About the use of the present crossing facilities in the Netherlands (among which zebra crossings) not much is known. Crash statistics do not explicitly include quantitative data about the use of crossing facilities nor about crossing conflicts with this description. Crash studies of crossing facilities are rather rare and dated.
Crash studies
In the eighties, extensive experiments with different types of pedestrian crossing facilities at road sections and arterial road intersections were conducted in the Netherlands. Evaluation of some of these facilities showed a slight decrease in the number of crashes involving pedestrians at intersection crossings – in spite of an overall increase in the number of crashes involving pedestrians (Bos & Dijkstra, in [17]).
Foreign research found contradictory results. In the United Kingdom, research showed that crossing facilities appeared to have a positive effect on road safety [18]. In the United States, however, research shows that when the volume of cars amounts to 10,000 cars a day, the pedestrian crash rate (the number of crashes involving pedestrians divided by the number of crossing pedestrians) at locations with crossing facilities was higher than at locations without markings. With fewer cars, locations with crossing faccilities were just as safe as those without markings [19].
Other kinds of studies
Apart from crash studies, there are also studies that estimate the lack of safety on the basis of observation (mostly using video registration) of crossing behaviour. These foreign studies show conflicting results. Fu and colleagues [20] found that crossing facilities resulted in less safe pedestrian behaviour, while Pulugurtha and colleagues [21] concluded that at crossing facilities, pedestrians and crossing traffic did display safe behaviour. De Langen [22] concluded that at pedestrian crossings designed according to the principles of Sustainable Safety, where lower car speeds are customary, pedestrians felt less safe than at ordinary pedestrian crossings.
