Pedestrians Less Likely To Activate More Effective Types of Crosswalk Beacons: IIHS

Research suggests that reducing wait times, adding pedestrian medians and building sidewalks could increase the use of more effective types of signals.

A new study indicates that drivers and pedestrians respond differently to traffic signals at crosswalks, suggesting that improvements to intersection designs could help reduce pedestrian-related auto accidents.

Researchers analyzed how drivers and pedestrians reacted to two common traffic beacons used at intersections. These included pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), which cycle through several light changes to stop cars, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), which emit rapid yellow flashes to prompt drivers to slow down.

While both types of beacons have been effective in reducing pedestrian accidents and increasing driver compliance, studies have shown that PHBs are consistently more effective than RRFBs.

However, a report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reveals pedestrians tend to activate RRFBs more often than PHBs, even though PHBs are more effective at making drivers stop.

In the study conducted by IIHS researchers Raul Avelar and Jessica Cicchino, video observations were analyzed at over 3,000 pedestrian crosswalks in North Carolina to compare the effectiveness of pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). They also surveyed 343 pedestrians, categorizing them based on whether they activated the signals before crossing, crossed without activation, or used the signals while they were already active.

The survey explored various factors that influenced their decisions to activate the signals, including traffic intensity, vehicle speed, crossing length and waiting times.

Impact of Beacon Technology on Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety

The data revealed that although drivers were more likely to stop for activated PHBs, pedestrians less frequently used these compared to RRFBs, with activation rates influenced by the perceived traffic dangers and crossing complexities.

At PHB locations, drivers yielded over twice as often when the beacon was active, yet fewer than two-thirds of pedestrians used this feature. Conversely, at RRFB locations, where activation was higher, drivers’ compliance was also better, demonstrating an 80% increase in yield rates when the beacons were used.

Further insights showed that RRFB waiting times were 52% shorter than those at PHBs, which may contribute to their higher usage. The study suggested that reducing wait times at PHBs could potentially increase their activation rates and overall pedestrian safety. Moreover, undesirable behaviors such as crossing outside the crosswalk were more prevalent at intersections lacking proper sidewalks, leading researchers to recommend strategic placement of beacons away from intersections and ensuring sidewalks are present on both crossing sides.

Researchers also indicated that constructing pedestrian medians in the middle of the street had the highest potential to improve pedestrian activation and driver yield rates, regardless of the crosswalk signal type.

“It’s well-documented that both signals make drivers more likely to yield and allow walkers to cross the street safely,” IIHS President, David Harkey, said. “But they can only do that if pedestrians push the button to activate them. This study offers valuable lessons for how we can make that more likely.”

The findings support earlier research by the IIHS, which showed that adding streetlights and other visible features at crosswalks significantly improved pedestrian safety at night, with drivers being more than 13 times more likely to yield to pedestrians at lighted crosswalks.