Between 1989 and 2009 almost 9,000 pedestrians were killed and hundreds of thousands were injured on Canada’s roads. Progress in reducing pedestrian casualties has been much less impressive than for vehicle occupants. The road system has traditionally been designed from the perspective of a motor vehicle driver rather than that of a pedestrian or other type of vulnerable road user. The safe system approach recognizes that the most vulnerable part of the system is comprised of unprotected human beings and that it has to be designed around them. Those jurisdictions that have established road safety as a priority are the same ones that have implemented improvements across all three areas (road user behaviours, roadway design and vehicle safety standards) and have achieved substantial reductions in the numbers of people killed and injured on their roads; this is evidenced by the divergent levels of road safety performance by various countries. Canada lags behind many top performing countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) when it comes to pedestrian safety. It would not be unreasonable for Canada to, over the near to medium term, reduce its number of pedestrian fatalities to one-third the current level: this would save approximately 2,400 lives in a ten-year period. Research findings and experience of other jurisdictions indicate that vast progress could be made to reduce the number of pedestrians killed and injured in Canada if pedestrian safety were given higher priority and if proven measures were implemented. No longer is it acceptable to assume pedestrian injury is inevitable when motor vehicles share the road system with vulnerable road users. In the modern era of road safety, jurisdictions can assume a safe system approach and include pedestrians and other vulnerable road users as an essential component of the system and one that is given top priority. Themes of this current report include safer pedestrians, safer drivers, safer road and traffic signal design, and safer vehicles. This report provides an overview of available countermeasures to achieve improved pedestrian safety. It is also hoped that this report will help foster a different way of thinking when it comes to pedestrian safety and the design of the overall system. Many pedestrian fatalities and injuries occur at night or under low-light conditions. Dark clothing is often worn by pedestrians, especially in cold weather, and this, combined with more hours of darkness, greatly increases vulnerability in winter months. Visibility aids have the potential to increase visibility and enable drivers to detect pedestrians earlier. One of the more effective ways of reducing pedestrian collisions at night is the use of retroreflective clothing, patches of material or tags. These materials enhance recognition, in particular when arranged in a ‘biomotion’ configuration, taking advantage of the motion from the natural movement of a pedestrian’s legs, feet, arms and wrists. A significant source of distraction for road users is the use of hand-held electronic devices such as talking on cell phones, text messaging, Internet use and listening to hand-held music players. Studies show that use of a cell phone while crossing the street interferes with cautious behaviour, reduces situational awareness and poses a threat to pedestrians. While hand-held devices are not the only source of distraction for pedestrians, they remain a major one. There is less information on the role of distraction in collision causation for pedestrians due to a lack of reliable collision data on causal factors. Pedestrians impaired by alcohol or other drugs pose a grave danger to themselves and are a neglected and challenging problems in traffic safety. In Canada in 2008, among pedestrians tested for alcohol post-mortem, almost 40 percent had been drinking and 27 percent had BACs over 160 mg%. Legal approaches may have little preventative value because of the high proportion of chronic or severe alcohol abusers among pedestrian casualties. Because studies show that impaired pedestrian collisions are often concentrated in circumscribed urban areas, it may be possible to apply localized road engineering, education or public health countermeasures. Pedestrian-related injuries contribute to almost 12 percent of all injury-related deaths of children younger than 14 years of age. Lower income neighbourhoods, particularly urban ones, present a higher risk for child pedestrian injuries. Children’s overall physical, cognitive, visual and auditory development puts them at a distinct disadvantage as pedestrians. In order to cross a street independently and safely, children need three important skills that are typically not acquired until between 9 and 11 years of age: the ability to determine and use a safe crossing pathway, the capability to realistically assess a vehicle’s speed and the cognitive means to judge safe gaps in traffic. Parents and caregivers have a large potential to influence their child’s safe pedestrian behaviour. Parents serve as both protectors and educators. When adults accompany children to and from school there is a demonstrated reduction to the risk of injury especially when that adult is well informed. Even then, however, this may not be realistic for all families and in all situations. Schools and community organizations, therefore, can also play a vital role in teaching children to become safe pedestrians but education needs to be matched to the child’s developmental level. Navigating a traffic