4th International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design

Pedestrian Crosswalks Safety Inspections:

Safety Assessment Procedure

By:

Alfonso Montella
Ph.D., P.Eng., Assistant Professor
Department of Transportation Engineering “Luigi Tocchetti”
University of Naples Federico II
Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
Phone: +39 0817683941
Fax: +39 0817683946
E-mail: alfonso.montella@unina.it

Filomena Mauriello
P.Eng., Ph.D. Student
Department of Transportation Engineering “Luigi Tocchetti”
University of Naples Federico II
Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
Phone: +39 0817683375
Fax: +39 0817683946
E-mail: filomena.mauriello@unina.it

Word count: 4,053 words + (3 tables + 6 figures) × 250 = 6,303 equivalent words
Montella and Mauriello 2

ABSTRACT
Traditional road safety engineering work involves identifying high risk locations from crash
data, carrying out detailed crash studies at those locations, implementing relevant remedial
measures, and then monitoring the effects of those treatments. This approach has proven to be
cost effective and has provided substantial crash reduction at hotspot sites. However, crashes
at a pedestrian crosswalk are a very rare event and crash investigation might be not effective
in indentifying sites where safety improvements may be reached in a cost effective manner. A
different approach, which is complementary and not alternative to crash remedial programs,
consists in carrying out safety inspections aimed at identifying potential hazards, which are
assessed by measuring risk in relation to road features which may lead to future crashes, so
that remedial treatments may be implemented before crashes happen.
In the paper, a pedestrian crosswalks safety inspection procedure is presented. A
safety assessment procedure based on the inspection results has been defined. From the
process, a safety index (SI) is calculated. The SI is related to the safety consequences of the
identified problems, rather than on the standard non-compliance or on the number of
deficiencies. The SI has two main practical applications: 1) high risk crosswalks can be
identified and ranked; 2) specific safety issues, that give more contribution to unsafety, are
pointed out. The procedure has been applied in a sample of 51 urban crosswalks, highlighting
many safety concerns.

Keywords: road safety, pedestrian crosswalks, road safety inspection, risk index, ranking
criteria.
Montella and Mauriello 3

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, walking has received increased attention as a mode of transportation that
should be encouraged. Even though pedestrians are legitimate roadway users and attention to
their mobility is the key objective of the urban mobility plans (1, 2), they are frequently
overlooked in the quest to build more sophisticated transportation systems (3), with a
detrimental safety effect.
Pedestrian/motor vehicles crashes are a serious problem throughout the world. In
Italy, over 700 pedestrians are killed each year as a result of motor vehicles crashes and
pedestrian fatalities represent 13% of motor vehicle deaths. These data are quite alarming if it
is considered that pedestrian crashes account for about 7% of total crashes. Severity of
pedestrian crashes is greater than severity of other crash types and the fatality ratio (fatalities/
injury crashes) is almost twice than the ratio of the other crash types. The number of
pedestrians involved in road crashes is significantly greater among older people (age over
65). Older persons have physical and behavioral characteristics that make them very
vulnerable as pedestrians. Fifty percent of pedestrian fatalities involve people with age over
65. Older pedestrians have diminished physical and visual abilities, such as reduced walking
speed, reduced sight and hearing, difficulty in judging distances and assessing the vehicle
speeds and headways, that make the street crossing more challenging. Moreover, the elderly,
due to their lower physical strength, once suffered a trauma are more prone to death.
Children and teenagers, such as the elderly, have many characteristics that make them
particularly vulnerable to crashes. They have a limited risk perception and are often
impulsive and unpredictable. Further, young pedestrians have particular physical
characteristics, such as limited peripheral vision, limited ability to determine the source and
direction of sounds; limited ability to assess the vehicle speeds that hampers their capability
of judging the vehicle headways and the time of arrival of the vehicles; and small height
which makes them more difficult to be seen by the oncoming traffic. In Italy, fatality rate of
older pedestrians (over 65) in the period 2000-2004 was three times greater than the rate of
young pedestrians (below 18): 18.7 vs. 6.6 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. The lowest
fatality rate was observed in the age group 31-45: 3.3 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. As
far as the crash types is concerned, the greater fatality ratios (fatalities/injury crashes) were
observed in nighttime crashes (8.3 fatalities per 100 injury crashes) and in crashes with trucks
(8.7 fatalities per 100 injury crashes). Italy has one of the highest incidences in terms of crash
rates at the pedestrian crosswalks with 3.4 deaths per million inhabitants compared with an
EU average of 2.0 (4).
Understanding pedestrian safety issues has proven difficult for engineers and planners
(3). Traditionally, safety problems have been identified by analyzing police crash reports, and
improvements have been made only after crashes have occurred. Such methods are not
sufficient to fully understand and effectively address pedestrian safety concerns. Waiting for
crashes to warrant actions carries a high price, as pedestrian crashes tend to be severe.
Further, pedestrian crashes are generally widespread in the road network, thus creating
difficulties in hotspots identification based only on crash statistics. A different approach,
which is complementary and not alternative to crash remedial programs, consists in carrying
out safety inspections aimed at identifying potential hazards, which are assessed by
measuring risk in relation to road features which may lead to future crashes, so that remedial
treatments may be implemented before crashes happen (5-7). Safety inspections are formal
Montella and Mauriello 4

