Nighttime effectiveness of the pedestrian hybrid beacon, rectangular rapid flashing beacon, and LED-embedded crossing sign.

INTRODUCTION

A large majority of pedestrian fatal crashes occurred during the nighttime. The focus of this research was to identify if the following pedestrian crossing treatments were more or less effective at night: pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB), or LED-embedded crossing warning sign (LED-Em).

METHOD

For each treatment, two statistical evaluations were used on the staged pedestrian data: ANCOVA models that considered per site mean yield rates and logistic regression that considered the individual driver response to the crossing pedestrian.

RESULTS

For the PHB, essentially no difference was found between the very high daytime and nighttime driver yielding values. The research found RRFBs to be more effective at night, and the LED-Em to be more effective during the day. Using the results from the logistic regression evaluation, higher driver yielding was observed at LED-Em sites in the lower speed limit group (30 or 35 mph (48.3 or 56.3 kph), with 2 lanes (rather than 4 lanes), with narrow lanes of 10.5 or 11 ft (3.2 or 3.4 m) widths (rather than 11.5 or 12 ft (3.5 or 3.7 m) widths), and lower hourly volumes. The results from the ANCOVA model for LED-Ems also showed a statistically significant difference for yield lines (higher yielding when present).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis represents the only known study to date on the effectiveness of pedestrian crossing treatments at night. Practical Applications: This study provides additional support for the PHB as a treatment because the PHB was found to be highly effective during the nighttime as well as the daytime. The value of using advance yield lines was also demonstrated. The findings offer a caution regarding the use of the LED-Em treatment on higher speed, higher volume, or wider roads.