environment can be dangerous for older pedestrians due to sometimes limited vision and hearing, slower reaction time and decision making, lower levels of attention, reduced walking speed and other age-related factors. Those over age 70 are more likely to be involved in a serious pedestrian incident than are younger people. Greater injury severity to older pedestrians is due in part to their greater physical fragility including larger impacts from brain injuries and longer recovery times from injury. Accommodating the needs of a rapidly aging Canadian population, many of whom will be transitioning from driving to walking as a primary transportation means, can be made a high priority for governments and community planners. Many of the same countermeasures recommended for pedestrians with special needs would also assist older individuals as there is overlap between many of the characteristics of these populations. Good health and fitness levels among seniors have been correlated with safer pedestrian behaviours. Thus programs that improve the health of seniors may also decrease their risks when using the road system. Not all pedestrians are equally capable of crossing the road easily and safely. Many people have limitations that require special attention on their part and/or modifications of roadway infrastructure and operations. These special populations include those with physical, sensory and cognitive limitations. Research shows considerably lower walking speeds for various types of mobility restricted pedestrians who rarely ever reach the average speed of 1.2 m/s (4 ft/s), which is the walking speed often assumed in pedestrian crosswalk signal timing. It is recommended that pedestrian signal timing be adjusted to allow safe crossing by those with mobility restrictions. In addition, pedestrian-activated controls should be easily accessible, utilize design-standard curb cuts and gradients for wheel chair access should be provided, as should tactile strips and auditory signals for people with vision loss. Sidewalk markings to warn people with vision loss of hazards should be maximally detectable; pedestrian signs should be designed with the simplest possible messages in order to be understood by people with developmental or cognitive challenges. Assisted forms of pedestrian transportation include use of devices such as in-line skates, skateboards, longboards, scooters, Segways™ and assistive mobility devices. There is little research on the risks these devices pose when interacting with motor vehicle traffic, as the injury data often do not distinguish between different causes of injury to users. One controversial issue has been how the use of these various devices should be restricted by location and by age of user. On sidewalks and pedestrian paths, some devices such as Segways™ pose a threat to people on foot; but if permitted on roadways the potential for conflict with regular traffic may be unacceptably high. Enforcement works best when it is part of a comprehensive approach combined with awareness and education. A strategic approach to educating the public is necessary to assist with addressing this public safety issue, as enforcement resources and capabilities are limited. Targeted enforcement strategies require data on collision factors and frequencies to enable agencies to prioritize behaviours. Knowledge of the behaviour and traffic patterns of a community also helps police to develop countermeasures to address specific behaviours. Both driver and pedestrian behaviours may be targeted. Providing professional development opportunities and resource guides for police officers will also assist in successful enforcement of pedestrian laws. Combining education and enforcement with clear legislation would increase the confidence of police officers in their ability to enforce the laws. Motor vehicle-pedestrian crashes occur predominantly in urban settings. Drivers are often at fault. Failing to yield the right of way followed by driver distraction and inattention (including, within this, various visual, dual-task and cognitive processing failures) are the driver actions most frequently implicated in crashes with pedestrians. There are number of ways to address the driver factors that contribute to pedestrian collisions. Most of these approaches are not unique to the prevention of pedestrian crashes but have been identified as ways to improve overall traffic safety. The section on drivers focuses on those factors most relevant to pedestrian safety. There is a direct correlation between an increase in vehicle speed and the increase in the risk of injury. It is estimated that a pedestrian struck by a vehicle travelling at 50 km/h is eight times more likely to be killed than a pedestrian struck at 30 km/h.2 Even small reductions in speed are significant. Reducing vehicle speed has been proven to be one of the most effective ways to prevent pedestrian crashes and reduce the severity of injuries. At a speed of 30 km/h, vehicles and pedestrians are able to co-exist with relative safety because drivers have sufficient time to stop for pedestrians, and pedestrians can make better crossing decisions. The probability of a pedestrian being killed in a vehicle crash increases exponentially with the impact speed. There are a number of reasons why speed contributes to the risk of a crash. The first is the driver has a narrower field of vision. The visual field of the driver is reduced when the speed of the vehicle increases. Vehicle speed impacts the distance travelled