examinations of the pedestrian crosswalks during which an independent, qualified team

reports on the crash potential safety performance (8-14).
Safety inspections may be high cost-effective (15), but the subjective nature of the
process may give rise to inconsistencies which limit their effectiveness. To address this issue,
a quantitative method of safety impact assessment of pedestrian crosswalks that complements
safety inspections is presented.

SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

General Aspects
The pedestrian crosswalk is the intersection of the pedestrian and vehicular networks. The
level of safety depends on many factors, such as road type, traffic volume, composition, and
speed, road alignment, weather conditions, drivers’ characteristics, pedestrians’
characteristics, crosswalk location, visibility between vehicles and pedestrians, accessibility
of the crosswalk, markings and signs, lighting, etc..
The safety inspection is aimed at identifying and solving risk factors, by trying to
investigate how the road environment is perceived, and ultimately utilized by the pedestrian
and the motorists, looking at all the different road users such as the older pedestrians, the
children, the pedestrian with disabilities, and the drivers of powered two wheelers, trucks,
and cars.
The safety inspection team, which is selected by the Road Agency, must comprise two
or more people because diverse backgrounds and different approaches of distinct people
create cross-fertilization of ideas, are beneficial in problems identification and analysis, and
increase the process objectivity. Main requisites of the safety inspection team are
independence and qualification. Independence from the design, maintenance and operation of
the road network to be inspected is needed since the team has to look only at safety problems
applying “fresh eyes” to the task. Qualification is vital for the process to be effective, because
the process requires sound road safety engineering experience and practice. Qualification
requires both deep knowledge of the road safety principles and experience with crash analysis
and design of safety countermeasures for pedestrians.
Inspection of the crosswalks requires an overall assessment of the road network
because the safety performances of the crosswalk do not depend only on the crosswalk itself
but also on the drivers’ and pedestrians’ behavior which are strictly related to the overall
characteristics of the road network and the adjacent areas. In order to evaluated the crosswalk
in the different operational circumstances, the inspections must be performed in different
lighting conditions (day time and night time), traffic conditions (lower and higher traffic
volumes), and weather conditions (clear and rainy).
The pedestrian crosswalk safety inspection procedure provides a detailed framework
for safety evaluation that is related to the consequences of the identified problems, rather than
on the standard non-compliance or on the number of deficiencies. Two indicators have been
defined: the Safety Index of the main safety aspects, which is related to the specific
categories of safety issues of the pedestrian crossing and can be used to prioritize the safety
measures, and the global Safety Index, which ranks the overall level of safety of the
pedestrian crossing and can be used to prioritize the safety improvements of the crosswalks in
the road network.
Montella and Mauriello 5

As a result of the safety inspection, a specific inspection report is written. The report
is written in “problem/recommendation” format, where the problem is described in terms of
safety issues and crash risk to the road users, and the recommendations are engineering
solutions to the reported problem. After discussion among the inspectors, the final report is
edited and signed. The report describes the analysis procedure and contains the study results,
which are detailed and explained. The safety assessment procedure complements the
inspection report providing, for each pedestrian crosswalks, quantitative evaluations trough
the Safety Index of the main safety aspects and the global Safety Index.

