• Julie Hatfield, Ralston Fernandes, R F Soames Job, and Ken Smith.
• NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, The University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australia. j.hatfield@unsw.edu.au
• Accid Anal Prev. 2007 Jul 1; 39 (4): 833-42.

AbstractMisunderstanding of right-of-way rules may contribute to pedestrian trauma, especially at crossings where pedestrian and traffic signals appear to give contradictory messages. Two thousand eight hundred and fifty-four pedestrians were observed crossing at signal-controlled intersections to compare attention to traffic for different combinations of pedestrian and traffic signals. In addition, a survey was conducted at signal-controlled intersections and nearby car parks in metropolitan and rural areas. Five hundred and seventy-four participants took the role of pedestrian or driver when responding to questions regarding beliefs about pedestrian right-of-way for a range of situations at signal-controlled crossings, zebra crossings, and unmarked sections of road (specifically: alone, with pedestrian refuge, or paved). Results suggest that at signal-controlled crossings pedestrian right-of-way is erroneously thought to be influenced by the pedestrian signal. Many respondents thought that a pedestrian refuge or paving gave a pedestrian right-of-way at an otherwise unmarked section of road. In many situations more than 20% of both drivers and pedestrians reported that they would take right-of-way. Pedestrian crossing types should be rationalised, and education should be provided regarding rules and responsibilities at available crossings.

20 keywords...

hide…