during the time it takes the driver to see a pedestrian, to process that information and then to physically respond by taking actions related to braking and/or steering. Braking distance increases exponentially with increases in speed but also depends on the type of pavement and the condition of the road, as well as the type of vehicle and still other factors. Stopping distances are much higher on wet than on dry roads and can even change depending on the pavement friction coefficient. On the other hand, sunny and dry conditions bring more children and people of all ages outdoors so it is always advisable to have speed reduction strategies wherever pedestrians and motorized traffic mix. The use of automated speed enforcement, or driver feedback, to assist police in enforcing speed limits in pedestrian areas is proven by vast amounts of research and data. Drivers could be educated about the needs and vulnerability of pedestrians; in particular they should understand the science and physics related to the difference in pedestrian impact between 50 km/h and 30 km/h. It is important to cultivate an understanding that all road users share the road space especially on residential roads. Training by driver instructors, advice that drivers receive from safety organizations and the police could be oriented to promote attitudes and behaviours based on pedestrian safety priorities. There is an opportunity to foster the social environment that supports pedestrian safety in driver education curricula. Public education and awareness campaigns are likely to be of limited effectiveness on their own and have the greatest potential for success when combined with enforcement programs. For example, one could mount public education and awareness together with enforcement initiatives focused on the problem of speed and the benefits that can be realized through lowered speeds and improved speed management activities. Roadway design and intersection signal controls are a fundamental part of a safe system design for pedestrians. In conjunction with implementing an integrated pedestrian strategy, there are many measures that work to improve pedestrian safety. Engineering countermeasures for pedestrians can be classified into broad categories; separation of pedestrians from vehicles through space or time, reducing or eliminating concurrent movements of vehicles and people, reducing pedestrian crossing distances, increasing the visibility of pedestrians including through better lighting, alerting drivers to the location of crosswalks and reducing vehicle speeds. Although the list provided in this report is not exhaustive, it demonstrates that many proven and innovative measures exist and are implementation-ready. Crosswalk design is a critical component of pedestrian safety. The primary goal of crosswalk design is to provide safe places for pedestrians to cross while encouraging drivers and pedestrians to make safer decisions that will result in reduced levels of human trauma. The installation of a crosswalk is usually determined by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) warrants for marked crosswalk installations and for the installation of traffic signals. The design of a crosswalk should consider all possible users, including those with disabilities or using assistive devices. Most accessibility treatments used to enhance crosswalks are outlined in TAC’s Guidelines for Understanding, Use and Implementation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals. There are many proven crosswalk treatments available. Marked crosswalk treatments are selected and implemented from a hierarchy starting with the most basic treatment of pavement markings and signs, up to the most complex that involve a pedestrian activated traffic signal. Whether the crosswalk is unmarked or fully signalized, it is essential to apply all crosswalk treatments carefully, ensuring that the type of crosswalk is appropriate for the location and provides maximum pedestrian safety. In addition to traditional crosswalk designs, there are a number of newer treatments (signs, pavement markings, and signals) that have been tested and show promise. These include: overhead flashing amber beacons, the high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK), rectangular rapid-flash beacons and pedestrian detection systems. At signalized intersections, even with pedestrian signals, there is still the possibility of pedestrian trauma resulting from left or right-turning vehicles. Many pedestrian crashes at intersections involve conflicts with turning vehicles. Four relatively simple and low-cost countermeasures that can reduce the potential for such crashes due to turning vehicles are: • Pedestrian Scramble Operations (PSOs) • Advanced Green for Pedestrians • Protected Left-Turning Phase; and • Prohibition of Right-on-Red Traffic islands and raised medians are often used on multi-lane roadways where the roadway is too wide for pedestrians to safely cross. The median breaks up the crossing into smaller and more manageable distances. Raised medians or crossing islands have lowered the rate of collisions significantly on multi-lane roads. Painted medians are less effective. It is important to restrict parking in the vicinity of crosswalks because vehicles restrict the line of sight of both drivers and pedestrians. Bus stops are best located away from crosswalks to deter pedestrians from crossing right in front of the bus. Stopped buses can also create sight line hazards. Ideally, fencing is in place to prevent