Checklists
Checklists are a prompt aimed at avoiding the inspection team overlooking important safety
problems. Checklists are not a substitute for knowledge and experience, that is, checklists
should aid using safety engineering experience and judgment and should not be used as a
“tick” sheets.
Safety issues of the checklists are ranked as: high level problem (score equal to 2),
low level problem (score equal to 1), and no problem (score equal to 0). Issues of the
checklist that are not applicable to the crosswalk are classified as n.a. (not applicable). In
order to improve reliability and repeatability of the process, criteria for identifying and
ranking safety issues have been defined.
The checklist (Tables 1 and 2) contains six sections: a) location, b) accessibility, c)
sight distance, d) markings and signs, e) lighting, f) traffic. For each detailed safety issue a
weight factor has been defined. The weight factor is a measure of the estimated relative effect
of the problem on the crash frequency.

Location
Poorly located crosswalks may increase the risk of pedestrian crashes. In the checklist
section, the greatest weight factor is given to interaction with parking and coordination with
bus stops. Indeed, the location of both parking and bus stop may create significant increase in
the pedestrian risk. In some circumstances, parking is allowed very close to the crosswalk,
thus creating conflicts between pedestrian and vehicles. Crosswalks located before the bus
stop may induce pedestrians to cross in front of the stopped bus, with a detrimental safety
effect due to visibility of the pedestrian obscured by the bus. Crosswalk location must be
evaluated in relation to the road alignment, with specific attention to the crosswalks located
after curves and crests with reduced sight distance. The greater the road width, the greater the
exposure of the pedestrian crossing. In the case of wide roads, the presence of an adequate
median refuge should be carefully examined by the inspection team. The inspection team
should determine whether crosswalks are located along pedestrian paths and along pedestrian
desire lines. Discontinuities of pedestrian facilities at crossings may cause pedestrians to
cross away from the crosswalk and put them into conflict with vehicles. Painted crosswalks
aligned with pedestrian desire lines encourage pedestrians to cross within the crosswalk,
where drivers are more likely to expect them. Other issues in the checklist are the distance
from the other crosswalks (long spacing may induce the pedestrians to cross outside the
crosswalks), the distance from the stop line (the distance should allow one stopped vehicle
between the crosswalk and the stop line), the distance from the junctions (in the intersections
Montella and Mauriello 6

crosswalks should be tightly close to the desired pedestrian routes), and the distance from the
traffic signals (traffic signal position should be coordinated with the crosswalk).

Sight Distance
The sight distance is the safety category with the highest weight, that is, sight distance is the
most important safety issue. The inspection team must evaluate the visibility from the
perspective of all roadway users, especially children and persons in wheelchairs, who may be
lower to the ground. Sight lines between all users should be free from obstructions (12). In
the checklist, the greatest weight factor is given to visibility problems associated with
permanent obstacles, disaggregated in relation to adult pedestrians and children and persons
in wheelchairs, which could have visibility problems in situations where visibility of other
people is adequate. The same weight was given to the visibility problems associated with
legal or illegally parked vehicles, which may pose a significant hazard to pedestrians. Other
issues in the checklist are the visibility problems associated with temporary obstacles.

Accessibility
The inspection team should assess pedestrian facilities with regard to the needs of all road
users looking in detail to accessibility problems. If the crosswalks are not accessible to all
pedestrians, there is an increasing number of people crossing away from the crossing and not
using at all the pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and crosswalks). In the checklist, the greatest
weight factor is given to parked vehicles and permanent obstacles blocking the crosswalk
accessibility. Obstruction of parked vehicles should be assessed by inspections performed in
different hours of the day (peak and off-peak) and in different days of the week (working day
and weekend) aimed at detecting both legally and illegally parked vehicles. Other issues in
the checklist are the presence and slope of curb ramps (crosswalks without ramps or with
ramps with excessive grade are inaccessible for wheelchairs and baby carriages), the height
of the sidewalk (excessive height poses significant problems of accessibility to older people),
rumble devices for blind pedestrian (ramps without rumble devices are a significant hazards
for blind people), and accessibility of median breaks (inaccessible breaks make the refuge
ineffective).

