Crossing facilities must be safe and understandable for everybody. However, the large variety in types of crossing is responsible for confusion.
Sustainably Safe makes high demands on the safety of the traffic engineering design. However, there are considerable gaps in the knowledge of urban road safety aspects. This also applies to crossing facilities.
An accident analysis (of registered crashes) has shown that a considerable number of crashes involving mopeds, bicycles, and pedestrians occur on urban crossing facilities. That is why SWOV has studied the various types of crossing facilities on urban road segments. The focus in this study was on how the right-of-way on different types of crossing facilities was handled by road users.
Variety
In a detailed study of the safety effects of various types of crossing facilities, data was gathered of 121 crossings that were meant only for cyclists, only for pedestrians, or for both. The selected crossing facilities appear to show a wide variety in use, layout, boarding, and marking.
On crossing facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians, the right-of-way regulation is sometimes different: e.g. pedestrians have right-of-way and cyclists do not, or pedestrians have a regulation with traffic lights and cyclists do not. This is very confusing for both those crossing over as well as for motor vehicle drivers approaching the crossing.
The right-of-way behaviour was then observed on a number of crossing facilities that had been made sustainably safe, the Sustainably Safe Pedestrian Zebra Crossings (SS-ZC) and a number that had been laid out differently (non SS-ZC). This showed that pedestrians at a SS-ZC have less confidence in a correct giving of the right-of-way to pedestrians than pedestrians at a non SS-ZC. This lack of confidence, however, leads to fewer potential conflict situations. No explanation can be given for this unexpected result. The approach speed at a SS-ZC also appeared to be slower than at a non SS-ZC, which leads to a safer situation. In spite of this, the speed at a SS-ZC is also faster than 30 km/h. This is the speed whereby the mixing of traffic types is permissible according to the SS starting points.
Recommendation
At crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists the road authority should choose the same right-of-way regulation for both groups: both pedestrians as well as cyclists should, or should not, have right-of-way, and for both the crossing should have traffic lights or not.
It is possible that if road surface marking which indicates one has to give right-of-way is placed just before a crossing facility, it would clarify and emphasize the right-of-way obligation for drivers. It could also be combined with a raised surface. This raised surface should be long enough for a motor vehicle take up position just before the crossing facility.
SWOV recommends introducing greater uniformity in crossing facilities and further research on how they can be made safe and clear to everybody.
The study has been published in the report 'Veiligheid van enkele typen oversteekvoorzieningen in stedelijke gebieden, Analyse van ongevallengegevens en gedragswaarnemingen' (R-2003-23) which may be consulted and downloaded on the SWOV-website www.swov.nl.
Sustainably Safe Zebra Crossing
The implementation requirements that a SustainablySafe Zebra Crossing between intersections must meet (CROW, 2000) are:
A ZC should be installed on an urban distributor with a speed limit of 50 km/h and 2x1 lanes (in Sustainably-Safe there is, in principle, no 1x2 lane road). The most characteristic requirement is the application of the speed inhibitor.