pedestrians from crossing near the bus stop and that functions to guide them toward the safest crossing location. The modern roundabout can replace the traditional intersection and has been shown to be safer for pedestrians as well as for vehicle traffic for a number of reasons. European studies have found that modern roundabouts reduce pedestrian-vehicle collisions by 73 to 75 percent. This is especially so when roundabouts are designed with the proven principles related to pedestrian safety and that are covered in this report. As with vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic needs to be guided, directed, and warned of hazards by TCDs - signs, signals and pavement markings. Signals are found primarily at intersections. Pavement markings indicate the locations of crosswalks and guide pedestrians along a safe path for crossing the road. These TCDs, however, are not all equally effective. For examples, different types of flashing beacons or different types of pavement markings will lead to different rates of compliance by drivers. Auditory messages and warning signs or displays have been shown to increase pedestrian vigilance at crosswalks. Advance warnings (pavement markings) to motorists of a pedestrian crossing can reduce the danger to crossing pedestrians of multiple-threat situations. Marked crosswalks are not always safer than unmarked crosswalks; on two-lane roads and those with low traffic volume both are equally safe. However, on multi-lane roads with high volumes marked crosswalks have a higher collision risk if they are not enhanced with other treatments such as signals or raised medians. Volume control measures are used to reduce the volume of vehicular traffic on local streets in order to increase the safety of vulnerable road users: pedestrians and bicyclists. Most are designed to prevent short-cutting or through-traffic. Diverted traffic should flow on roads where there are other methods deployed to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Separating pedestrians from the roadway reduces crashes between pedestrians and motor vehicles. The presence of a sidewalk reduces pedestrian collisions by 88 percent over no sidewalk. The greater the separation, the better they are protected. Boulevards, streetscaping and fencing are different and effective approaches to separate pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Sidewalks should be at least 1.5 metres in width and maximum safety benefits accrue when sidewalks exist anywhere people travel or move about. A common human error is misjudgement of the speed and/ or distance of trains. This is partly explained by the “large object illusion” - the perception that large objects are moving more slowly than small ones travelling at the same speed.6 Not all road users are aware that some crossings have no active warnings (lights, bells, etc.) so they may fail to look for an approaching train. More consistent treatments are needed and some value could be found if pedestrians were better educated about the risks of rail-grade crossings and trains. Pedestrians need the appropriate information in order to recognize work areas and potential hazards in order to walk safely through and around work zones. Guiding pedestrians in work zones can present challenges, as these areas may have unexpected or unusual traffic configurations and detours. Signs are typically used for this purpose and these should convey clear and simple directions. Pedestrian detours need to consider the visually impaired and others with disabilities. Guidelines have been developed for the safe transit of pedestrians through work zones. In many countries, speed reduction strategies are in place to address issues related to fatality and injury rates for pedestrians and child pedestrians. Setting up 30 km/h zones in residential areas makes sense because at this speed motorists and vulnerable road users can better co-exist and the likelihood of injury is dramatically decreased. Speed calming measures reduce vehicular speeds, promote safe conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists and improve the environment and liveability of neighbourhoods. The key speed calming measures recommended for implementation in Canada are described in this report. They include: rumble strips, speed bumps, humps and tables, chokers, chicanes, mini-roundabouts, landscaping, pavement treatments and still other measures. In North America, less attention has been focused on reducing pedestrian deaths and injuries through vehicle design than is the case for vehicle occupants. Vehicle design has a strong effect on pedestrian injury: softer and more sloping vehicle fronts are effective ways of reducing pedestrian injury and the likelihood of death. Since the majority of vehicle-pedestrian crashes involve the pedestrian being struck by the front of a car, the vehicle’s frontal design has the most potential to influence the type and severity of pedestrian injuries. Increasing pedestrian protection in the event of a crash through vehicle design is a key issue and is regulated in Europe and Japan. Influenced by international statistics on pedestrian death and injury rates, these countries pursued their own vehicle standards and regulation in advance of the acceptance of global standards. Canada regulates new vehicles and imported vehicles under 15 years old, through the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and has been regulating new and imported vehicles since 1971. It should be noted that the rule-making