Markings and Signs

Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining
and delineating paths, and they also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point
across roadways. The effect of markings and signs is proportional to their clarity and
visibility at any time of the day and weather conditions. Several studies showed significant
reductions in pedestrian crashes after crosswalk marking installations: 36% (based on 70
projects monitored) in the United Kingdom (16), 40% in Australia (17), and between 10%
and 50% in Canada (11). In the checklist, the greatest weight factor is given to the visibility
of the signal by the motorized traffic. Another important safety issue which requires a careful
analysis of the inspection team is the adequacy of the pedestrian signal timing. Signal timing
that causes excessive delay for pedestrians increases the likelihood that they will choose to
disobey the signal. Further, time available for a pedestrian to cross the street should be
adequate also to elderly people and persons in wheelchairs. Crosswalk markings advise
drivers of the presence of pedestrians on the road, and delineate pedestrian path. The
Montella and Mauriello 7

inspection team should verify the visibility of crosswalk markings both in day time and in
night time, both in dry and in wet weather. Adequate contrast between the crosswalk
markings and the pavement should also be checked.

Lighting
Adequate lighting can improve pedestrian visibility during the night time, and can improve
the visibility of other road users for pedestrians. Lighting conditions of the crosswalks can be
evaluated only in night time inspection. Further, specific lighting conditions such as the
sunrise and sunset should also be checked. In some instances, the later switch on of the
artificial lighting creates a time period where visibility of crossing pedestrians is absolutely
inadequate.

Traffic
Traffic speed dramatically affects both the severity of the pedestrian crashes. A crash speed
of up to 30 km/h is acceptable for pedestrians, with a probability of death equal to 5%. At 50
km/h the probability of a pedestrian fatality is equal to 40%. At 70 km/h the probability of a
pedestrian fatality is equal to 90% (18-20). Thus, the traffic speed is one the main factors
affecting the crosswalk safety. Traffic composition requires a separate evaluation. A
significant flow of heavy vehicles is incompatible with safe crosswalks because of the great
severity of pedestrian crashes with heavy vehicles. A significant flow of powered two-
wheelers might be an hazard for pedestrians because of high number of overtaking
maneuvers performed by the powered two-wheelers. In this regard, the evaluation of powered
two-wheelers behavior by the safety inspection team is needed.
Montella and Mauriello 8

TABLE 1 Pedestrian Crosswalk Checklist (Sections a, b, and c)

Safety Issue Weight

a Location 2
a1 Road alignment 2
a2 Consistency between road width and crosswalk typology 2
a3 Interaction with parking, approach i 3
a4 Coordination with bus stops, approach i 3
a5 Interaction with parking, approach j 3
a6 Coordination with bus stops, approach j 3
a7 Coordination with desired pedestrian routes 1
a8 Coordination with sidewalks 1
a9 Distance from other crosswalks 1
a10 Distance from stop line 1
a11 Distance from junctions 1
a12 Distance from traffic signals 1
b Sight Distance 5
b1 Visibility of adult pedestrians, approach i 3
b2 Visibility of children and persons in wheelchairs, approach i 3
b3 Legally or illegally parked vehicles blocking visibility, approach i 3
b4 Temporary obstacles blocking visibility, approach i 1
b5 Visibility of adult pedestrians, approach j 3
b6 Visibility of children and persons in wheelchairs, approach j 3
b7 Legally or illegally parked vehicles blocking visibility, approach j 3
b8 Temporary obstacles blocking visibility, approach j 1
b9 Visibility of children and persons in wheelchairs in the crosswalk 3
b10 Visibility of adult pedestrians in the crosswalk 3
c Accessibility 1
c1 Presence of the curb ramp, approach i 2
c2 Slope of the curb ramp, approach i 1
c3 Height of the sidewalk, approach i 2
c4 Sidewalk width, approach i 2
c5 Rumble devices for blind pedestrians, approach i 1
c6 Legally or illegally parked vehicles obstructing access, approach i 3
c7 Permanent obstacles blocking accessibility, approach i 3
c8 Presence of the curb ramp, approach j 2
c9 Slope of the curb ramp, approach j 1
c10 Height of the sidewalk, approach j 2
c11 Sidewalk width, approach j 2
c12 Rumble devices for blind pedestrians, approach j 1
c13 Legally or illegally parked vehicles obstructing access, approach j 3
c14 Permanent obstacles blocking accessibility, approach j 3
c15 Median breaks 2
Montella and Mauriello 9

