighting; Vehicle design/technology
Evaluate
Ped: maybe (error, mishaps?)
Vehicle technology
Decision
Ped: maybe
Action
Ped: maybe – non-preventive
Vehicle technology (Autonomous Emergency Braking)
Response NA

17. When the system works… Safe System travel speeds
Smart roads (ped detection)
Vehicle technology (ISA, AEB)
Road design, e.g., low speed environment, raised crosswalks
Responsible road use

18. When the system works

19. TAC supporting safety infrastructure
LGA grants
$100m pedestrian and cycling safety fund
Small scale infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians
Safe System focused
$1 million per annum
$:$ up to $100,000 for infrastructure treatments or
Up to $25,000 grant to develop a project
Area wide or route based preferred

20. LGA grants Round 1 – August 2014 Round 2 closes mid August 2015
97 applications, 27 funded
14 Metro Melbourne
13 Regional Victoria (2 in large cities)
11 focus on pedestrians
10 focus on cyclists and pedestrians
6 focus on cyclists
Many include speed reduction to 40 km/h
Round 2 closes mid August 2015
Small scale infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians
Safe System focused
$1 million per annum
$:$ up to $100,000 for infrastructure treatments or
Up to $25,000 grant to develop a project
Area wide or route based preferred