process is a long one and it usually takes a number of years before a proposed regulation becomes a standard. Unlike some other countries such as those in the European Union and Japan, Canada does not currently have a regulation for vehicle design for the protection of pedestrians. In 2011 as part of the upgrade of the Motor Vehicle Test Centre in Blainville, Quebec, the federal government constructed a pedestrian laboratory to improve research capacity in this area. Equipment is in the process of being acquired to carry out pedestrian protection research, in conjunction with the U.S. government’s National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHTSA). Under the United States (US)-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) that was announced by the two heads of state in February 2011, the two governments are working to harmonize safety standards, including those that would affect pedestrian safety, wherever possible and appropriate to reduce the burden and cost on manufacturers. Accordingly, new regulations in this area will likely be harmonized with the U.S. However, regulations in Canada are also governed by the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management (www. regulation.gc.ca) and as part of this regime; the need for regulatory intervention as well as a positive cost benefit assessment is required under the current rules. This is a requirement independent of foreign regulatory actions. Among the most effective design innovations now available on some vehicles are: • Improved rear-view requirements to protect children when vehicles are backing up. • Brake Assist System (BAS), a system that monitors the speed and/or force with which the driver applies the brake pedal, and uses this information to assess the urgency of the action. The BAS then kicks in and generates a high braking power, applying emergency braking and resulting in decreased stopping distance. • Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA). These systems can alert drivers to the difference in their speed and the speed limit of the road they are on and can be programmed to prevent vehicles from exceeding the speed limit. • Adaptive headlights that orient light in the direction the vehicle is turning. • Pedestrian detection systems that can use a combined camera and radar sensor to monitor any obstacle in front of the vehicle. Such technologies have been developed and are already in production by some vehicle manufacturers. • Softer vehicle fronts especially those that reduce severity of head and leg injuries to pedestrians. The first impact with the vehicle is often the most significant one and there is scope to mitigate the severity of injuries to pedestrians at speeds below approximately 40 km/h by improving the frontal structures of motor vehicles. In addition to a better frontal shape, new technologies coupled with a greater understanding of pedestrian injury produced by crashes have yielded other solutions which are already in use in some vehicles. One measure now implemented by Volvo Car Company is external pedestrian frontal air bags including air pockets that protect the pedestrian head from the A-pillars and other unforgiving surfaces. The United Nations has completed the first phase of a global technical regulation on pedestrian safety and light duty vehicle design (UN GTR No. 9) and is currently working on the second phase. This work is being carried out through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Because vehicle standards for pedestrian impact are designed to produce safety benefits for pedestrians when vehicles are travelling in the range of 40 km/h or less, speed reduction and traffic calming measures combined with better designed car fronts represents the best possible combination for pedestrian injury and fatality reductions. Two of the most pedestrian-unfriendly vehicle modifications identified by the report are raising the vehicle height and adding rigid unforgiving bull bars to the front of the vehicle. Raising the height of a vehicle frame, as an after-market modification, puts other road users at risk; pedestrians are particularly vulnerable. When a vehicle is raised, braking performance and stopping distances can also be significantly affected. Most significantly, the section of the vehicle that comes in contact with the pedestrian is rigid in comparison to the hood, resulting in more severe injury to the struck pedestrian. There is overwhelming evidence that stiff bullbars (also known as bush bars and grill guards) multiply the injury potential to struck pedestrians for these reasons. This report includes a large number of potential countermeasures covering each of the above areas. This report was developed concurrently with the development of Canada’s Road Safety Strategy 2015 — the successor plan to Road Safety Vision 2010. The inventory of approximately 70 initiatives, countermeasures and actions address one of the key targets groups within the strategy matrix — vulnerable road users. It was also developed in keeping with the holistic nature of the new strategy which is based on a road user, infrastructure and vehicle perspective. This report is not only a resource of actions for implementation by governments and the road safety community as a whole but it also provides a broad base of information to interested individuals or organizations on the multifaceted issues and challenges associated with promoting the most basic and fundamental form of travel in Canada: walking. (Author/publisher)
Abstract