TABLE 2 Pedestrian Crosswalk Checklist (Sections d, e, and f)

Safety Issue Weight

d Markings and Signs 3

d1 Day time visibility of the crosswalk markings 2
d2 Night time visibility of the crosswalk markings 2
d3 Contrast between the crosswalk markings and the pavement 2
d4 Length, spacing and direction of the crosswalk markings 1
d5 Presence and length of the continuous centerline before the crosswalk, direction i 1
d6 Visibility of the pedestrian crossing sign, approach i 2
d7 Visibility of the signal, approach i 3
d8 Presence and length of the continuous centerline before the crosswalk, direction j 1
d9 Visibility of the pedestrian crossing sign, approach j 2
d10 Visibility of the signal, approach j 3
d11 Signal timing for pedestrians 3
d12 Coordination between the pedestrian crosswalk and the signals location 1
d13 Visibility of the stop line 1
e Lighting 2
e1 Night time visibility of the pedestrians 3
e2 Visibility of the pedestrians at sunrise and sunset 1
f Traffic 3
f1 Speed 7
f2 High percentage of trucks 2
f3 High percentage of powered two wheelers 1

Safety Index
The safety index of the crosswalk (SI) is formulated by combining two components of risk:
the exposure of road users to road hazards (Expo) and the probability of becoming involved
in a crash (RI). General formulation of the SI is as follows:

SI = Expo × RI (1)

The expo parameter measures the exposure of road users to road hazards, and is
assessed by equation 2 as follows:

Expo = AADT × Ped (2)

where:
AADT = average daily traffic (vehicles per day);
Ped = average daily pedestrian flow on the crosswalk (pedestrian per day).

The risk index (RI) is related to the crash probability and severity. RI is assessed by
the formula:
Montella and Mauriello 10

∑ RI k × Wk
RI = k =1
6
(3)
∑W
k =1
k

where:
RIk = risk index of the safety issue k;
Wk = weight of the checklist section k: 1) location, W1 = 2; 2) accessibility, W2 =
5; 3) sight distance, W3 = 1; 4) markings and signs, W4 = 3; 5) lighting, W5 =
2; 6) traffic, W6 = 3.

The risk index (RI) ranges from 0 to 100. RI equal to 0 implies that the safety of the
crosswalk is satisfactory and does not require improvement. RI equal to 100 implies that the
safety of the crosswalk is critical and all safety aspects require substantial improvements. RI
can be expressed by a synthetic judgment, that is the Level of Safety (Table 3), ranked from
A to F. Similarly to the Level of Service concept, worldwide spread and accepted, the Safety
Level A depicts the best safety conditions, whilst the Safety Level F depicts the worst
conditions.

TABLE 3 Level of Safety

Risk Index Level of Safety

≤ 12 A
> 12 and ≤ 24 B
> 24 and ≤ 36 C
> 36 and ≤ 48 D
> 48 and ≤ 60 E
> 60 F

For any section of the checklist, a specific risk index (RIk) is assessed by the formula:

∑ AS ik × Wik
RI k = i =1
m
× 100 (4)
2 × m × ∑ Wik
i =1

where:
Wik = weight of the safety issue i of the section k (Tables 1 and 2);
ASik = average score of the safety issue i of the section k, evaluated as the average
value of the scores of the single members of the inspection team;
Montella and Mauriello 11

m = number of safety issues of the section k, except those assessed by the

inspection team as not applicable to the crosswalk under examination.

