Some Crosswalk Signals Work Better Than Others, New Study Shows

Signals that allow pedestrians to cross at busy roads by pressing a button that activates red lights that cycle through warning phases before alerting drivers to stop – pedestrian hybrid beacons – are effective at getting drivers to yield, but many walkers don’t use them.

In contrast, pedestrians are more likely to activate signals that flash immediately and instruct drivers to yield as soon as they press the button – rectangular rapid flashing beacons – even though they’re less effective at getting drivers to stop.

Those are the main findings of new research released on Wednesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit financed by the insurance industry.

“It’s well-documented that both of these common pedestrian warning signals make drivers more likely to yield and allow walkers to cross the street safely,” David Harkey, the Insurance Institute’s president, said in a statement. “But they can only do that if pedestrians push the button to activate them.”

Both pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) have been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes, but researchers sought to compare behavior at the two different types of crosswalks to assess how real-world pedestrians used them.

For the study, “Factors influencing road user behaviors and motivations around pedestrian hybrid beacons and rectangular rapid flashing beacons in North Carolina,” they examined yield and activation rates through video observations of more than 3,000 pedestrians crossing at various locations in North Carolina, and conducted a survey of nearly 350 of them.

Researchers found that pedestrian beacons that cycle through caution phases before signaling drivers to stop are more effective at busy crossing points, and flashers may work better in areas with light traffic and lower speed limits.

Many people didn’t activate PHBs in areas with lighter traffic or lower speed limits, and instead crossed without pushing the button and waiting for the signal, the study found. Activation rates were higher for RRFBs.

The most common reasons that survey respondents gave for activating either type of signal were that traffic was heavy or fast-moving or that the road was wide, researchers said. The study also indicated that activation rates increased substantially under those conditions, and yielding rates decreased.

Pedestrians were also much less likely to activate beacons in locations where the far side of the crossing was missing a sidewalk, and activation was more common in school zones, at mid block locations, during periods with more traffic and when groups of pedestrians were crossing.

Drivers were more prone to yield at locations with a refuge island for pedestrians, in school zones and when groups of pedestrians were crossing, but while activation rates were higher during heavy traffic times, yielding was more common during periods of relatively low traffic.

“It makes sense that pedestrians don’t want to wait if they think they can get across the road safely,” Raul Avelar, senior research transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute and lead author of the study, said in a statement. “That means pedestrian hybrid beacons, which drivers are more likely to treat like a red light at a regular traffic signal, may be more effective at the hairiest crossings, where pedestrians are more likely to use them. RRFBs should be installed at less challenging crossings, such as two-lane roads, where traffic is relatively light, or where speed limits are lower.”

In the future, if traffic engineers could better match signals with crossings, the study noted, it would encourage pedestrians and drivers to use them more and improve pedestrian safety.

For more information, click here.