Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Vermont, 33 Colchester Ave, 213A Votey Hall, Burlington, VT 05405, United States.
Accid Anal Prev. 2024 Apr;198:107462. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2024.107462. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
Improving the safety of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure is critical for reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities. Pedestrian traffic safety risks are heightened in rural contexts. A key area of focus is the protection of pedestrians crossing roadways between intersections and in high-risk areas such as rural to urban transition zones. One way to reduce safety risks for pedestrians is through the use of crossing treatments such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian activated LED-embedded signs (LESs), which use a pedestrian activated beacon to increase drivers' awareness of pedestrians. Prior research on these treatments leaves open questions about their effectiveness, particularly in rural contexts. Consequently, rural communities have limited guidance for their use. We address this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of RRFBs and LESs in small and rural communities in Vermont using a rigorous before-after observational study design. Our results indicate that RRFBs improve compliance and safety in rural and small community contexts, while LESs have little to no effect on compliance and safety. Our findings hold in both central locations and rural to urban transition zones.
改善行人和自行车基础设施的安全性对于减少与交通相关的伤害和死亡至关重要。在农村环境中,行人交通安全风险更高。一个重点关注领域是保护在交叉口之间和农村到城市过渡区等高风险区域过马路的行人。减少行人安全风险的一种方法是使用交叉处理措施,例如矩形快速闪烁信标 (RRFB) 和行人激活的 LED 嵌入式标志 (LES),这些措施使用行人激活信标来提高驾驶员对行人的意识。关于这些处理措施的有效性,先前的研究存在一些问题,特别是在农村环境中。因此,农村社区在使用这些措施方面的指导有限。我们通过在佛蒙特州的小型和农村社区中使用严格的前后观察研究设计来评估 RRFB 和 LES 的有效性来解决这一差距。我们的结果表明,RRFB 提高了农村和小型社区环境中的合规性和安全性,而 LES 对合规性和安全性几乎没有影响。我们的发现既适用于中心位置,也适用于农村到城市过渡区。