The safety index for the section k is assessed as the product of the risk index k and the
expo.

CASE STUDY
Study Site Description
The study site is the historical center of Giugliano in Campania, located in the South of Italy
in Province of Naples. Giugliano has 97,999 inhabitant, with an area equal to 94.2 kilometers
square. Crash data were collected through analysis of police reports and integrated with
detailed site inspections. Crash data covered 2005 to 2007. In the analysis period, 481 crashes
occurred. Injury crashes were 231. Slight injured (not hospitalized or hospitalized for less
than twenty-four hours) were 330 and severe injured (hospitalized for more than twenty-four
hours) were 18. Pedestrian crashes were 32 and pedestrian injury crashes were 20. The study
site was selected basing on the higher concentration of pedestrian crashes (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Map of the study site: historical center of Giugliano in Campania, Italy.
Montella and Mauriello 12

Level of Safety
Safety evaluation of 51 pedestrian crosswalks was performed by a team of four experienced
safety inspectors. Since pedestrian and traffic flows were not monitored, only risk indexes
and level of safety were assessed.
In terms of level of safety, the most frequent results (Table 3 and Figure 2) were LoS
C (35% of the pedestrian crosswalks) and LoS D (31%). In only 2% of the crosswalk LoS
resulted equal to A, thus showing that in the study area most crosswalks exhibited safety
problems. Analysis of the main safety issues (location, accessibility, sight distance, markings
and signs, lighting, and traffic) highlighted that the most frequent problems were signs and
markings and accessibility (Table 3 and Figure 3).
The results relative to markings and signs were quite alarming. Sixty-nine percent of
the crosswalk were ranked as LoS F, that is, most of the crosswalks had very significant
safety problems associated with markings and signs. Further, 14% of the crosswalks were
ranked as LoS E. Almost all the crosswalks showed inadequate day time and night time
visibility of the crosswalk markings (Figure 4).
Accessibility scored LoS F in 31% of the crosswalks and LoS E in 18% of the
crosswalks. The most frequent accessibility safety concerns were permanent obstacles
blocking accessibility and the absence of the curb ramps (Figure 5). Surprisingly, some
crosswalks were obstructed by vehicles legally parked in parking areas placed upon the
crosswalks (Figure 6).

TABLE 4 Levels of Safety of the Main Safety Issues: Aggregate Results

A B C D E F
LoSLocation 43% 20% 24% 10% 2% 2%
LoSSight Distance 31% 16% 16% 18% 10% 10%
LoSAccessibility 4% 6% 14% 27% 18% 31%
LoSMarkings and Signs 6% 2% 2% 8% 14% 69%
LoSLighting 41% 24% 0% 24% 6% 6%
LoSTraffic 0% 4% 76% 14% 6% 0%
LoS 2% 16% 35% 31% 16% 0%
Montella and Mauriello 13

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
A B C D E F

LoS

FIGURE 2 Level of Safety: aggregated results.

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F

LoS Location LoS Sight Distance LoS Accessibility LoS Markings and Signs LoS Lighting LoS Traffic

FIGURE 3 Level of Safety of the main safety issues: aggregated results.

Montella and Mauriello 14

FIGURE 4 Inadequate visibility and contrast of crosswalk markings.

FIGURE 5 Permanent obstacles blocking accessibility of crosswalks and absence of

curb ramps.
Montella and Mauriello 15

FIGURE 6 Legally parked vehicles obstructing access to the crosswalks.

