Citation

Tian K, Markkula G, Wei C, Lee YM, Madigan R, Merat N, Romano R. Safety Sci. 2022; 154: e105837.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105837

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Accidents involving pedestrians are particularly common at unsignalised intersections and mid-block crosswalks, where vehicles often do not yield to them. Analysing and understanding pedestrian crossing behaviour at such locations is vital for improving road safety. Previous studies have repeatedly shown that pedestrians tend to accept smaller time gaps in conditions with higher vehicle speeds and thus potentially less safe. This has prompted the hypothesis that pedestrians rely on spatial distance to make crossing decisions. However, few studies have investigated the mechanism underpinning this phenomenon. We propose a novel approach to characterise pedestrian crossing behaviour: a psychophysics-based gap acceptance (PGA) model based on visual looming cues and binary choice logit method. Road crossing data collected in a simulated experiment were used to analyse pedestrian behaviour and test the model. Our analysis indicates that, in line with previous studies, higher vehicle speed increased the tendency of gap acceptance, leading to a higher rate of unsafe crossings. Crucially, the PGA model could accurately account for these crossing decisions across experimental scenarios, more parsimoniously than a conventional model. These results explain the speed-induced unsafe behaviour by suggesting that pedestrians apply visual looming, which depends on vehicle speed and distance, to make crossing decisions. This study reinforces the notion that for two vehicles with the same time gap, the one with higher speed can elicit more risky crossing behaviour from pedestrians, potentially resulting in more severe accidents. The practical implications of the results for traffic safety management, modelling and development of automated vehicles are discussed.

Language: en

Keywords

Gap acceptance modelling; Pedestrians; Psychophysical model; Safety margin; Unsafe crossing decision