CONCLUSIONS
The safety inspection procedure presented in the paper provides a detailed framework for
safety evaluation of pedestrian crosswalks that is related to the consequences of the identified
problems, rather than on the standard non-compliance or on the number of deficiencies.
For each crosswalks the safety index, which provides a measure of the risk level, and
the risk index, which is a measure of the probability and severity of crashes, are assessed.
From the risk index, the level of safety of both the overall crosswalk and main issues of the
crosswalk (location, visibility, accessibility, signs and markings, lighting, traffic) are
evaluated.
Safety evaluation of 51 pedestrian crosswalks was performed by a team of four
experienced safety inspectors. In terms of level of safety, the most frequent results) were LoS
C and LoS D. Analysis of the main safety issues (location, accessibility, sight distance,
markings and signs, lighting, and traffic) highlighted that the most frequent problems were
signs and markings and accessibility. Markings and signs scored LoS F in 69% of the
crosswalks, accessibility scored LoS F in 31% of the crosswalks. The safety evaluation
procedure provided the following results: high risk crosswalks were identified and ranked;
specific safety issues, that give more contribution to unsafety, were pointed out; safety
countermeasures were indentified.
Montella and Mauriello 16

REFERENCES
1. Guidelines for Editing, Adoption, and Accomplishment of the Urban Traffic Plans.
Italian Ministry of Public Works, Rome, 1998.
2. Harkey, D. L., and C. V. Zegeer. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System. Report FHWA-SA-04-003. FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2004.
3. Zegeer, C. V., J. Stutts, H. Huang, M. J. Cynecki, H. Van Houten, B. Alberson, R.
Pferer, T. R. Neuman, K. L. Slack, and K. K. Hardy. Guidance for Implementation of
the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing
Collisions Involving Pedestrians. NCHRP Report 500, Transportation Research Board
Washington, D.C., U.S., 2004.
4. Eurotest. Pedestrian Crossing Survey In Europe. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu,
accessed September 5, 2008.
5. Montella, A. Safety Reviews of Existing Roads: Quantitative Safety Assessment
Methodology. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board No. 1922, TRB, Washington, D.C., U.S., 2005, pp. 62-72.
6. Montella, A. Roundabout In-Service Safety Reviews: Safety Assessment Procedure.
In Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board No.
2019, Washington, TRB, D.C., U.S., 2007, pp. 40-50.
7. Cafiso, S., G. La Cava, and A. Montella. Safety Index for Evaluation of Two-Lane
Rural Highways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation
Research Board No. 2019, TRB, Washington, D.C., U.S., 2007, pp. 136-145.
8. Guidelines for the Safety Audit of Highways. IHT, The Institution of Highways and
Transportation, London, U.K., 1996.
9. Safety Audit Procedures for Existing Roads. Transfund, Wellington, New Zealand,
1998.
10. Guidelines for Road Safety Audit. Public Works Ministry, Rome, Italy, 2001 (in
Italian).
11. The Canadian Guide to In-Service Road Safety Reviews. TAC, Transportation
Association of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2004.
12. Nabors, D., M. Gibbs, L. Sandt, S. Rocchi, E. Wilson, and M. Lipinski. Pedestrian
Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. FHWA-SA-07-007. FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2007.
13. Cafiso, S., G. La Cava, and A. Montella. Identification of Hazard Location and
Ranking of Measures to Improve Safety on Local Rural Roads (IASP). Final Research
Report, European Union DG TREN Project-03-ST-S07.31286, 2007,
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/publications/projectfiles/iasp_en.htm.
14. Cafiso, S., G. La Cava, A. Montella, and G. Pappalardo. Operative Procedures for
Safety Inspections on Two-Lane Rural Roads. Aracne, Rome, 2008.
15. Evaluation of the Proposed Actions Emanating from Road Safety Audits. Austroads,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2002.
16. Monitoring of Local Authority Safety Schemes (MOLASSES) Database. TRL,
Transportation Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK, 2000,
http://www.trl.co.uk/molasses.
17. Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice series PART 4: Treatment of crash locations.
Austroads, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2004.
Montella and Mauriello 17

18. Reducing Traffic Injuries Resulting from Excess and Inappropriate Speed. ETSC,
European Traffic Safety Council. Brussels,1995.
19. En Route to a Society with Safe Road Traffic. SNRA, Swedish National Road
Administration,1997.
20. Wegman, F., and L. Aarts. Advancing Sustainable Safety: National Road Safety
Outlook for 2005-2020. SWOV, Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam,
The Netherlands, 2006.